Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Reconstructing neutrinoless double beta decay event kinematics in a xenon gas detector with vertex tagging

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With a precisely located decay vertex, a xenon gas TPC can reconstruct the average opening angle and leading-electron energy of neutrinoless double beta decay events to precisions of 0.19 in cosθ and 110 keV, even for small signal samples.

desk verdict A solid, transparent Monte Carlo study of 0νββ kinematic reconstruction that is undermined by an internal 10-vs-100 event inconsistency in its headline precision numbers, but otherwise deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10198 v3 pith:PUFTR2SH submitted 2025-02-14 hep-ex hep-phphysics.ins-det

NEXT Collaboration: M. Martínez-Vara , K. Mistry , F. Pompa , B.J.P. Jones , J. Martín-Albo , M. Sorel , C. Adams , H. Almazán
show 102 more authors
V. Álvarez B. Aparicio A.I. Aranburu L. Arazi I.J. Arnquist F. Auria-Luna S. Ayet C.D.R. Azevedo K. Bailey F. Ballester M. del Barrio-Torregrosa A. Bayo J.M. Benlloch-Rodríguez F.I.G.M. Borges A. Brodolin N. Byrnes S. Cárcel A. Castillo E. Church L. Cid C.A.N. Conde T. Contreras F.P. Cossío R. Coupe E. Dey G. Díaz C. Echevarria M. Elorza J. Escada R. Esteve R. Felkai L.M.P. Fernandes P. Ferrario A.L. Ferreira F.W. Foss Z. Freixa J. García-Barrena J.J. Gómez-Cadenas J.W.R. Grocott R. Guenette J. Hauptman C.A.O. Henriques J.A. Hernando Morata P. Herrero-Gómez V. Herrero C. Hervés Carrete Y. Ifergan F. Kellerer L. Larizgoitia A. Larumbe P. Lebrun F. Lopez N. López-March R. Madigan R.D.P. Mano A.P. Marques G. Martínez-Lema R.L. Miller J. Molina-Canteras F. Monrabal C.M.B. Monteiro F.J. Mora K.E. Navarro P. Novella A. Nuñez D.R. Nygren E. Oblak J. Palacio B. Palmeiro A. Para I. Parmaksiz A. Pazos J. Pelegrin M. Pérez Maneiro M. Querol J. Renner I. Rivilla C. Rogero L. Rogers B. Romeo C. Romo-Luque V. San Nacienciano F.P. Santos J.M.F. dos Santos M. Seemann I. Shomroni P.A.O.C. Silva A. Simón S.R. Soleti J. Soto-Oton J.M.R. Teixeira S. Teruel-Pardo J.F. Toledo C. Tonnelé S. Torelli J. Torrent A. Trettin A. Usón P.R.G. Valle J.F.C.A. Veloso J. Waiton A. Yubero-Navarro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords neutrinolessdoublebetadecayxenongastimeprojectionchamberbariumtaggingeventkinematicsreconstructionopeningangleleptonnumberviolation0νββmechanismsNEXTexperiment
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 asks whether a future high-pressure xenon gas detector that can pinpoint the decay vertex of a neutrinoless double beta decay event can still read the event's physics, given the tortuous tracks electrons leave in dense gas. Simulating 6000 events with the νDoBe generator and a Geant4-based detector model at pressures from 1 to 15 bar and readout voxels from 1 to 10 mm, the authors reconstruct the two electron tracks by seeding each from the known vertex and summing energy deposits along the resulting paths. They report that, for realistic 10 bar and 4 mm conditions, the average opening angle and the average energy of the leading electron are recovered with precisions of 0.19 and 110 keV; the abstract attributes these precisions to only 10 detected signal events, while the conclusions quote the same numbers for 100 events. The point of caring is that different lepton-number-violating mechanisms predict different values of cosθ and T1, so these measurements would help identify which new physics, if any, drives the decay.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the vertex-seeded nearest-hit track reconstruction. With the decay vertex (ideally from barium tagging) treated as a perfect seed, the algorithm assigns the hit nearest the vertex to one electron and the next nearest to the other, then grows each track by attaching each remaining hit to the nearest endpoint of either track; the first hit of each track defines the opening angle, and the summed energy deposits define T1 and T2. The simulation chain feeding it is νDoBe event generation plus a Geant4-based detector simulation with Goudsmit-Saunderson multiple Coulomb scattering, followed by voxelization at 1, 2, 4, or 10 mm. This machinery converts a single localized vertex into per-electron observables that can then be averaged over small signal samples.

What would settle it

Repeat the same reconstruction with vertex positions deliberately smeared by 1, 2, and 4 mm before the nearest-hit seeding; if the resulting toy-dataset uncertainties on the averaged cosθ and T1 grow clearly beyond 0.19 and 110 keV at the quoted event count, the central claim is contradicted by the paper's own simulation chain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the initial kinematics of the two 0νββ electrons survive detection and reconstruction well enough to be useful. Although multiple Coulomb scattering bends the tracks, the average cosine of the opening angle, cosθ, and the average kinetic energy of the more energetic electron, T1, can be reconstructed from realistic simulated events with a simple vertex-seeded nearest-hit algorithm. At 10 bar and 4 mm voxels, the dataset-average precision is 0.19 in cosθ and 110 keV in T1, with an angular bias of +0.14 that grows with pressure and voxel size, while the T1 bias is only 1.5 keV. The reconstruction precision is dominated by finite signal statistics rather than by detector smearing, and variations of nuclear matrix elements, phase-space factors, and short-range contributions shift the generated averages by about 0.01 in cosθ and a few keV in T1, well below the reconstruction effects.

Load-bearing premise

The whole precision estimate hangs on the assumption that the decay vertex is known to sub-millimetre accuracy (via barium tagging or image analysis), independent of the readout granularity, and no simulation of vertex smearing is included; if the real vertex is uncertain by more than one voxel, the track assignment and first-hit angle estimator degrade and the quoted numbers lose their basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a tonne-scale xenon gas detector that discovers 0νββ decay near current half-life limits could use the measured cosθ and T1 averages to begin telling apart light-neutrino exchange from left-right symmetric or leptoquark mechanisms, whose predictions differ by up to about 0.5 in cosθ and 300 keV in T1.
  • The dominance of finite-statistics precision over reconstruction smearing means that adding more signal events is the direct lever for sharper kinematic discrimination; reconstruction improvements mainly shrink the angular bias.
  • The +0.14 angular bias at 10 bar and 4 mm is the largest detector-induced correction and worsens at higher pressure or coarser voxels; a correction would be needed before comparing measured cosθ with model predictions.
  • Nuclear and atomic physics uncertainties shift the generator-level averages by about 0.01 in cosθ and a few keV in T1, so they are not the limiting factor in mechanism identification.
  • Because angular and energy information are largely uncorrelated, reconstructing both in the same events gives a combined handle that the paper argues makes discrimination of models with cosθ ≳ 0 or T1 ≳ 2.0 MeV promising.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper never simulates vertex smearing, so the quoted precisions should be read as optimistic; a natural follow-up calculation would convolve the vertex with progressively larger Gaussian smears and map the degradation in the 0.19 and 110 keV numbers.
  • Inference: the abstract's 10-event normalization and the conclusions' 100-event normalization refer to the same numbers; until this is resolved, the stated precision cannot be compared cleanly with other sensitivity projections.
  • Inference: the angular reconstruction bias stems from mis-assigning short, low-energy tracks into one voxel; a machine-learning track builder or finer sampling near the vertex could reduce that bias and the small-angle peak near cosθ ≈ +1.
  • Inference: the same vertex-seeded reconstruction could be tested against other gaseous double-beta isotopes or applied to other angular-correlation approaches, since the method depends only on track topology rather than on the specific isotope.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies, via Monte Carlo simulation, how well the average opening angle cosθ and the average kinetic energy of the most energetic electron, T1, from neutrinoless double beta decay events can be reconstructed in a high-pressure xenon gas TPC equipped with idealized vertex tagging. The authors generate events with νDoBe, propagate electrons with Geant4 (nexus, option4), voxelize energy deposits, and reconstruct the two electron tracks with a nearest-hit seeded classification algorithm. They then examine how the accuracy and precision of the sample averages depend on the number of signal events, gas pressure, readout granularity, and nuclear/atomic physics assumptions. For a reference configuration of 10 bar pressure and 4 mm voxelization, they report that the average cosθ and T1 can be reconstructed with precision 0.19 and 110 keV, respectively. The paper is explicitly framed as a first step: it assumes a sub-mm vertex position, uses one simple reconstruction algorithm, and defers model-discrimination studies to future work.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the study is useful input for the design of a future tonne-scale NEXT detector and for the physics case of barium tagging. The Monte Carlo pipeline is standard and transparent: event generation is done with an external, published tool (νDoBe), the detector simulation uses Geant4 with a well-documented physics list, and the statistical procedure—dividing 6000 simulated events into toy datasets of size n—is simple and clearly described. The paper also explicitly separates accuracy (bias) from precision (resolution), which is a strength. The main limitations are that the headline numbers rest on an idealized sub-mm vertex assumption that is not simulated, and that the angular reconstruction algorithm introduces a bias (+0.14 at 10 bar, 4 mm) comparable in size to the quoted precision. The central quantitative claim is also stated inconsistently in the abstract and the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The headline precision is assigned to two incompatible sample sizes. The abstract states that the 0.19 and 110 keV precisions are obtained 'assuming that only 10 neutrinoless double beta decay events are detected,' while Section 6 states the same precisions 'assuming that only 100 νββ events are detected.' These cannot both be correct: Section 5.1 and Fig. 7 show that the precision of the average cosθ varies from 0.27 to 0.06 over the [5,100] event range, and the T1 precision from 150 to 40 keV, so the quoted values correspond to n=10, not n=100. Section 5.2 confirms this by referring to resolutions of order 100 keV 'for a fixed 4 mm voxelization and n = 10 signal events.' This is a factor-of-about-3 inconsistency in the central quantitative claim and must be corrected before the paper can be accepted.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3.3] The headline numbers are conditional on an idealized vertex assumption that is not reflected in the abstract's wording 'realistic detector conditions.' Section 2 states that the decay vertex is assumed to be reconstructed 'with negligible (sub-mm) position smearing, regardless of the TPC readout granularity,' and Section 3.3 uses this vertex as the seed for the nearest-hit assignment of both electron tracks. No vertex smearing is simulated, so the effect of a realistic vertex uncertainty—which could be as large as a voxel or more—on the energy grouping and the first-hit angle estimator is unquantified. The paper should either state this assumption prominently in the abstract and conclusions or include a vertex-smearing study; as written, the claimed precisions are not for fully realistic detector conditions.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Fig. 7] The abstract reports only the precision of the reconstructed average cosθ (0.19), but at the reference configuration the accuracy, or bias, is +0.14, which is comparable in size to the quoted precision. This bias is not a small correction: it is roughly a third of the typical model separations shown in Fig. 1 (up to ~0.5). The paper states that biases 'can largely be corrected for, although some model dependence may be introduced,' but it does not demonstrate the validity of such a correction for the angular variable. Please quantify the bias alongside the precision in the abstract/conclusion, or show explicitly that the bias can be robustly corrected without degrading the discrimination power.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, last paragraph] The sentence 'the width of the reconstructed bands in fig. 7 depends on two factors: the number of events detected and the accuracy of the reconstruction' should refer to the per-event reconstruction resolution rather than the accuracy (bias); the width of the precision bands is not governed by the bias.
  2. [Section 6] The phrase 'a precision of +0.19' uses a plus sign, but precision is a standard deviation and has no sign; the plus sign appears to belong to the bias discussed in Section 5.1. Please remove it or clarify the intended meaning.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'the distribution of reconstructed minus generated for cosθ is shown in the right panel' is grammatically incomplete; it should read 'the distribution of reconstructed minus generated cosθ' or similar.
  4. [Section 2] The sentence 'The diffusion of barium ions over large drifts (~m) is orders of magnitude smaller than the diffusion of ionization electrons due to their higher mass' is ambiguous because 'their' could refer to either the barium ions or the ionization electrons; please specify that it is the barium ions' higher mass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all precision values are forward Monte Carlo outputs from an external generator and Geant4 transport, not fitted or self-referential quantities.

full rationale

The reconstruction chain is forward and non-circular. Generator-level kinematics come from the external νDoBe package (ref. [13]); electron transport and energy deposition are simulated with nexus/Geant4; the Section 3.3 reconstruction algorithm assigns voxelized deposits to e1/e2 tracks using distance-to-vertex seeding; and Section 5 defines precision as the standard deviation of reconstructed averages over N/n toy datasets. No observable entering the reconstruction is defined in terms of the reported cosθ or T1 averages, and no parameter is fitted to the toy datasets and then re-reported as a prediction. The precision numbers are Monte Carlo outcomes rather than identities or fitted values. The load-bearing citations—νDoBe, nexus, and NEXT detector performance studies—are code or independent measurements whose assumptions do not include the target precision values. The idealized sub-mm vertex assumption is explicitly stated as a premise, and the abstract/Section 6 sample-size discrepancy (10 vs 100 events) is an internal consistency issue, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim has no fitted parameters in the usual sense; the quoted precision and bias are Monte Carlo outputs. The load-bearing inputs are external simulation tools, idealized vertex localization, and nominal physics choices for NMEs and PSFs. The 12-configuration scan in Sec. 5.3 provides some evidence that the quoted average kinematics are not very sensitive to nuclear and atomic choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Reference gas pressure = 10 bar
    Chosen as the nominal realistic detector condition for the headline precision; the paper scans 1, 5, 10 and 15 bar rather than fitting this value.
  • Reference voxel edge = 4 mm
    Chosen as the nominal readout granularity for the headline precision and motivated by NEXT-White's ~5 mm FWHM after deconvolution; values of 1, 2, 4 and 10 mm are scanned.
  • Signal sample size for headline result = 10 events in abstract; 100 events in Section 6
    The central precision numbers are quoted for n=10 in the abstract and for n=100 in the conclusions; the paper scans n from 5 to 100, but the unresolved mismatch affects how the headline should be read.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption nuDoBe correctly computes 0νββ electron kinematics for the standard mass mechanism and for alternative LNV operators in 136Xe.
    All generated distributions and the model separation plot (Fig. 1) come from nuDoBe [13]; the paper does not independently validate the generator's kinematics.
  • domain assumption Geant4 G4EmStandardPhysics_option4 accurately simulates electron multiple Coulomb scattering and energy loss in xenon gas at 1-15 bar.
    Reconstruction performance depends on the simulated scattering angles (Fig. 3) and track morphologies; no benchmark against measured high-pressure xenon electron tracks is provided.
  • domain assumption The decay vertex can be localized with negligible sub-mm position smearing, independent of TPC readout granularity.
    Stated in Sec. 2; used in Sec. 3.3 where the vertex seeds hit-to-track assignment. The paper does not simulate vertex reconstruction errors.
  • domain assumption Nominal nuclear and atomic inputs: shell-model NMEs and PSF scheme A from nuDoBe are adequate for the default kinematics.
    Adopted in Sec. 3.1; Sec. 5.3 explores 12 variations and finds effects of ~1 keV on T1 and ~0.01 on cosθ, so the central numbers are partly robust to this choice.
  • domain assumption Ionization electrons can be uniformly smeared along each Geant4 step and grouped into voxels of the stated size, with no residual diffusion or electroluminescence smearing beyond that.
    Sec. 3.2 fast-simulation procedure; the authors argue NEXT-White deconvolution supports the 4 mm scale, but the idealized treatment is an input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing neutrinoless double beta decay event kinematics in a xenon gas detector with vertex tagging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUFTR2SH

@misc{pith2026250210198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing neutrinoless double beta decay event kinematics in a xenon gas detector with vertex tagging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUFTR2SH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10198}
}
abstract

If neutrinoless double beta decay is discovered, the next natural step would be understanding the lepton number violating physics responsible for it. Several alternatives exist beyond the exchange of light neutrinos. Some of these mechanisms can be distinguished by measuring phase-space observables, namely the opening angle $\cos\theta$ among the two decay electrons, and the electron energy spectra, $T_1$ and $T_2$. In this work, we study the statistical accuracy and precision in measuring these kinematic observables in a future xenon gas detector with the added capability to precisely locate the decay vertex. For realistic detector conditions (a gas pressure of 10 bar and spatial resolution of 4 mm), we find that the average $\overline{\cos\theta}$ and $\overline{T_1}$ values can be reconstructed with a precision of 0.19 and 110 keV, respectively, assuming that only 10 neutrinoless double beta decay events are detected.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J.A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez and F. Vissani,Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinolessββdecay,Rev. Mod. Phys.95(2023) 025002 [2202.01787]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

    Gómez-Cadenas, J

    J.J. Gómez-Cadenas, J. Martín-Albo, J. Menéndez, M. Mezzetto, F. Monrabal and M. Sorel, The search for neutrinoless double-beta decay,Riv. Nuovo Cim.46(2023) 619

    work page 2023

  3. [5]

    Rodejohann,Neutrino-less Double Beta Decay and Particle Physics,Int

    W. Rodejohann,Neutrino-less Double Beta Decay and Particle Physics,Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 20(2011) 1833 [1106.1334]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [6]

    Agostini, F.F

    M. Agostini, F.F. Deppisch and G. Van Goffrier,Probing the mechanism of neutrinoless double-beta decay in multiple isotopes,JHEP02(2023) 172 [2212.00045]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [7]

    Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of Ge76, Se82, Mo100 and Xe136 to excited 0^+ states

    F. Simkovic, M. Nowak, W.A. Kaminski, A.A. Raduta and A. Faessler,Neutrinoless double beta decay of Ge-76, Se-82, Mo-100 and Xe-136 to excited 0+ states,Phys. Rev. C64(2001) 035501 [nucl-th/0107016]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  6. [8]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, H. Nishiura and E. Takasugi,The Energy Spectrum and the Angular Correlation in the Beta Beta Decay,Prog. Theor. Phys.70(1983) 1353

    work page 1983

  7. [9]

    Probing new physics in the Neutrinoless double beta decay using electron angular correlation

    A. Ali, A.V. Borisov and D.V. Zhuridov,Probing new physics in the neutrinoless double beta decay using electron angular correlation,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 093009 [0706.4165]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  8. [10]

    SuperNEMOcollaboration,Probing New Physics Models of Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay with SuperNEMO,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 927 [1005.1241]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2010

Show all 51 references
  1. [11]

    Deppisch, H

    F. Deppisch, H. Pas and J. Suhonen,Double beta decay versus cosmology: Majorana CP phases and nuclear matrix elements,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 033012 [hep-ph/0409306]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Hernandez, J

    P. Hernandez, J. Lopez-Pavon, N. Rius and S. Sandner,Bounds on right-handed neutrino parameters from observable leptogenesis,JHEP12(2022) 012 [2207.01651]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [13]

    Scholer, J

    O. Scholer, J. de Vries and L. Gráf,νDoBe — A Python tool for neutrinoless double beta decay,JHEP08(2023) 043 [2304.05415]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [14]

    L. Gráf, M. Lindner and O. Scholer,Unraveling the 0νββ decay mechanisms,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 035022 [2204.10845]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Redshaw, E

    M. Redshaw, E. Wingfield, J. McDaniel and E.G. Myers,Mass and double-beta-decay Q value of Xe-136,Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 053003

    2007

  6. [16]

    Nygren,High-pressure xenon gas electroluminescent TPC for 0nu beta beta-decay search, Nucl

    D. Nygren,High-pressure xenon gas electroluminescent TPC for 0nu beta beta-decay search, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A603(2009) 337. [17]NEXTcollaboration,Background rejection in NEXT using deep neural networks,JINST12 (2017) T01004 [1609.06202]. [18]NEXTcollaboration,Demonstration o...

    2009 arXiv

  7. [23]

    [24]NEXTcollaboration,Characterisation of NEXT-DEMO using xenon K α X-rays,JINST9 (2014) P10007 [1407.3966]

    NEXTcollaboration,Operation and first results of the NEXT-DEMO prototype using a silicon photomultiplier tracking array,JINST8(2013) P09011 [1306.0471]. [24]NEXTcollaboration,Characterisation of NEXT-DEMO using xenon K α X-rays,JINST9 (2014) P10007 [1407.3966]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [25]

    [26]NEXTcollaboration,The Next White (NEW) Detector,JINST13(2018) P12010 [1804.02409]

    NEXTcollaboration,First proof of topological signature in the high pressure xenon gas TPC with electroluminescence amplification for the NEXT experiment,JHEP01(2016) 104 [1507.05902]. [26]NEXTcollaboration,The Next White (NEW) Detector,JINST13(2018) P12010 [1804.02409]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [27]

    NEXTcollaboration,Calibration of the NEXT-White detector using 83mKr decays,JINST13 (2018) P10014 [1804.01780]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [28]

    NEXTcollaboration,Initial results on energy resolution of the NEXT-White detector,JINST 13(2018) P10020 [1808.01804]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [29]

    – 17 – [30]NEXTcollaboration,Measurement of radon-induced backgrounds in the NEXT double beta decay experiment,JHEP10(2018) 112 [1804.00471]

    NEXTcollaboration,Energy calibration of the NEXT-White detector with 1% resolution near Qββ of 136Xe,JHEP10(2019) 230 [1905.13110]. – 17 – [30]NEXTcollaboration,Measurement of radon-induced backgrounds in the NEXT double beta decay experiment,JHEP10(2018) 112 [1804.00471]. [31...

    2019 arXiv

  12. [34]

    NEXTcollaboration,Sensitivity of NEXT-100 to Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,JHEP05 (2016) 159 [1511.09246]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [35]

    NEXTcollaboration,Sensitivity of a tonne-scale NEXT detector for neutrinoless double beta decay searches,JHEP2021(2021) 164 [2005.06467]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [36]

    [37]NEXTcollaboration,Measurement of energy resolution with the NEXT-White silicon photomultipliers,JHEP09(2024) 112 [2405.20427]

    NEXTcollaboration,NEXT-CRAB-0: a high pressure gaseous xenon time projection chamber with a direct VUV camera based readout,JINST18(2023) P08006 [2304.06091]. [37]NEXTcollaboration,Measurement of energy resolution with the NEXT-White silicon photomultipliers,JHEP09(2024) 112 [...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [38]

    Azevedo, L.M.P

    C.D.R. Azevedo, L.M.P. Fernandes, E.D.C. Freitas, D. Gonzalez-Diaz, F. Monrabal, C.M.B. Monteiro et al.,An homeopathic cure to pure Xenon large diffusion,JINST11(2016) C02007 [1511.07189]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [39]

    Felkai et al.,Helium–Xenon mixtures to improve the topological signature in high pressure gas xenon TPCs,Nucl

    R. Felkai et al.,Helium–Xenon mixtures to improve the topological signature in high pressure gas xenon TPCs,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A905(2018) 82 [1710.05600]. [40]NEXTcollaboration,Electron Drift and Longitudinal Diffusion in High Pressure Xenon-Helium Gas Mixtures,JINST14(2019)...

    2018 arXiv

  17. [41]

    Jones, A

    B. Jones, A. McDonald and D. Nygren,Single molecule fluorescence imaging as a technique for barium tagging in neutrinoless double beta decay,Journal of Instrumentation11(2016) P12011

    2016

  18. [42]

    McDonald, B

    A. McDonald, B. Jones, D. Nygren, C. Adams, V. Álvarez, C. Azevedo et al.,Demonstration of single-barium-ion sensitivity for neutrinoless double-beta decay using single-molecule fluorescence imaging,Physical Review Letters120(2018) 132504

    2018

  19. [43]

    NEXTcollaboration,A compact dication source for Ba2+ tagging and heavy metal ion sensor development,JINST18(2023) P07044 [2303.01522]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [44]

    NEXTcollaboration,Ba +2 ion trapping using organic submonolayer for ultra-low background neutrinoless double beta detector,Nature Commun.13(2022) 7741 [2201.09099]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [45]

    Thapa, I

    P. Thapa, I. Arnquist, N. Byrnes, A.A. Denisenko, F.W. Foss, B.J.P. Jones et al.,Barium Chemosensors with Dry-Phase Fluorescence for Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,Sci. Rep.9 (2019) 15097 [1904.05901]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [46]

    Thapa et al.,Barium Selective Chemosensing by Diazacrown Ether Naphthalimide Turn-on Fluorophores for Single Ion Barium Tagging,2006.09494

    P. Thapa et al.,Barium Selective Chemosensing by Diazacrown Ether Naphthalimide Turn-on Fluorophores for Single Ion Barium Tagging,2006.09494

    2006 arXiv

  23. [47]

    Jones,Barium tagging for the next neutrinoless double beta decay program,Bulletin of the American Physical Society(Fall 2022 Meeting APS Div

    B. Jones,Barium tagging for the next neutrinoless double beta decay program,Bulletin of the American Physical Society(Fall 2022 Meeting APS Div. Nuclear Physics, Oct. 27-30, New Orleans, LA) . – 18 –

    2022

  24. [48]

    Thapa, N.K

    P. Thapa, N.K. Byrnes, A.A. Denisenko, J.X. Mao, A.D. McDonald, C.A. Newhouse et al., Demonstration of selective single-barium ion detection with dry diazacrown ether naphthalimide turn-on chemosensors,ACS Sensors6(2021) 192

    2021

  25. [49]

    Rivilla et al.,Fluorescent bicolour sensor for low-background neutrinoless doubleβdecay experiments,Nature583(2020) 48

    I. Rivilla et al.,Fluorescent bicolour sensor for low-background neutrinoless doubleβdecay experiments,Nature583(2020) 48

    2020

  26. [50]

    Bainglass, B

    E. Bainglass, B. Jones, F. Foss, M. Huda and D. Nygren,Mobility and Clustering of Barium Ions and Dications in High Pressure Xenon Gas,Phys. Rev. A97(2018) 062509 [1804.01169]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [51]

    NEXTcollaboration,The dynamics of ions on phased radio-frequency carpets in high pressure gases and application for barium tagging in xenon gas time projection chambers,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1039(2022) 167000 [2109.05902]. [52]APPEC Committeecollaboration,Double Beta Decay APP...

    2022 arXiv

  28. [53]

    Menéndez,Neutrinolessββdecay mediated by the exchange of light and heavy neutrinos: The role of nuclear structure correlations,J

    J. Menéndez,Neutrinolessββdecay mediated by the exchange of light and heavy neutrinos: The role of nuclear structure correlations,J. Phys. G45(2018) 014003 [1804.02105]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [54]

    Martín-Albo,The NEXT experiment for neutrinoless double beta decay searches, Ph.D

    J. Martín-Albo,The NEXT experiment for neutrinoless double beta decay searches, Ph.D. thesis, U. Valencia (main), 2015

    2015

  30. [55]

    Allison et al.,Recent developments in Geant4,Nucl

    J. Allison et al.,Recent developments in Geant4,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A835(2016) 186

    2016

  31. [56]

    Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Trans

    J. Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53(2006) 270. [57]GEANT4collaboration,GEANT4–a simulation toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2006

  32. [58]

    Novak,On the new and accurate (goudsmit-saunderson) model for describing e-/e+ multiple coulomb scattering (geant4 technical note), 2024

    M. Novak,On the new and accurate (goudsmit-saunderson) model for describing e-/e+ multiple coulomb scattering (geant4 technical note), 2024

    2024

  33. [59]

    Richardson,Bayesian-Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration*,J

    W.H. Richardson,Bayesian-Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration*,J. Opt. Soc. Am. 62(1972) 55

    1972

  34. [60]

    Lucy,An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions,Astron

    L.B. Lucy,An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions,Astron. J.79 (1974) 745

    1974

  35. [61]

    Deppisch, L

    F.F. Deppisch, L. Graf, F. Iachello and J. Kotila,Analysis of light neutrino exchange and short-range mechanisms in0νββdecay,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 095016 [2009.10119]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [62]

    Hyvärinen and J

    J. Hyvärinen and J. Suhonen,Nuclear matrix elements for0νββdecays with light or heavy Majorana-neutrino exchange,Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 024613

    2015

  37. [63]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. De Vries, M.L. Graesser, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore et al.,New Leading Contribution to Neutrinoless Double-βDecay,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 202001 [1802.10097]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [64]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. De Vries, M.L. Graesser, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore et al., Renormalized approach to neutrinoless double-βdecay,Phys. Rev. C100(2019) 055504 [1907.11254]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [65]

    Stefanik, R

    D. Stefanik, R. Dvornicky, F. Simkovic and P. Vogel,Reexamining the light neutrino exchange mechanism of the0νββ decay with left- and right-handed leptonic and hadronic currents,Phys. Rev. C92(2015) 055502 [1506.07145]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [66]

    10.21231/0KVZ-VE57

    OSG,Open science data federation, 2015. 10.21231/0KVZ-VE57

    2015 doi

  41. [67]

    10.21231/906P-4D78

    OSG,Ospool, 2006. 10.21231/906P-4D78. – 19 –

    2006 doi

  42. [68]

    Pordes, D

    R. Pordes, D. Petravick, B. Kramer, D. Olson, M. Livny, A. Roy et al.,The open science grid, inJ. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 78 of78, p. 012057, 2007, DOI

    2007

  43. [69]

    Sfiligoi, D.C

    I. Sfiligoi, D.C. Bradley, B. Holzman, P. Mhashilkar, S. Padhi and F. Wurthwein,The pilot way to grid resources using glideinwms, in2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, vol. 2 of2, pp. 428–432, 2009, DOI. – 20 –

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.