Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The gallium anomaly disappears once the 71Ga→71Ge neutrino-capture cross-section is computed with a sign-changing Gamow-Teller transition density instead of the factorized detailed-balance approximation.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:24 UTC pith:QKTHMJ7F

load-bearing objection A legitimate challenge to the detailed-balance factorization that gets concrete numbers only by fitting a nodal transition density to the anomaly itself—proof of principle, not proof of the node. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.20560 v3 pith:QKTHMJ7F submitted 2025-12-23 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

A possible solution to the gallium anomaly moving beyond the leptonic wave function factorization

M. Cadeddu , N. Cargioli , F. Dordei , L. Ferro , C. Giunti , M. Pitzalis This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords gallium anomaly71Ga neutrino captureinverse beta decaydetailed balanceGamow-Teller transition densitysterile neutrinolepton wave functionselectron capture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

For thirty years, gallium-based neutrino-source experiments have seen about 20% fewer neutrino captures than predicted, a deficit now beyond 5σ. This paper argues that the deficit is a calculation artifact: the standard cross-section splits the neutrino-capture amplitude into a nuclear matrix element times a leptonic factor, using detailed balance with electron capture. That factorization is only valid if the lepton wave functions are constant over the nucleus; dropping it couples the lepton wave functions to the nuclear Gamow-Teller transition density. Using realistic electron wave functions and data-driven transition densities that reproduce the precisely measured 71Ge half-life, the authors find the ground-state cross-section drops by about 20%, into agreement with GALLEX, SAGE, and BEST. If right, the gallium anomaly is explained by nuclear and leptonic structure, and no sterile neutrinos are needed.

Core claim

The central claim is that the ~20% gallium deficit is not new physics but the failure of the detailed-balance/factorization approximation. When the leptonic radial functions are kept inside the nuclear integral, the inverse-beta-decay amplitude depends on the weak transition density ρ_TD(r) rather than on a single matrix element times ψ(r0). The authors introduce phenomenological densities—single Gaussian, sum of Gaussians, and double Gaussians—fit simultaneously to the precisely measured 71Ge electron-capture half-life (11.465 d) and to the experimental 51Cr and 37Ar cross-sections. The best-fit sign-changing (nodal) densities reduce the predicted ground-state cross-section from roughly 5.3

What carries the argument

The key object is the Gamow-Teller weak transition density ρ_TD(r) = Ψ*(71Ge) Ĥ_GT Ψ(71Ga), the radial nuclear overlap weighted by the charge-exchange operator. The paper replaces the factorized amplitude ψ_e*(r0)ψ_ν(r0) M_nuc with integrals of ρ_TD(r) against exact Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Slater electron radial components g_κ, f_κ and the spherical Bessel functions j_0(qr), j_1(qr). The same density must reproduce the 71Ge electron-capture rate, which provides the tight experimental anchor: any density that solves the gallium anomaly must also give the measured half-life. The load-bearing feature is the node, which produces partial cancellation between positive and negative radial lobes in the i

Load-bearing premise

The physical 71Ga→71Ge Gamow-Teller transition density really has a radial sign-changing node with roughly the fitted position, width, and depth; no first-principles calculation or direct measurement establishes this, and the no-node parametrizations fail to resolve the anomaly.

What would settle it

Compute the 71Ga→71Ge Gamow-Teller transition density from first principles with controlled uncertainties. If the radial density is positive-definite (no node), the ~20% cross-section suppression disappears and the gallium anomaly returns at full strength; the authors themselves note that such a calculation is not yet available.

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

If this is right

  • If the reduced cross-sections are correct, the ~5σ gallium anomaly becomes statistically consistent, removing the strongest short-baseline hint for sterile neutrinos and aligning gallium data with recent accelerator and tritium-based bounds.
  • The same de-factorized treatment applies to other low-energy charged-current neutrino capture processes, so cross-sections calculated under the detailed-balance approximation may carry similar biases.
  • The fitted nodal densities are phenomenologically viable because they reproduce the precisely measured 71Ge half-life to within a fraction of a day, so the solution is not bought at the expense of a measured decay rate.
  • The paper's results are grounded in the ground-state contribution; with the adopted excited-state subtraction (5.3% for 51Cr and 5.8% for 37Ar), the source-averaged experimental cross-sections become consistent with the reduced theory.
  • The paper explicitly urges a dedicated nuclear-structure effort to compute or measure ρ_TD with controlled uncertainties, since a first-principles calculation with reliable error bars does not yet exist.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows from the mechanism: because the node suppresses the cross-section through a momentum-dependent cancellation, the correction is source-energy dependent, whereas a sterile-neutrino deficit would be flat after phase-space normalization; a radioactive-source campaign at two well-separated neutrino energies could discriminate the two.
  • The result implicitly calls for recomputing other gallium-based rates, notably the solar-neutrino absorption cross-section on 71Ga, in the same un-factorized scheme; a ~20% reduction there would feed directly into solar-model comparisons, though the paper does not address this.
  • The mechanism's sensitivity to the node makes a specific prediction: high-resolution charge-exchange measurements of the 71Ga→71Ge Gamow-Teller response should show a sign-changing radial form or fragmented strength; future data fixing the node's position and depth would test the fitted densities against the same two χ² constraints.
  • If the anomaly is indeed nuclear in origin, the sterile-neutrino interpretation of the other short-baseline anomalies is weakened only insofar as those calculations share the same detailed-balance input; the paper does not extend its conclusion to reactor or accelerator anomalies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the theoretical treatment of the ν_e + 71Ga → 71Ge + e^- cross section and argues that the standard detailed-balance approach, combined with the factorization of leptonic and nuclear wave functions, is biased. It introduces a non-factorized amplitude formalism in which the transition is expressed through a weak transition density ρ_TD(r) (Eqs. 7–11), evaluated with exact Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Slater lepton wave functions. Since ρ_TD is not known from first principles, the authors fit several phenomenological parameterizations (SG, SOG, DG, DG2) simultaneously to the measured 71Ge half-life and to the GALLEX/SAGE/BEST experimental ground-state cross sections (Eqs. 13–14). With sign-changing SOG/DG/DG2 densities they reproduce both quantities and obtain σ_gs ≈ 4.42–4.45 ×10^-45 cm^2 (51Cr) and 5.13–5.17 ×10^-45 cm^2 (37Ar), a ~20% reduction relative to previous estimates, and conclude that the gallium anomaly can be resolved without invoking sterile neutrinos. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges that the adopted densities are not unique and that this is a proof of principle.

Significance. If the required transition density were independently established, this would be a significant resolution of a long-standing 5σ anomaly and would weaken the sterile-neutrino interpretation of the gallium data. The non-factorized amplitude treatment, the use of exact lepton wave functions, and the imposition of the precisely measured 71Ge half-life as a constraint are genuine improvements, and the paper is transparent about its model dependence. However, in its present form the quantitative result is an existence proof: the reduction is obtained by fitting the same experimental cross sections that define the anomaly, with free nodal-density parameters, and no nuclear-structure calculation or independent observable fixes the node. The paper's value therefore lies mainly in identifying an accurate weak transition density as a concrete path forward, rather than in demonstrating that the path is realized in 71Ga.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fit results, Eq. (13), Table I] The claimed solution is fitted rather than predicted. The χ²_IBD defined in Eq. (13) is minimized against the very same experimental σ_gs values that define the gallium anomaly. The SOG/DG/DG2 entries in Table I achieve σ_gs close to σ_exp because the parameters are optimized to do exactly that; with five or six free parameters and only two cross-section data points, a near-perfect χ² is essentially guaranteed. The 71Ge half-life is an independent constraint, but it is a single weighted integral of ρ_TD and is reproduced by all parameterizations, including the failing SG and 2pF benchmarks. Thus Table I demonstrates the existence of densities that remove the anomaly, not that the physical density has this property. The abstract's wording 'we find that the revised cross-section can be significantly reduced' overstates the predictive content; at present the reduction is an imposed outcome
  2. [Transition density parametrization, Eq. (12), Fig. 1] The resolution is entirely tied to the sign-changing (nodal) form of ρ_TD. The single-lobe SG and the 2pF charge-density benchmark fail to solve the anomaly, while SOG/DG/DG2 succeed precisely because they allow a node. No independent evidence is presented that the 71Ga→71Ge Gamow-Teller transition density actually has a node with the fitted parameters. The cited ab initio studies [67,72,73] concern weak densities in general or in other transitions and do not provide this specific density; the text itself concedes that 'a first-principles calculation with controlled uncertainties remains challenging [67]'. The half-life constraint cannot determine the node position, width, or depth. Because the ~20% suppression relies on cancellation between positive and negative lobes, small changes in the node parameters could substantially alter or eliminate the effect. This is a load-bearing assumpti
  3. [Table I, Conclusions] No uncertainties are reported for the best-fit transition-density parameters or for the resulting cross-section reduction. Given that the suppression arises from a delicate cancellation between positive and negative contributions to the integrals in Eqs. (8), (9), and (11), the stability of the result under parameter variations should be demonstrated. A covariance matrix, a profile-likelihood scan over σ_gs, or a scan over node position and amplitude is required to assess whether the ~20% reduction is robust or an artifact of the chosen functional forms. This is particularly important because the fit is underdetermined relative to its parameters, as noted above.
  4. [Abstract and Beyond the factorization scheme] The title and abstract attribute the solution to moving beyond the leptonic wave-function factorization. However, the numerical comparison in Table I shows that the non-factorized formalism alone, when combined with a conventional positive-definite density (SG or 2pF), does not solve the anomaly; the suppression appears only when an ad hoc sign-changing ρ_TD is inserted. Thus the essential ingredient is the assumed nodal density, not the removal of the factorization. The framing should be corrected to avoid implying that the improved lepton treatment itself produces the ~20% reduction. This distinction matters for how readers interpret the mechanism.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] In the SOG row, the entries '0.0050.0003' appear to be concatenated without a separator. The table caption should define χ²_IBD and χ²_EC explicitly, since the subscripts may be confused with the source labels.
  2. [Fig. 1] The curves are hard to identify because SG and 2pF are scaled by a factor of 10 and the line styles may be difficult to distinguish in print. Adding a legend or explicit labels, including the unscaled curves, would improve readability.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The notation p_j^e E_j^e in the sum over electron energies is confusing. Define p_e and E_e before use and clarify that the sum runs over the electron-energy branches of the source.
  4. [Transition density parametrization, text after Eq. (15)] There is a typo: 'ab-initiostudies' should read 'ab initio studies'. Also, in the same paragraph, 'Aρ_0(c,a)' should be defined explicitly so the normalization of the 2pF density is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The 'revised' cross sections that resolve the gallium anomaly are best-fit outputs of a χ² minimization against the same experimental cross sections that define the anomaly; the independent half-life constraint is genuine but weak, so the central result is partially circular by construction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Fit results, Eq. (13) and Table I; abstract and conclusions]
    "To find the best set of parameters to solve or alleviate the gallium anomaly, given a certain parametrization, we perform a fit using the least-squares function χ2_IBD(Θ) = ... + Σ_X ((σ^exp_gs,X −(1+η1)σ_gs,X(Θ))/δσ^exp_gs,X)^2. ... The results of the combined fit are listed in Tab. I."

    Table I quotes σ_gs,51Cr(Θ) ≈ 4.42–4.45 and σ_gs,37Ar(Θ) ≈ 5.13–5.17 as 'theoretical IBD ground state cross section', but these are the best-fit values obtained by minimizing χ²_IBD against the very same experimental values (σ^exp_gs,51Cr = 4.44, σ^exp_gs,37Ar = 5.21) that constitute the gallium anomaly. The '%20 reduction' that 'potentially resol[ves] the gallium anomaly' is therefore a fit target, not an independent prediction. The half-life constraint in Eq. (14) is a genuine external datum, but it mainly fixes a weighted integral of ρ_TD; the nodal shape that produces the suppression is optimized against the anomaly data, and the paper itself concedes the densities are 'not unique' and that first-principles calculation 'remains challenging'.

full rationale

The central derivation is not fully circular because the 71Ge half-life constraint is independently measured and the no-node SG and 2pF benchmarks fail, showing that not every ρ_TD can work. However, the success of the SOG/DG/DG2 parametrizations in reproducing the experimental cross sections is achieved by explicitly fitting those cross sections in Eq. (13). The abstract's claim that the revised cross-section 'can be significantly reduced, potentially resolving the gallium anomaly' presents the fitted best-fit values as the outcome of a theoretical calculation, while the reduction is statistically forced by construction. The paper's own caveats—'transition densities adopted here are not unique' and 'a first-principles calculation with controlled uncertainties remains challenging'—confirm that the crucial nodal structure is not independently established. No load-bearing self-citation circularity was found: the cited prior work [11] supplies numerical infrastructure and uncertainties, not the nodal-density claim. Score 6 reflects the partial circularity in the central fitted 'prediction', while acknowledging the independent half-life constraint that keeps the result from being fully definitional.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the standard β-decay formalism for the axial-spatial amplitude (Eqs. 7-9, from Refs. [63-66]); (ii) DHFS electron wave functions treated as exact (from Ref. [11]'s tool); (iii) equality of IBD and EC transition densities (stated before Eq. 10); (iv) a sign-changing ρ_TD with fitted parameters, which is the load-bearing ad hoc element — the paper has no independent evidence for the node and says so; and (v) external inputs Δ(p,n), Q-value, R_ch. Free parameters: 3-6 shape parameters per model (Table I) plus three nuisance parameters η1-η3, all fitted; the parametrization family itself is also a modeling choice. No invented entities (no new particles or forces).

free parameters (6)
  • SG shape parameters (A, ra, a) = {0.00094, -0.005, 3.42}
    Single-Gaussian ρ_TD; fitted to χ²_IBD+χ²_EC; fails to resolve the anomaly (χ²_IBD=8.68).
  • SOG shape parameters (A1, r1, A2, r2, a) = {-0.002, 9.624, 0.04, 0.05, 3}
    Sum-of-Gaussians ρ_TD with node; fitted to resolve the anomaly (χ²_IBD=0.005) while matching t1/2.
  • DG shape parameters (A, B, a, b, ra, rb) = {-0.0025, -0.024, 3.875, 2.111, 6.459, 2.45}
    Double-Gaussian ρ_TD; fitted; resolves the anomaly (χ²_IBD=0.007).
  • DG2 shape parameters (A, B, a, b, r) = {-0.0231, -0.0802, 3.5119, 1.855, 2.16}
    Constrained double Gaussian; fitted; resolves the anomaly (χ²_IBD=0.014).
  • Nuisance parameters η1, η2, η3 = pulled within δη1=0.003, δη2=0.007, δη3=0.005
    Absorb half-life and wave-function systematics in Eqs. (13)-(14).
  • Excited-state subtraction Δ(p,n) = 5.3% (51Cr), 5.8% (37Ar) ±5%
    From (p,n) data [61]; subtracted to isolate ground-state cross-sections; ±5% treated as conservative uncertainty (footnote 3).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Allowed-transition dominance: only leading axial-spatial κ=±1 components of the GT amplitude are retained (Eqs. 7-9)
    Standard for allowed GT decays, but the 20% reduction claim depends on this truncation; weak magnetism added as small correction [37].
  • domain assumption DHFS electron wave functions describe bound (1s) and continuum electron states of 71Ga/71Ge accurately
    Carried from Ref. [11]'s RADIAL-based tool; cross-checked against GRASP [57]; the paper does not ship the code.
  • domain assumption The IBD and EC Gamow-Teller transition densities are the same up to a trivial phase
    Stated before Eq. (10); standard isospin/GT relation; this is what makes t1/2 a constraint on the IBD cross-section.
  • standard math The neutrino wave function can be expanded in spherical Bessel functions j0(qr), j1(qr) with the long-wavelength form
    Plane-wave neutrino partial-wave expansion used in Eqs. (8)-(9); standard and uncontroversial.
  • ad hoc to paper The physical 71Ga→71Ge GT transition density is sign-changing (nodal) with parameters close to the fitted values
    The suppression is 'intimately connected to the presence of a node'; no first-principles calculation establishes it ('remains challenging [67]'); the SG and 2pF no-node benchmarks fail, showing the node is load-bearing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10563 in / 29773 out tokens · 295047 ms · 2026-08-03T14:24:12.721266+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

For over thirty years, a $\sim20\%$ deficit, now exceeding $5\sigma$, has persisted between measured and predicted neutrino capture rates on $^{71}$Ga, as observed in radioactive source experiments (namely GALLEX, SAGE, and more recently BEST) using $^{51}$Cr and $^{37}$Ar. This long-standing discrepancy, referred to as the gallium anomaly, has posed a significant challenge to our understanding of both experimental methods and theoretical predictions. In this work, we revisit the theoretical calculation of the neutrino capture cross-section by moving beyond the standard treatment of the leptonic wave functions, revealing limitations in the commonly used factorization approach based on the detailed balance principle. Incorporating phenomenologically constrained Gamow-Teller transition densities, able to correctly reproduce the precisely measured half-life of $^{71}{\textrm{Ge}}$, we find that the revised cross-section can be significantly reduced, potentially resolving the gallium anomaly without invoking new physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20560 by C. Giunti, F. Dordei, L. Ferro, M. Cadeddu, M. Pitzalis, N. Cargioli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Transition densities corresponding to the best fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Revival of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A 2023 reactor antineutrino flux calculation revives the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly to 2.2 sigma and produces 3.8 sigma tension with gallium data that drops to 1.3 sigma when gallium uncertainties are enlarged.

  2. Revival of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The reactor antineutrino anomaly is revived to 2.2 sigma with the 2023 flux calculation, showing 3.8 sigma tension with gallium data that drops to 1.3 sigma when gallium uncertainties are enlarged.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. R. Elliott, V. Gavrin, and W. Haxton, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134, 104082 (2024), arXiv:2306.03299 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Giunti and M

    C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Phys. Rev. C83, 065504 (2011), arXiv:1006.3244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Anselmann et al., Physics Letters B285, 376 (1992)

    P. Anselmann et al., Physics Letters B285, 376 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    Hampel et al., Physics Letters B447, 127 (1999)

    W. Hampel et al., Physics Letters B447, 127 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Kaether, W

    F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, and T. Kirsten, Phys. Lett. B685, 47 (2010), arXiv:1001.2731 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Altmann et al

    M. Altmann et al. (GNO), Phys. Lett. B616, 174 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0504037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE), Phys. Rev. C80, 015807 (2009), arXiv:0901.2200 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    The history, present and fu- ture of sage (soviet-american gallium ex- periment),

    V. N. Gavrin, “The history, present and fu- ture of sage (soviet-american gallium ex- periment),” in Solar Neutrinos, pp. 29–46, 10.1142/9789811204296 0002

    work page doi:10.1142/9789811204296

  9. [9]

    V. V. Barinov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 232501 (2022), arXiv:2109.11482 [nucl-ex]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    V. V. Barinov et al., Phys. Rev. C105, 065502 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, G. Carotenuto, F. Dordei, L. Ferro, and C. Giunti, (2025), arXiv:2507.13103 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Mention, M

    G. Mention, M. Fechner, T. Lasserre, T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Letourneau, Phys. Rev. D83, 073006 (2011), arXiv:1101.2755 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 011801 (2023), arXiv:2210.10216 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi, and Z. Xin, JHEP10, 164 (2022), arXiv:2209.00916 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    J. M. Berryman and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. D101, 015008 (2020), arXiv:1909.09267 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Giunti and M

    C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22, 2499 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Giunti and T

    C. Giunti and T. Lasserre, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 163 (2019), arXiv:1901.08330 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Gariazzo, C

    S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. F. Li, and E. M. Zavanin, J. Phys. G43, 033001 (2016), arXiv:1507.08204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, Nucl. Phys. B908, 199 (2016), arXiv:1512.06856 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    A. Diaz, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, G. H. Collin, J. M. Con- rad, and M. H. Shaevitz, Phys. Rept.884, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00045 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    B¨ oser, C

    S. B¨ oser, C. Buck, C. Giunti, J. Lesgourgues, L. Ludhova, S. Mertens, A. Schukraft, and M. Wurm, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.111, 103736 (2020), arXiv:1906.01739 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept.928, 1 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Lett. B849, 138436 (2024), arXiv:2312.00565 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    K. N. Abazajian et al., (2012), arXiv:1204.5379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    M. A. Acero et al., J. Phys. G51, 120501 (2024), arXiv:2203.07323 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Farzan and T

    Y. Farzan and T. Schwetz, SciPost Phys.15, 172 (2023), arXiv:2306.09422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Z. Xin, Phys. Lett. B829, 137054 (2022), arXiv:2110.06820 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Almaz´ an et al

    H. Almaz´ an et al. (STEREO), Nature613, 257 (2023), arXiv:2210.07664 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Machikhiliyan (DANSS), Phys

    I. Machikhiliyan (DANSS), Phys. Part. Nucl.53, 546 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Andriamirado et al

    M. Andriamirado et al. (PROSPECT, (PROSPECT Collaboration)*), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151802 (2025), arXiv:2406.10408 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Goldhagen, M

    K. Goldhagen, M. Maltoni, S. E. Reichard, and T. Schwetz, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 116 (2022), arXiv:2109.14898 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and J. P. Pinheiro, Phys. Lett. B862, 139297 (2025), arXiv:2411.16840 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Nature648, 64 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Acharya et al

    H. Acharya et al. (KATRIN), Nature648, 70 (2025), arXiv:2503.18667 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Huber, Nature648, 40 (2025)

    P. Huber, Nature648, 40 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. C56, 3391 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9710491

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  37. [37]

    S. R. Elliott, V. N. Gavrin, W. C. Haxton, T. V. Ibragimova, and E. J. Rule, Phys. Rev. C108, 035502 (2023), arXiv:2303.13623 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    W. C. Haxton and E. Rule, Phys. Lett. B861, 139259 (2025), arXiv:2501.03528 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Kostensalo, J

    J. Kostensalo, J. Suhonen, C. Giunti, and P. C. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B795, 542 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 846, 138190 (2023)], arXiv:1906.10980 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Gehrlein, and J. Kopp, JHEP05, 143 (2023), arXiv:2303.05528 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Z. Xin, Phys. Lett. B842, 137983 (2023), arXiv:2212.09722 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. D107, 096011 (2023), arXiv:2209.02885 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    W. S. C. Williams, An Introduction to elementary Particles (Aca- demic Press, 1971)

    1971

  44. [44]

    J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, Theoretical nuclear physics (Springer, New York, 1952)

    1952

  45. [45]

    L. W. Alvarez, (1949), 10.2172/929771

    work page doi:10.2172/929771 1949

  46. [46]

    J. N. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press, 1989)

    1989

  47. [47]

    J. N. Bahcall, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 881 (1978)

    1978

  48. [48]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev.135, B137 (1964)

    1964

  49. [49]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    M¨ arkisch, H

    B. M¨ arkisch, H. Mest, H. Saul, X. Wang, H. Abele, D. Dubbers, M. Klopf, A. Petoukhov, C. Roick, T. Soldner, and D. Werder, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 242501 (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    Hampel and L

    W. Hampel and L. P. Remsberg, Phys. Rev. C31, 666 (1985)

    1985

  52. [52]

    J. I. Collar and S. G. Yoon, Phys. Rev. C108, L021602 (2023), arXiv:2307.05353 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    E. B. Norman, A. Drobizhev, N. Gharibyan, K. E. Gregorich, Y. G. Kolomensky, B. N. Sammis, N. D. Scielzo, J. A. Shusterman, and K. J. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C109, 055501 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Derbin, I

    A. Derbin, I. Drachnev, D. Ivanov, V. Muratova, M. Trushin, E. Unzhakov, and A. Vorobyev, Physics of Atomic Nuclei88, 52 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Fermi, Ric

    E. Fermi, Ric. Sci.4, 491 (1933)

    1933

  56. [56]

    Salvat and J

    F. Salvat and J. M. Fernndez-Varea, Computer Physics Communications240, 165 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Froese Fischer, G

    C. Froese Fischer, G. Gaigalas, P. Jnsson, and J. Biero, Computer Physics Communications237, 184 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    Wang et al., Physics Letters B856, 138867 (2024)

    S. Wang et al., Physics Letters B856, 138867 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Bambynek, H

    W. Bambynek, H. Behrens, M. H. Chen, B. Crase- 7 mann, M. L. Fitzpatrick, K. W. D. Ledingham, H. Genz, M. Mutterer, and R. L. Intemann, Rev. Mod. Phys.49, 77 (1977)

    1977

  60. [60]

    Singh and J

    B. Singh and J. Chen, Nuclear Data Sheets188, 1 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    Krofcheck, E

    D. Krofcheck, E. Sugarbaker, J. Rapaport, D. Wang, J. N. Bahcall, R. C. Byrd, C. C. Foster, C. D. Goodman, I. J. Van Heerden, C. Gaarde, J. S. Larsen, D. J. Horen, and T. N. Taddeucci, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1051 (1985)

    1985

  62. [62]

    Frekers et al., Physics Letters B706, 134 (2011)

    D. Frekers et al., Physics Letters B706, 134 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Konopinski, The Theory of Beta Radio Activity, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon P., 1966)

    E. Konopinski, The Theory of Beta Radio Activity, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon P., 1966)

    1966

  64. [64]

    Koshigiri, M

    K. Koshigiri, M. Nishimura, H. Ohtsubo, and M. Morita, Nuclear Physics A319, 301 (1979)

    1979

  65. [65]

    Raman, C

    S. Raman, C. A. Houser, T. A. Walkiewicz, and I. S. Towner, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.21, 567 (1978), [Erratum: Atom.Data Nucl.Data Tabl. 22, 369–369 (1978)]

    1978

  66. [66]

    Horiuchi, T

    W. Horiuchi, T. Sato, Y. Uesaka, and K. Yoshida, Progress of Theoretical and Ex- perimental Physics2021, 103D03 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/10/103D03/42438644/ptab069.pdf

    2021

  67. [67]

    G. B. King, L. Andreoli, S. Pastore, and M. Piarulli, Front. in Phys.8, 363 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    Behrens and J

    H. Behrens and J. J¨ anecke, Numerical Tables for Beta-Decay and Electron Capture, edited by H. Schopper, Landolt-Boernstein - Group I Elementary Particles, Nuclei and Atoms, Vol. 4 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1969)

    1969

  69. [69]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev.128, 1297 (1962)

    1962

  70. [70]

    Brysk and M

    H. Brysk and M. E. Rose, Rev. Mod. Phys.30, 1169 (1958)

    1958

  71. [71]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (EDEL WEISS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141301 (2020)

    2020

  72. [72]

    G. B. King, L. Andreoli, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, R. Schiavilla, R. B. Wiringa, J. Carlson, and S. Gandolfi, Phys. Rev. C102, 025501 (2020), arXiv:2004.05263 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    E. M. Ney, J. Engel, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034349 (2022), arXiv:2112.14621 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    L. C. Maximon and R. A. Schrack, J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. B70(1966), 10.6028/jres.070b.007

    work page doi:10.6028/jres.070b.007 1966

  75. [75]

    Gorchtein and C

    M. Gorchtein and C. Y. Seng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 23 (2024), arXiv:2311.00044 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Seng and M

    C.-Y. Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C109, 045501 (2024), arXiv:2309.16893 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Seng, Phys

    C.-Y. Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 152501 (2023), arXiv:2212.02681 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    J.-U. Nabi, M. Ishfaq, O. Nit ¸escu, M. Mirea, and S. Stoica, Universe6, 5 (2019), arXiv:2503.10056 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Electron capture of superheavy nuclei with realistic lepton wave functions,

    A. Ravli´ c, P. Schwerdtfeger, and W. Nazarewicz, “Electron capture of superheavy nuclei with realistic lepton wave functions,” (2025), arXiv:2503.14613 [physics.atom-ph]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025