pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25748 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ex · physics.ins-det

Recognition: unknown

Sub-keV energy calibration of CONUS+ via 71Ge M-shell neutron activation

E. S\'anchez Garc\'ia , Y. Shi , N. Ackermann , H. Bonet , C. Buck , J. Hakenm\"uller , G. Heusser , M. Lindner
show 6 more authors
W. Maneschg M. Meier S. Mertens D. Piani T. Rink H. Strecker
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex physics.ins-det
keywords CONUS+CEvNSgermanium detectorneutron activationenergy calibrationsub-keV71GeM-shell X-ray
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resolving the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line at 158.7 eVee validates CONUS+ energy reconstruction to the detection threshold.

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

The CONUS+ experiment measures coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium but faces large uncertainty from the energy scale. By irradiating a detector with an AmBe neutron source, the team activates germanium nuclei to produce 71Ge, whose M-shell X-ray emission provides a clean signal at low energies. They clearly resolve this line at 158.7 eVee with 1.4 eVee uncertainty. This directly confirms the energy scale, resolution, trigger efficiency, and noise rejection all the way down to threshold, bringing the contribution to signal uncertainty below 4 percent. Such calibration is essential for precision tests of the standard model with reactor neutrinos and searches for new physics.

Core claim

A dedicated neutron activation of one CONUS+ germanium detector with an AmBe source produces 71Ge nuclei whose M-shell X-rays appear as a distinct peak at 158.7 ± 1.4 eVee. This observation validates the complete energy reconstruction chain, including scale, resolution, trigger efficiency, and separation of physical events from noise, down to the detector threshold.

What carries the argument

The 71Ge M-shell X-ray line at approximately 160 eV, generated via neutron capture on germanium and subsequent electron capture decay, serving as an in-situ low-energy calibration standard.

If this is right

  • The uncertainty from energy scale in CEvNS signal prediction drops below 4%.
  • Energy calibration is now understood including trigger efficiency and noise rejection.
  • Prepares for an activation campaign at the reactor site itself.
  • Opens the way to higher-precision CEvNS measurements and beyond-Standard-Model searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar activation techniques could be applied to other low-threshold germanium detectors for sub-keV calibration.
  • If the peak position matches the known atomic transition energy, it confirms no significant bias in the ionization yield model at these energies.
  • Extending this method might allow real-time monitoring of detector response during data taking.

Load-bearing premise

The observed peak must arise solely from 71Ge M-shell X-rays without meaningful contamination from other sources or artifacts.

What would settle it

A measurement showing the peak position inconsistent with the expected 158-160 eVee value, or failure to resolve it distinctly from background, would indicate the calibration is not validated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25748 by C. Buck, D. Piani, E. S\'anchez Garc\'ia, G. Heusser, H. Bonet, H. Strecker, J. Hakenm\"uller, M. Lindner, M. Meier, N. Ackermann, S. Mertens, T. Rink, W. Maneschg, Y. Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Signal prediction uncertainty as a function of the view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Energy scale uncertainty as a function of expo view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Photograph of the C8 detector setup at the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative detector pulse at three stages of view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Squared energy resolution (FWHM2 ) of the C8 detector as a function of the trapezoidal rise time, mea￾sured via pulser scans. The individual noise contribu￾tions are shown: 1/f noise (orange dotted), series noise (blue dashed), and parallel noise (green). The total fit (red) exhibits a minimum at ∼3.5 µs, which is adopted as the optimal working point. the full energy range, in particular at sub-keV ener￾gi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the low-energy spectra acquired during 40 days before irradiation (blue) and 31 days after view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fits to the 71Ge L-shell (left) and K-shell (right) X-ray lines after subtracting the background before irradiation. The L-shell data (red) are fitted with two Gaussian functions (black) accounting for the L1 (1298.5 eVee) and L2 (1148.2 eVee) sub-shell capture lines. The K-shell data (red) are fitted with a Crystal Ball function (black), which accounts for the asymmetric low-energy tail arising from incom… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: fit of the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line in the post-irradiation spectrum. The data (red) are described by a model consisting of a noise pre-fit (green), an exponential background weighted by the trigger efficiency (blue dashed), and the convolution of the M-shell signal with the trigger efficiency and electronic smearing (black), yielding µM = (158.7±1.4) eVee and FWHMM = (58.2±3.4) eVee. Right: time evol… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy resolution (σ) as a function of energy measured at the 71Ge M-, L- and K-shell X-ray lines at 158.7, 1298.5 and 10368.3 eVee, respectively. The solid blue line shows a fit of the standard Fano model (F = 0.151 ± 0.002), and the black dash-dotted line in￾cludes the quadratic term for incomplete charge collec￾tion (F = 0.123±0.011). In both cases σnoise is fixed by the pulser measurement (FWHM (56 ± 2… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The CONUS+ experiment has recently reported the first detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) of reactor antineutrinos on germanium nuclei and is now entering a precision phase. The dominant uncertainty in the first measurement was the energy scale, which contributed 14% to the uncertainty of the prediction of the combined signal. We present a dedicated neutron activation campaign in which one of the new 2.4 kg CONUS+ germanium detectors was irradiated with a strong 241AmBe source, demonstrating that a contribution below 4% to the uncertainty of signal prediction is achievable. For the first time, the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line was clearly resolved at (158.7+-1.4) eVee, validating the CONUS+ energy reconstruction down to the detection threshold. This validation includes the understanding of the energy scale, the energy resolution, the trigger efficiency, and the correct separation of physical from noise events. These results establish the foundation for a future activation campaign at the Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt reactor site, strengthening the CONUS+ energy calibration and extending its sensitivity to precision CEvNS and beyond Standard Model physics measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a neutron activation campaign in which a CONUS+ germanium detector was irradiated with a 241AmBe source. It claims the first clear resolution of the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line at (158.7 ± 1.4) eVee, which is used to validate the energy scale, energy resolution, trigger efficiency, and separation of physical from noise events down to the detection threshold. The work aims to reduce the dominant energy-scale uncertainty in the CEvNS signal prediction from 14% to below 4%, establishing the basis for a future in-situ activation campaign at the reactor site.

Significance. If the peak is shown to be free of significant contamination, the result would provide a valuable sub-keV calibration anchor for germanium detectors in neutrino experiments. The internal activation method supplies a known nuclear line directly in the region of interest, addressing a key systematic for precision CEvNS and BSM searches. The reported position and uncertainty are consistent with expectations and would strengthen the experimental foundation for the CONUS+ precision phase.

major comments (1)
  1. The central validation claim—that the energy reconstruction, resolution, trigger efficiency, and noise rejection are validated down to threshold—requires that the observed peak at 158.7 eVee arises solely from 71Ge M-shell X-rays. Neutron activation of natural germanium produces multiple EC-decaying isotopes (69Ge, 75Ge, 77Ge) whose L/M X-rays and Auger electrons fall in the same 100–200 eVee window. The manuscript supplies no background model, multi-component fit, or time-decay confirmation isolating the 11.4-day 71Ge component, leaving open the possibility that contamination biases the fitted centroid and efficiency extraction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for highlighting the importance of rigorously isolating the 71Ge M-shell contribution. We address the major comment below and propose revisions to strengthen the validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central validation claim—that the energy reconstruction, resolution, trigger efficiency, and noise rejection are validated down to threshold—requires that the observed peak at 158.7 eVee arises solely from 71Ge M-shell X-rays. Neutron activation of natural germanium produces multiple EC-decaying isotopes (69Ge, 75Ge, 77Ge) whose L/M X-rays and Auger electrons fall in the same 100–200 eVee window. The manuscript supplies no background model, multi-component fit, or time-decay confirmation isolating the 11.4-day 71Ge component, leaving open the possibility that contamination biases the fitted centroid and efficiency extraction.

    Authors: We agree that explicit isolation of the 71Ge component is essential to support the central validation claims. The manuscript presents the observed peak at the literature value for the 71Ge M-shell X-ray with a fitted position and width consistent with expectations, but does not include a quantitative background model or time-dependent analysis of competing isotopes. To address this, we will revise the paper to add: (i) calculated production rates and half-lives for 69Ge, 75Ge and 77Ge under the irradiation conditions, (ii) an estimate of residual activity after the post-irradiation cooling period, and (iii) a multi-component fit (or upper-limit assessment) to the low-energy spectrum demonstrating that contamination in the 158.7 eVee region is negligible. These additions will confirm that the extracted energy scale, resolution, trigger efficiency and noise rejection are not biased. The main result and conclusions remain unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental measurement of known nuclear line

full rationale

The paper presents an experimental neutron-activation measurement on a CONUS+ Ge detector using a 241AmBe source. The central result is the observed position of a peak at (158.7 ± 1.4) eVee, which is identified as the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line on the basis of external nuclear data and decay timing. This identification is used to validate the detector's energy scale, resolution, trigger efficiency, and noise rejection down to threshold. No derivation chain, fitted parameter, or self-citation is invoked to generate the reported centroid or efficiency; the measurement is compared against independent nuclear tables. The paper therefore contains no self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard nuclear data for the 71Ge M-shell transition energy and on the assumption that the activation produces a clean signal; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math The M-shell X-ray energy of 71Ge is known from prior nuclear data and can be used as an absolute calibration reference.
    The measured position is compared against this known value to validate the detector scale.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1344 out tokens · 126898 ms · 2026-05-07T13:59:40.088533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lindner, T

    M. Lindner, T. Rink and M. Sen.Light vector bosons and the weak mixing angle in the light of future germanium- based reactor CEνNS experiments. JHEP,08:171, 2024. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)171. arXiv:2401.13025

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)171 2024

  2. [2]

    Centelles Chuli´ a, M

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, M. Lindner and T. Rink.Test- ing lepton non-unitarity with the next generation of (Germanium-based) CEνNS reactor experiments. 2025. arXiv:2512.09027

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al.Searches for CEνNS and Physics beyond the Standard Model using Skipper-CCDs at CONNIE. 2024. arXiv:2403.15976

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Mondal et al.CEνNS Search with Cryogenic Sapphire Detectors at MINER: Results from the TRIGA reactor data and Future Sensitivity at HFIR

    D. Mondal et al.CEνNS Search with Cryogenic Sapphire Detectors at MINER: Results from the TRIGA reactor data and Future Sensitivity at HFIR. 2025. arXiv:2510. 15999

    2025

  5. [5]

    Colaresi, J

    J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, T. W. Hossbach, C. M. Lewis and K. M. Yocum.Measurement of Coherent Elas- tic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering from Reactor Antineu- trinos. Phys. Rev. Lett.,129(21):211802, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.211802. arXiv:2202.09672

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.211802 2022

  6. [6]

    J. J. Choi et al.Exploring coherent elastic neutrino- nucleus scattering using reactor electron antineutrinos in the NEON experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C,83(3):226, 2023. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11352-x. arXiv:2204.06318

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11352-x 2023

  7. [7]

    Abele et al.Prospect of the NUCLEUS Experiment at Chooz for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and New Physics Searches

    H. Abele et al.Prospect of the NUCLEUS Experiment at Chooz for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and New Physics Searches. 2026. arXiv:2603.24450

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Effects of the formation time of parton shower on jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions.Chin

    V. Belov et al.New constraints on coherent elastic neu- trino–nucleus scattering by theνGeN experiment*. Chin. Phys. C,49(5):053004, 2025. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ adb9c8. arXiv:2502.18502

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ 2025

  9. [9]

    Ackermann et al.Final CONUS Results on Coher- ent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Brokdorf Reactor

    N. Ackermann et al.Final CONUS Results on Coher- ent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Brokdorf Reactor. Phys. Rev. Lett.,133(25):251802, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251802. arXiv:2401.07684

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.251802 2024

  10. [10]

    D. Y. Akimov et al.First constraints on the coherent elastic scattering of reactor antineutrinos off xenon nu- clei. Phys. Rev. D,111(7):072012, 2025. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.072012. arXiv:2411.18641

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Bailly-Salins.Status of the RICOCHET experiment at the ILL

    L. Bailly-Salins.Status of the RICOCHET experiment at the ILL. PoS,EPS-HEP2025:150, 2026. doi:10.22323/ 1.485.0150

    2026

  12. [12]

    L. Yang, Y. Liang and Q. Yue.RECODE program for reactor neutrino CEvNS detection with PPC Germanium detector. PoS,T AUP2023:296, 2024. doi:10.22323/1. 441.0296

    work page doi:10.22323/1 2024

  13. [13]

    Cai et al.Reactor neutrino liquid xenon coherent elas- tic scattering experiment

    C. Cai et al.Reactor neutrino liquid xenon coherent elas- tic scattering experiment. Phys. Rev. D,110(7):072011,

  14. [14]

    arXiv:2405

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.072011. arXiv:2405. 05554

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.072011

  15. [15]

    Karmakar et al.New Limits on Coherent Neu- trino Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor Neutrino Laboratory

    S. Karmakar et al.New Limits on Coherent Neu- trino Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor Neutrino Laboratory. 2024. arXiv: 2411.18812

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    D. Z. Freedman.Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current. Phys. Rev. D, 9:1389–1392, 1974. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1389

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.1389 1974

  17. [17]

    V. B. Kopeliovich and L. L. Frankfurt.Isotopic and chiral structure of neutral current. JETP Lett.,19:145–147, 1974

    1974

  18. [18]

    Akimov et al.Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

    D. Akimov et al.Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering. Science,357(6356):1123– 1126, 2017. doi:10.1126/science.aao0990. arXiv:1708. 01294

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aao0990 2017

  19. [19]

    Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C

    D. Akimov et al.First Measurement of Coherent Elas- tic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon. Phys. Rev. Lett.,126(1):012002, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 126.012002. arXiv:2003.10630

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2021

  20. [20]

    Adhikari et al.Measurement of coherent elastic neu- trino nucleus scattering on germanium by COHERENT

    M. Adhikari et al.Measurement of coherent elastic neu- trino nucleus scattering on germanium by COHERENT

  21. [21]

    Probing the Solar $^8$B Neutrino Fog with XENONnT

    E. Aprile et al.Probing the Solar 8B Neutrino Fog with XENONnT. 2026. arXiv:2604.06002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Bo, et al., First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino- Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Bo et al.First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T. Phys. Rev. Lett.,133(19):191001, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191001. arXiv:2407.10892

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.191001 2024

  23. [23]

    D. S. Akerib et al.Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scatter- ing of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Ex- periment. 2025. arXiv:2512.08065

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Ackermann et al.Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scatter- ing

    N. Ackermann et al.Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scatter- ing. Nature,643(8074):1229–1233, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09322-2. arXiv:2501.05206

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09322-2 2025

  25. [25]

    I. R. Barabanov et al.Cosmogenic activation of ger- manium and its reduction for low background experi- ments. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A,569(3):877–884, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.05.247

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.05.247 2006

  26. [27]

    Bonet et al.Full background decomposition of the CONUS experiment

    H. Bonet et al.Full background decomposition of the CONUS experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C,83(3):195, 2023. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11240-4. arXiv:2112.09585

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11240-4 2023

  27. [28]

    Accessed 2025

    Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel.Recommended Data: Table of Radionuclides.http://www.lnhb.fr/ nuclear-data/. Accessed 2025

    2025

  28. [30]

    Heusser.Low-radioactivity background techniques

    G. Heusser.Low-radioactivity background techniques. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.,45:543–590, 1995. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.45.120195.002551

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.45.120195.002551 1995

  29. [32]

    M. R. Anderson et al.Performance of a convolu- tional autoencoder designed to remove electronic noise from p-type point contact germanium detector signals. Eur. Phys. J. C,82(12):1084, 2022. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-11000-w. arXiv:2204.06655

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2022

  30. [33]

    E. A. Lorch.Neutron energy spectra from Am-Be and Pu-Be sources. International Journal of Applied Radi- ation and Isotopes,24(10):585–589, 1973. doi:10.1016/ 0020-708X(73)90016-3

    1973

  31. [34]

    A. D. Vijaya and A. Kumar.The neutron spectrum of Am-Be neutron sources. Nucl. Instrum. Methods, 111:435–440, 1973

    1973

  32. [35]

    Kluge and K

    H. Kluge and K. Weise.The neutron energy spectrum of a 241Am-Be(α,n) source and resulting mean fluence to dose equivalent conversion factors. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 2(2):85–93, 1982

    1982

  33. [36]

    doi:10.18139/ 12 nndc.ensdf/1845010

    National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC).Evaluated Nu- clear Structure Data File (ENSDF), 2022. doi:10.18139/ 12 nndc.ensdf/1845010. Data extracted from the NNDC On- Line Data Service

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [37]

    Accessed 2025

    National Nuclear Data Center.NuDat 3.0 Nuclear Structure and Decay Data.https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ nudat3/. Accessed 2025

    2025

  35. [38]

    Agnese et al.Production Rate Measurement of Tri- tium and Other Cosmogenic Isotopes in Germanium with CDMSlite

    R. Agnese et al.Production Rate Measurement of Tri- tium and Other Cosmogenic Isotopes in Germanium with CDMSlite. Astropart. Phys.,104:1–12, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2018.08.006. arXiv:1806.07043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2018.08.006 2019

  36. [39]

    Descovich et al.Effects of neutron damage on the performance of large volume segmented germanium de- tectors

    M. Descovich et al.Effects of neutron damage on the performance of large volume segmented germanium de- tectors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A,545(1):199–209, 2005. doi:10.1016/ j.nima.2005.01.308

    2005

  37. [40]

    T. W. Raudorf and R. H. Pehl.Effect of charge carrier trapping on germanium coaxial detector line shapes. Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A,255(3):538–551, 1987. doi:10.1016/0168-9002(87) 91225-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-9002(87 1987

  38. [41]

    R. H. Pehl et al.Radiation damage resistance of re- verse electrode Ge coaxial detectors. IEEE Transac- tions on Nuclear Science,26(1):321–323, 1979. doi: 10.1109/TNS.1979.4329652

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.1979.4329652 1979

  39. [42]

    S. F. Mughabghab. Atlas of Neutron Resonances: Reso- nance Parameters and Thermal Cross Sections. Elsevier, 5 edition, 2006

    2006

  40. [43]

    A. V. Derbin et al.New Precision Measurements of 71Ge Lifetime. Phys. At. Nucl.,88(1), 2025. doi: 10.1134/S1063778825700152

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063778825700152 2025

  41. [44]

    A. C. Thompson et al.X-Ray Data Booklet, Section 1, Table 1-1: Characteristic X-Ray Energies. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,https://xdb.lbl.gov/ Section1/Table_1-1.pdf, 2009. Accessed: April 2026

    2009

  42. [45]

    J. I. Collar and S. G. Yoon.Measurement of the 71Ge half-life. Phys. Rev. C,108:L021602, 2023. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.108.L021602

    2023

  43. [46]

    E. B. Norman et al.Precision measurement of the 71Ge half-life. Phys. Rev. C,109:055501, 2024. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.109.055501

    2024

  44. [47]

    J. N. Abdurashitov et al.Measurement of the solar neu- trino capture rate with gallium metal. III. Results for the 2002–2007 data-taking period. Phys. Rev. C,80:015807,

    2002

  45. [48]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.015807

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.80.015807

  46. [49]

    Kaether, W

    F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko and T. Kirsten.Reanalysis of the GALLEX solar neutrino flux and source experiments. Phys. Lett. B,685:47, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.030 2010

  47. [50]

    V. V. Barinov et al.Results from the Baksan Experi- ment on Sterile Transitions (BEST). Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:232501, 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.232501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.232501 2022

  48. [51]

    Lorentz covariance of the 4d nonlinear higher-spin equations via BRST

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes and Z. Xin.Constrain- ing light sterile neutrinos with the gallium anomaly. Phys. Lett. B,842:137983, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2023.137983

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb 2023

  49. [52]

    M. C. L´ epy et al.Experimental study of the response of germanium detectors to low-energy photons. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A,439(2):239–246, 2000. doi:10.1016/ S0168-9002(00)00210-8

    2000

  50. [53]

    Agnese et al.Search for Low-Mass Dark Matter with CDMSlite Using a Profile Likelihood Fit

    R. Agnese et al.Search for Low-Mass Dark Matter with CDMSlite Using a Profile Likelihood Fit. Phys. Rev. D, 99(6):062001, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.062001. arXiv:1808.09098

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.062001 2019

  51. [54]

    Croft and D

    S. Croft and D. S. Bond.A determination of the Fano factor for germanium at 77.4 K from measurements of the energy resolution of a 113 cm 3 HPGe gamma-ray spectrometer taken over the energy range from 14 to 6129 keV. Appl. Radiat. Isot., 1996

    1996

  52. [55]

    B. G. Lowe.Measurements of Fano factors in silicon and germanium in the low-energy X-ray region. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1997. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(97) 00965-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(97 1997

  53. [56]

    Papp et al.A new approach to the determination of the Fano factor for semiconductor detectors

    T. Papp et al.A new approach to the determination of the Fano factor for semiconductor detectors. X-Ray Spectrometry,34:106–111, 2005

    2005

  54. [57]

    Wiens et al.The 71Ge decay and its use for the calibration of germanium detectors

    A. Wiens et al.The 71Ge decay and its use for the calibration of germanium detectors. European Physical Journal A,49:1–10, 2013

    2013

  55. [58]

    Salath´ e

    M. Salath´ e. Precision Measurement of the Fano Factor in Germanium. Thesis, Universit¨ at Heidelberg, 2015

    2015

  56. [59]

    Agostini et al.Characterization of GERDA Phase II detectors

    M. Agostini et al.Characterization of GERDA Phase II detectors. European Physical Journal C,79(11):978,

  57. [60]

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7353-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7353-8