Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR experiment's construction, commissioning, and performance

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Majorana Demonstrator met its design goal: its low background and 2.52 keV resolution justify a tonne-scale search for neutrinoless double-beta decay in germanium.

desk verdict A solid consolidated reference for the MAJORANA Demonstrator; the physics was already published, but the background claim is softer than the abstract implies, and the paper is honest and worth publishing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02060 v1 pith:KE5LYA6U submitted 2025-01-03 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

N. Abgrall , E. Aguayo , I.J. Arnquist , F.T. Avignone III , A.S. Barabash , C.J. Barton , P.J. Barton , F.E. Bertrand
show 103 more authors
E. Blalock B. Bos M. Boswell A.W. Bradley V. Brudanin T.H. Burritt M. Busch M. Buuck D. Byram A.S. Caldwell T.S. Caldwell Y.-D. Chan C.D. Christofferson P.-H. Chu M.L. Clark D.C. Combs C. Cuesta J.A. Detwiler Yu. Efremenko H. Ejiri S.R. Elliott J.E. Fast P. Finnerty F.M. Fraenkle N. Fuad E. Fuller T. Gilliss G.K. Giovanetti J. Goett M.P. Green J. Gruszko I.S. Guinn V.E. Guiseppe G.C. Harper C.R. Haufe R. Henning D. Hervas Aguilar E.W. Hoppe A. Hostiuc M.A. Howe B.R. Jasinski K.J. Keeter M.F. Kidd I. Kim R.T. Kouzes B.D. LaFerriere T.E. Lannen V A. Li J.C. Loach A.M. Lopez J.M. Lopez-Castano J. MacMullin S. MacMullin E.L. Martin R.D. Martin R. Massarczyk S.J. Meijer J.H. Merriman S. Mertens H.S. Miley J. Myslik T.K. Oli J.L. Orrell C. O'Shaughnessy G. Othman N.R. Overman D. Peterson W. Pettus A.W.P. Poon D.C. Radford J. Rager A.L. Reine K. Rielage R.G.H. Robertson L. Rodriguez N.W. Ruof H. Salazar D.C. Schaper S.J. Schleich B. Shanks M. Shirchenko K.J. Snavely N. Snyder A. Soin D. Steele A.M. Suriano G. Swift D. Tedeschi J.E. Trimble M. Turqueti T.D. Van Wechel R.L. Varner S. Vasilyev K. Vorren S.L. Watkins B.R. White J.F. Wilkerson C. Wiseman W. Xu H. Yaver C.-H. Yu V.I. Yumatov I. Zhitnikov B.X. Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex PACS 23.40-s23.40.Bw14.60.Pq27.50.+j
keywords neutrinolessdouble-betadecaygermaniumdetectorsMajoranaDemonstratorlow-backgroundtechniqueselectroformedcopperenergyresolutionhalf-lifelimitundergroundphysics
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 that the Majorana Demonstrator, a modular array of isotopically enriched high-purity germanium detectors, achieved the performance it was built for: a background level low enough to justify a tonne-scale search for neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay, with the best energy resolution of any such search. Its final data set, 64.5 kg yr of enriched exposure, showed a background rate of $16.6\,\mathrm{cts/(FWHM\,t\,yr)}$ and an energy resolution of $2.52\,\mathrm{keV}$ FWHM at the $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ $Q$-value, and it set a half-life limit of $8.3\times10^{25}$ yr (90% C.L.) on the decay. The paper documents every subsystem that made that result possible, from underground electroformed copper and detector fabrication to calibration, electronics, databases, and data production. A sympathetic reader should take the claim as technical evidence that a tonne-scale germanium experiment is constructible now.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the p-type point-contact (P-PC) germanium detector, a crystal that is both the decay source and the detector, read by a custom low-mass front-end board whose first-stage transistor sits close to the crystal. The mechanism carrying the argument is the full low-background chain: detector parts and cryostats made of underground electroformed copper, tracking of cosmic-ray exposure of the enriched germanium, a graded shield of electroformed copper, commercial copper, lead, an active muon veto, borated polyethylene, and a radon-purged enclosure, plus pulse-shape discrimination that rejects multi-site background events while keeping single-site $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ candidates. The 2.52 keV resolution shrinks the signal region at 2039 keV, and the low measured background rate leaves only four events there; together these set the half-life limit.

What would settle it

Count events in the 64.5 kg yr enriched exposure within the 10 keV region at 2039 keV using open data and compare the number with the Poisson expectation from the claimed $16.6\,\mathrm{cts/(FWHM\,t\,yr)}$ background rate; if the count is incompatible with that expectation at 90% confidence, the background claim and the half-life limit do not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the Majorana Demonstrator is an instrument paper whose central result is an engineering achievement: an array of enriched p-type point-contact and inverted-coaxial point-contact germanium detectors, operated underground from 2015 to 2021, reached a background rate of $16.6^{+0.14}_{-0.13}\,\mathrm{cts/(FWHM\,t\,yr)}$ in the 10 keV region around the 2039 keV $Q$-value, with a measured resolution of 2.52 keV FWHM. With 64.5 kg yr of enriched active exposure, four events were observed in that region, consistent with the modeled background, yielding a lower limit on the $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ half-life of $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ of $8.3\times10^{25}$ yr at 90% confidence. The paper claims this is the best energy resolution and second-best background level of any $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ search, and that it demonstrates backgrounds low enough to justify building the tonne-scale LEGEND experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The final half-life limit assumes that the four events seen in the 10 keV signal region are all described by the modeled background at the measured rate of $16.6\,\mathrm{cts/(FWHM\,t\,yr)}$; if an unrecognized background source contributes any of those events, the limit and the conclusion that backgrounds are low enough would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The half-life limit of $8.3\times10^{25}$ yr is the Demonstrator's final $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ result and corresponds, depending on nuclear matrix elements, to a Majorana neutrino mass range of 113–269 meV.
  • The measured background rate of $16.6\,\mathrm{cts/(FWHM\,t\,yr)}$ becomes the benchmark that the tonne-scale LEGEND experiment must improve on by roughly two orders of magnitude.
  • The demonstrated energy resolution of 2.52 keV FWHM reduces the region of interest, so the same background rate contributes fewer counts inside the signal window.
  • The 2020 Module 2 upgrade raised operational efficiency from 62% to 100%, showing that the cable and connector failure modes seen in early running can be engineered out.
  • The same low-background array produced limits on bosonic dark matter, solar axions, Pauli-principle violation, and other beyond-Standard-Model processes, so the construction effort has multiple physics returns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the Demonstrator's measured background rate, if confirmed by the pending detailed background model, can serve as an empirical scaling point for LEGEND-200: any substantial deviation in the successor's rate per kilogram would point to a new contamination or cosmogenic pathway rather than a failure of the Demonstrator's design.
  • The paper does not spell out that a factor-of-two improvement in energy resolution is worth a factor of two in background in a background-limited search, so the 2.52 keV FWHM is a sensitivity asset on the same footing as the shielding.
  • The enriched germanium tracking database, built to record cosmic-ray exposure during fabrication, becomes a predictive tool for future experiments: the same records can be used to forecast $^{68}\mathrm{Ge}$ and $^{60}\mathrm{Co}$ backgrounds in LEGEND's detectors.
  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is that the Demonstrator's operational configurations and blind-analysis workflow offer a template for how a low-rate experiment can maintain data quality while keeping the signal region hidden.
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. This paper is an instrumentation and operational overview of the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR, a modular array of enriched and natural HPGe detectors operated at SURF from 2015 to 2021. It documents underground electroforming, germanium enrichment and detector fabrication, detector arrays and the Module 2 cabling/connector upgrade, cryogenic and vacuum systems, calibration, shielding, DAQ, slow controls, databases, data production and blinding, and the dataset structure. It also summarizes published physics results: the best energy resolution of any 0νββ search, a measured background rate of 16.6 cts/(FWHM t yr) with four events in a 10 keV ROI for 64.5 kg yr of enriched exposure, and a final 76Ge half-life limit of 8.3×10^25 yr (90% C.L.). The stated purpose is to show that the Demonstrator demonstrated backgrounds low enough to justify a tonne-scale 76Ge experiment, LEGEND.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is a valuable archival reference for the LEGEND program and for the low-background germanium community. Its strengths are the detailed, system-by-system engineering documentation; the transparent disclosure in Sec. I.3 that the measured background exceeded the initial assay-based projection by about a factor of 6.6 and that the background model is still being refined; and the anchoring of all headline physics numbers in published, peer-reviewed analyses. The main weakness is that the programmatic conclusion in Sec. XII is not quantitatively supported or benchmarked against the stated design goals, which is a correctable presentation issue rather than a flaw in the underlying measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. XII and Sec. I.3] The conclusion that the Demonstrator 'demonstrated backgrounds low enough to justify building a tonne-scale experiment' is load-bearing for the paper's stated purpose, but the only background number quoted in Sec. I.3 is 16.6 cts/(FWHM t yr), which is a factor of about 6.6 above the initial assay-based projection of <2.5 cts/(FWHM t yr). The same section also states that possible background sources are still being analyzed with a detailed MaGe-based model. To make the conclusion defensible, please either provide a quantitative comparison with the original design goal in Ref. [21] and with the LEGEND-1000 background target, explaining in what sense the achieved rate justifies the tonne-scale program, or temper the wording to claim demonstrated low-background techniques and published sensitivity rather than a demonstrated background level. Without one of these changes, the conclusion overstates what the paper's own numbers show.
  2. [Sec. I.3 and Abstract] The abstract and Sec. I.3 describe the Demonstrator as having the 'second-best background level of any ββ(0ν) search', but no benchmark table or quantitative comparison to GERDA or other experiments is provided. Because background levels are quoted in different units across experiments (cts/(FWHM t yr) versus cts/(keV kg yr)), the reader cannot verify the ranking from this paper. Please add a short comparison, with references and a consistent unit conversion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.1] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'All processes and and sensors were monitored remotely'; it should read 'All processes and sensors were monitored remotely'.
  2. [Sec. V.5.1] The text refers to a 'proportional-intergal-derivative' controller; this should be 'proportional-integral-derivative'.
  3. [Sec. III.2] In the paragraph beginning 'The geometrical measurements provided all dimensions', the sentence 'The dimension were provided by the vendor' should be 'The dimensions were provided by the vendor'.
  4. [Appendix D.1] The entry for Schleuniger contains 'Cabkestripper', which appears to be a typo for 'Cable stripper'.
  5. [Sec. XI.3] The narrative description of datasets DS0 through DS8 would be easier to follow with a small table summarizing the dates, detector configuration, shielding status, and whether the dataset contributed to the final 64.5 kg yr exposure; Figure 43 is helpful but does not capture all configuration changes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central results are direct measurements, not derivations from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

This is a construction, commissioning, and performance paper. The two central claims, the measured background rate of 16.6 cts/(FWHM t yr) and the half-life limit of 8.3 x 10^25 yr, are reported as experimental results from the Demonstrator's blinded data, not as predictions derived from parameters fitted in this paper. The paper explicitly contrasts the measured background with the earlier assay-based projection of <2.5 cts/(FWHM t yr), showing that the measurement is not determined by that projection; indeed, the two disagree. Energy resolution values are measured with calibration sources and in-situ calibration data. Extensive citation of earlier Majorana publications is normal for a summary paper and does not function as load-bearing support for the measured values, which are externally anchored in the experiment's own data. The statement that the Demonstrator demonstrated backgrounds low enough to justify a tonne-scale experiment is an interpretive judgment based on the measured background; the paper itself discloses that some background sources are still being modeled with MaGe, which is a scientific caveat rather than a circularity. No step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured performance and published results. The only fitted quantity with a direct effect on the quoted numbers is the detector dead-layer thickness, which sets the active mass and thus the exposure. The other axioms are standard detector-model assumptions that are normal for this type of experiment.

free parameters (1)
  • Dead-layer thickness per detector = About 1 mm, from 81/356 keV gamma ratio fits
    Used to compute each detector's active mass (92.0% for PPCs) and hence the exposure and background index. The value is determined by comparing measured peak ratios to MaGe simulations with a 10% simulation uncertainty, so it is an empirically fitted input to the central performance numbers.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Isotopic abundance measurements are independent and Gaussian (Appendix A)
    The constrained maximum-likelihood estimator in Appendix A derives the weighted-mean formula for isotopic abundances under this stated assumption. It is standard statistics and is not central to the experimental result.
  • domain assumption Dead layer can be modeled as a step function with a transition layer
    Used in Sec. III.2 to determine active mass from the 81/356 keV peak ratio. The transition layer contributes to energy-degraded events, and the approximation carries a 10% uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The background model used for the final half-life limit correctly describes all events in the ROI
    The 8.3e25 yr limit assumes the four observed events in the 10 keV ROI arise from modeled background sources. The paper acknowledges in Sec. I.3 that the background model is still being refined because the measured rate exceeds the assay-based projection.
  • domain assumption GRETINA digitizer nonlinearity correction and energy calibration are accurate
    The claimed energy resolution of 2.52 keV FWHM and the energy scale used for the ROI depend on the ADC nonlinearity correction (Ref. [91]) and calibration procedures described in Sec. VIII.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR experiment's construction, commissioning, and performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE5LYA6U

@misc{pith2026250102060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR experiment's construction, commissioning, and performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE5LYA6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02060}
}
abstract

Background: The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR , a modular array of isotopically enriched high-purity germanium (HPGe) detectors, was constructed to demonstrate backgrounds low enough to justify building a tonne-scale experiment to search for the neutrinoless double-beta decay ($\beta\beta(0\nu)$) of $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$. Purpose: This paper presents a description of the instrument, its commissioning, and operations. It covers the electroforming, underground infrastructure, enrichment, detector fabrication, low-background and construction techniques, electronics, data acquisition, databases, and data processing of the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR. Method: The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR operated inside an ultra-low radioactivity passive shield at the 4850-foot~level of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) from 2015-2021. Results and Conclusions: The MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR achieved the best energy resolution and second-best background level of any $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ search. This enabled it to achieve an ultimate half-life limit on $\beta\beta(0\nu)$ in $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ of $8.3\times 10^{25}$~yr (90\% C.L.) and perform a rich set of searches for other physics beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. An electroforming bath without electrolyte. The cylindrical stainless steel mandrel is already [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A mandrel with copper undergoing inspection at the PNNL Shallow Underground Laboratory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (43 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The exterior of the temporary cleanroom (left), located at the 4850-foot level of SURF, at the end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A copper coated mandrel being inspected over its electroforming bath in the temporary cleanroom. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. EFCu on mandrel being machined on the large TRAK lathe in the underground machine shop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Copper being removed from mandrel via thermal shock. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A selection of small copper parts fabricated in the underground machine shop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The general layout of the 80’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A panorama of the detector lab. To the left is a shield monolith and module that have been [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The geometry of PPC detector that shows the dead layer outside the yellow shaded bulk or sensitive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. An example peak-shape fit to the 56.5 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Top: Summary of the energy resolution (in FWHM) measurements from the fits of the 59.5 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Energy resolution curve for a detector (serial number P23517A) showing measurements and fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Left: Fit of an exponential function (red line) to the 81 keV/356 keV ratio from simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (Left) Schematic of Detector Unit indicating major components, taken from [21]. CMP refers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. A photo and labeled diagram of an LMFE is shown on the left. The circular pad at the top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. A detector string consisting of five detector units after stacking in the glovebox. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Module 1 with loaded strings inside glovebox and prior to closure of the Module 1 cryostat and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Cross sectional view of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Shown at the top is Module 1 and on the bottom is Module 2 configuration. Natural (BEGe) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The Module 2 detector configuration after the upgrade. The newly installed ICPC detectors are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. One half of an Axon’ Nano twist-pin connector. Axon’ delivered these connectors pre-terminated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. The old design of the HV fork, where the HV cable was threaded through the body of the fork [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. The new design of the HV fork, where the central conductor of the HV cable is crimped to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Example of the high quality strip-back obtained using the CoaxStrip Machine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. (Top) The original baffle plate arrangement on the thermosyphon with 12 baffle plates, split into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_28.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Short-timescale oscillations with an amplitude of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_30.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Temperatures measured throughout Module 1 during a thermosyphon-driven cooldown cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. Temperatures recorded in a prototype module equipped with a pulse-tube cooler for the coldplate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31. Temperatures measured in Module 1 during a 150-hour period in May 2014 when it was operated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Drawing of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33. Picture of helical PTFE calibration track mounted around a module. The thinner tube was for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: FIG. 34. Times needed for source deployment (red) and retraction (black) as measured during four years [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_34.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: FIG. 35. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_35.png]
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: FIG. 36. A shield monolith in transit with cryogenic services, shielding, module and calibration track. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_36.png]
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: FIG. 37. The muon veto panels that surround the lead shield. Muon panels on the bottom were installed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_37.png]
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: FIG. 38. Picture of the inside of an electronics box, showing a controller card on the left, and four mother [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_38.png]
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: FIG. 39. High-level diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_39.png]
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: FIG. 40. A screenshot, taken on 11/7/22, of a part of the passive web-based monitoring tool developed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_40.png]
Figure 41
Figure 41. Figure 41: FIG. 41. High level overview of data processing. The abbreviations are described in the text. To ensure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_41.png]
Figure 42
Figure 42. Figure 42: FIG. 42. Status of file access throughout blinding steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_42.png]
Figure 43
Figure 43. Figure 43: FIG. 43. The accumulated 65 kg yr active enriched exposure of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_43.png]
Figure 44
Figure 44. Figure 44: FIG. 44. Monte Carlo ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_44.png]
Figure 45
Figure 45. Figure 45: FIG. 45. Network of enriched Ge used in production of detector P42574C. Oxide is yellow and reduced bars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_45.png]

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. Rare multi-nucleon decays with the full data sets of the Majorana Demonstrator

    nucl-ex 2024-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    With the full Majorana Demonstrator data set, new 90% confidence partial lifetime limits are set for tri-nucleon and dinucleon decays in germanium isotopes, with the strongest limits of 1.83 x 10^26 years for two spec...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Adv

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 365432 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev.56, 1184 (1939)

    1939

  3. [2]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25, 2951 (1982)

    1982

  4. [3]

    F. T. Avignone, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 481 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Rodejohann, International Journal of Modern Physics E20, 1833 (2011)

    W. Rodejohann, International Journal of Modern Physics E20, 1833 (2011)

    2011

  6. [5]

    S. R. Elliott, Mod. Phys. Lett. A27, 1230009 (2012)

    2012

  7. [6]

    Cremonesi, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements237-238, 7 (2013)

    O. Cremonesi, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements237-238, 7 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Schwingenheuer, Annalen der Physik525, 269 (2013)

    B. Schwingenheuer, Annalen der Physik525, 269 (2013)

    2013

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, International Journal of Modern Physics A30, 1530001 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Dell’Oro, S

    S. Dell’Oro, S. Marcocci, M. Viel, and F. Vissani, Advances in High Energy Physics2016, 2162659 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    J. D. Vergados, H. Ejiri, and F. Šimkovic, International Journal of Modern Physics E25, 1630007 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Henning, Reviews in Physics1, 29 (2016)

    R. Henning, Reviews in Physics1, 29 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Menéndez, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 046301 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    A. S. Barabash, International Journal of Modern Physics A33, 1843001 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science69, 219 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Adamset al., Neutrinoless double beta decay (2022), arXiv:2212.11099 [nucl-ex]

    C. Adamset al., Neutrinoless double beta decay (2022), arXiv:2212.11099 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Agostiniet al.(GERDA), Eur

    M. Agostiniet al.(GERDA), Eur. Phys. J.C78, 388 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Agostiniet al.(GERDA, (GERDA Collaboration)*), Phys

    M. Agostiniet al.(GERDA, (GERDA Collaboration)*), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 142501 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Abgrallet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), AIP Conference Proceedings1894, 020027 (2017)

    N. Abgrallet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), AIP Conference Proceedings1894, 020027 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Abgrall et al

    N. Abgrall et al. (LEGEND Collaboration), Legend-1000 preconceptual design report (2021), arXiv:2107.11462 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Douysset, T

    G. Douysset, T. Fritioff, C. Carlberg, I. Bergström, and M. Björkhage, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4259 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    P. Luke, F. Goulding, N. Madden, and R. Pehl, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science36, 926 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    P. S. Barbeau, J. I. Collar, and O. Tench, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2007 (09), 009

  17. [25]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 062501 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Heise, Journal of Physics: Conference Series606, 012015 (2015)

    J. Heise, Journal of Physics: Conference Series606, 012015 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment828, 22 (2016)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment828, 22 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment872, 16 (2017)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment872, 16 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), JINST17 (05), T05003

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), JINST17 (05), T05003

  22. [30]

    I. Lee, R. Clark, M. Cromaz, M. Deleplanque, M. Descovich, R. Diamond, P. Fallon, A. Macchiavelli, F. Stephens, and D. Ward, Nuclear Physics A746, 255 (2004). 71

    2004

  23. [31]

    Zimmermann, J

    S. Zimmermann, J. T. Anderson, D. Doering, J. Joseph, C. Lionberger, T. Stezelberger, and H. Yaver, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science59, 2494 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    M. Howe, G. Cox, P. Harvey, F. McGirt, K. Rielage, J. Wilkerson, and J. Wouters, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science51, 878 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Howeet al., (2024), http://orca.physics.unc.edu

    M. Howeet al., (2024), http://orca.physics.unc.edu

    2024

  26. [34]

    Caldwellet al., (2024), https://github.com/unc-enap/Orca

    T. Caldwellet al., (2024), https://github.com/unc-enap/Orca

    2024

  27. [35]

    Cooper, D

    R. Cooper, D. Radford, P. Hausladen, and K. Lagergren, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment665, 25 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Lehnert, M

    B. Lehnert, M. Hult, G. Lutter, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. C95, 044306 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Lehnert, H

    B. Lehnert, H. Ramani, M. Hult, G. Lutter, M. Pospelov, S. Rajendran, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 181802 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 152501 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 132502 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    S. I. Alviset al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C100, 025501 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Agostinelliet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Boswellet al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science58, 1212 (2011)

    M. Boswellet al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science58, 1212 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C107, 014321 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Assay-based background projection for the majorana demonstrator using monte carlo uncertainty propagation (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C103, 015501 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    I. J. Arnquistet al., Final results of themajorana demonstrator’s search for double-beta decay of 76ge to excited states of76se (2024), arXiv:2410.03995 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 161801 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Armengaudet al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013 (11), 067

    E. Armengaudet al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013 (11), 067

  41. [49]

    S. K. Liuet al.(CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D95, 052006 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 041001 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 081803 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Xu and S

    W. Xu and S. R. Elliott, Astroparticle Physics89, 39 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    S. I. Alviset al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D99, 072004 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    S. I. Alviset al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 211804 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    S. R. Elliott, B. H. LaRoque, V. M. Gehman, M. F. Kidd, and M. Chen, Foundations of Physics42, 1015 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024-02437-9 (2024)

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D34, 470 (1986)

    1986

  50. [58]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 471 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 080401 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C105, 014617 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C105, 064610 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C107, 045503 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(The IGEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C59, 2108 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(IGEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D65, 092007 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    E. W. Hoppeet al., Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry277, 103 (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    N. R. Overman, C. T. Overman, T. A. Kafentzis, D. J. Edwards, and E. W. Hoppe,Majorana Electro- formed Copper Mechanical Analysis, Tech. Rep. PNNL 21315 (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, 2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Hoppeet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment579, 486 (2007)

    E. Hoppeet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment579, 486 (2007)

    2007

  60. [68]

    B. T. Cleveland, T. Daily, J. Raymond Davis, J. R. Distel, K. Lande, C. K. Lee, P. S. Wildenhain, and J. Ullman, The Astrophysical Journal496, 505 (1998)

    1998

  61. [69]

    Akeribet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment704, 111 (2013)

    D. Akeribet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment704, 111 (2013). 72

    2013

  62. [70]

    Akeribet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment953, 163047 (2020)

    D. Akeribet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment953, 163047 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I

    H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I. Krivosheina, A. Dietz, and O. Chkvorets, Physics Letters B586, 198 (2004)

    2004

  64. [72]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment877, 314 (2018)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment877, 314 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    S. I. Alviset al.(Majorana Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C99, 065501 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Johnson, T

    R. Johnson, T. Burritt, S. Elliott, V. Gehman, V. Guiseppe, and J. Wilkerson, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 693, 51 (2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    I. J. Arnquist et al. (Majorana Collaboration), The European Physical Journal C 82, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10161-y (2022)

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    I. Abt, L. Garbini, C. Gooch, S. Irlbeck, X. Liu, M. Palermo, and O. Schulz, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 858, 80 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Aguayoet al., Nucl

    E. Aguayoet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A701, 176 (2013)

    2013

  70. [78]

    Giovanettiet al

    G. Giovanettiet al. (Majorana Collaboration), Physics Procedia61, 77 (2015), 13th International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics, TAUP 2013

    2015

  71. [79]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(CoGeNT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D88, 012002 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    A. G. Schubert,Searching for neutrinoless double-beta decay of germanium-76 in the presence of back- grounds, Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Barton, P

    P. Barton, P. Luke, M. Amman, Y.-D. Chan, J. Detwiler, J. Loach, R. Martin, A. Poon, C. Tindall, and K. Vetter, inProceedings, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC 2011): Valencia, Spain, October 23-29, 2011(2011) pp. 1976–1979

    2011

  74. [82]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Physics Procedia61, 654 (2015)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Physics Procedia61, 654 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    C. R. Haufe,A Study ofMajorana Demonstrator Backgrounds with Bayesian Statistical Modeling, Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment823, 83 (2016)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment823, 83 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Nasa-std-8739.4 - workmanship standard for crimping, interconnecting cables, harnesses, and wiring (1998)

    1998

  78. [86]

    Aguayo, M

    E. Aguayo, M. Busch, R. Daniels, J. Fast, M. Green, and D. Reid, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment709, 17 (2013)

    2013

  79. [87]

    Wiseman, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1468, 012040 (2020)

    C. Wiseman, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1468, 012040 (2020)

    2020

  80. [88]

    Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation18 (09), P09023

    I. Arnquistet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation18 (09), P09023

  81. [89]

    C. D. Christoffersonet al., AIP Conf. Proc. - Low Radioactivity Techniques 20171921, 060005 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Astroparticle Physics93, 70 (2017)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Astroparticle Physics93, 70 (2017)

    2017

  83. [91]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science68, 359 (2021)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science68, 359 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment779, 52 (2015)

    N. Abgrallet al.(Majorana Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment779, 52 (2015)

    2015

  85. [93]

    Akeret al.(The KATRIN collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation16 (08), T08015

    M. Akeret al.(The KATRIN collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation16 (08), T08015

  86. [94]

    https://www.nersc.gov (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    J. R. Klein and A. Roodman, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science55, 141 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.