Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Background decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a complete decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 background: cosmic-ray muons and neutrons dominate below 1 keVee, and reactor-correlated backgrounds are one order of magnitude below the CEνNS signal in the search window.

desk verdict Solid background decomposition for CONUS+ run 1, worth refereeing despite an overbroad first-measurement claim and a load-bearing cosmic-neutron spectrum taken from a 2004 Yorktown measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12065 v1 pith:PAD5DWSI submitted 2026-08-12 physics.ins-det

N. Ackermann , H. Bonet , C. Buck , J. Hakenmüller , G. Heusser , M. Lindner , W. Maneschg , S. Mertens
show 8 more authors
K. Ni D. Piani M. Rank T. Rink E. Sánchez García I. Stalder H. Strecker J. Woenckhaus
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords coherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringreactorantineutrinosbackgrounddecompositioncosmic-rayneutronsmuon-inducedhigh-puritygermaniumdetectorslow-backgroundshieldingMonteCarlosimulation
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

The paper tries to establish a complete, component-by-component accounting of every background event seen by the three germanium detectors in the first physics run of a reactor neutrino experiment. Its central assertion is that the backgrounds tied to reactor operation—fast neutrons and noble-gas fission products—are subdominant everywhere, and in the search window below 350 eVee they sit one order of magnitude below the expected coherent-scattering signal (CEνNS). The dominant low-energy backgrounds are instead cosmic-ray muons, cosmic neutrons, and muon-induced neutrons, together about 75–90% of the rate below 1 keVee. If this is right, the reactor on/off difference is not reactor neutrons masquerading as neutrinos, and the likelihood fit that extracted the experiment's first reactor CEνNS signal uses a sound background model. The paper reports agreement between the model and the measured spectra across all energy ranges, including $(47.5 \pm 3.2)$ versus $(48.0 \pm 0.6)\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kg}^{-1}$ in the $[0.4, 1.0]$ keVee window.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Monte Carlo background model assembled source by source. Each candidate component—reactor neutrons started from a measured in-room spectrum, cosmic neutrons propagated from a measured surface spectrum through a model of the reactor building and its overburden, muons propagated from a literature flux through the shield, radon scaled to fitted gamma-line intensities, cosmogenic isotopes from screened material activities, and two detector-specific empirical residuals—is simulated, converted to electron-equivalent energy with the Lindhard quenching model, folded with detector dead-layer, transition-layer, and bulk efficiencies, broadened by the measured resolution, and summed into one predicted spectrum. The argument is carried by the model's blind construction: the sub-400 eVee region is never used to normalize any component, so agreement there, including the one-order-of-magnitude separation between reactor-correlated background and the CEνNS signal, is an extrapolated prediction rather than a fit.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the cosmic neutron flux and energy spectrum inside the experiment's room at KKL, for example with Bonner spheres or a fast-neutron spectrometer, would settle the question: the simulated in-room flux is $(0.9 \pm 0.2)\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}$, and the cosmic-neutron component contributes $(21.6 \pm 3.1)\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kg}^{-1}$ in the $[0.4, 1.0]$ keVee window. A measured flux outside those ranges, or a measured spectrum with a different fast-neutron peak, would falsify the dominant term and require rebuilding the model's normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is a full spectral decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 background that leaves no significant unexplained component below 300 keVee. Reactor neutrons contribute only $(0.2 \pm 0.1)\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kg}^{-1}$ between 0.4 and 1 keVee, about two orders of magnitude below cosmic neutrons and below 1% of the total rate in that window; inert gases add roughly 1–3% of the rate between 400 and 1000 eVee. Cosmic-ray muons, cosmic neutrons, and muon-induced neutrons from the overburden together provide about 75–90% of the rate below 1 keVee, with the direct muon component alone around 30–40% in the 400–1000 eVee band. The model was constructed with the CEνNS search window kept blind: all normalizations come from data above 400 eVee and from the reactor-off period, and the resulting prediction agrees with the measured spectra in every energy range for both reactor states.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cosmic neutron surface flux and spectrum at the experiment's location follow a 2004 measurement made at another site, scaled by altitude and latitude without changing the spectral shape, because no direct cosmic-neutron measurement at KKL exists; since cosmic neutrons are the dominant low-energy component, an incorrect input spectrum directly shifts the model's largest term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reactor on/off differences are explained by the drywell-lid overburden change, the lower radon level during outage, the disappearance of reactor neutrons, and transient inert-gas release—not by reactor neutrons mimicking neutrinos.
  • The background model is safe to use as the input to the likelihood fit that extracted the first reactor CEνNS signal, with reactor-correlated backgrounds below 350 eVee one order of magnitude below the expected signal.
  • A dedicated cosmic-neutron measurement at the experiment's location is the clear next step, because the cosmic-neutron component carries the largest uncertainty while being the dominant low-energy term.
  • Above tens of keVee, radon in the detector chamber and $^{210}$Pb in the inner lead layer dominate, accounting for up to roughly 65% of the count rate between 100 and 250 keVee in reactor-on data.
  • The predicted model rate in the $[0.4, 1.0]$ keVee window agrees with the measured rate within uncertainties, supporting the extrapolation of the model into the previously blinded search region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same practice of scaling a foreign surface neutron spectrum by altitude and latitude is used by other shallow-depth CEνNS projects; a direct measurement at KKL would therefore test not just this model but a widespread technique.
  • The identified low-energy veto inefficiency comes mostly from muons that miss both scintillator layers, so adding an inner veto layer or exploiting pulse-shape rejection of near-surface events could cut the largest low-energy background component further.
  • Once the cause of the high-energy efficiency loss is identified, the muon-simulation-based correction could be replaced by a physical correction, extending trustworthy model predictions above 300 keVee.
  • The success of the blinded construction suggests applying the same discipline—normalize above the ROI and on source-off data—to future low-threshold reactor experiments, including the larger detectors already planned for run 2.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a complete Monte Carlo based decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 background for the three germanium detectors used in the CEνNS analysis. Using the MaGe/Geant4 framework, the authors simulate reactor neutrons, inert gases, cosmic muons, cosmic neutrons, muon-induced neutrons in the overburden, radon, cosmogenic activation products, 210Pb, and two detector-specific empirical components. They report that cosmic muons and cosmic neutrons together dominate the sub-keV region, that reactor-correlated backgrounds are subdominant and about an order of magnitude below the expected CEνNS signal below 350 eVee, and that the final model reproduces the measured spectra with an average rate of (47.5 ± 3.2) d^-1 kg^-1 in the [0.4, 1.0] keVee reactor-on region versus (48.0 ± 0.6) d^-1 kg^-1 measured. The model is presented as the input to the likelihood fit used in the companion CEνNS analysis [1].

Significance. If the model is correct, this paper provides the background basis for the first observation of reactor CEνNS by CONUS+ and is a useful template for shallow-depth, low-threshold germanium experiments. The work has clear strengths: the muon component is anchored to a measured local muon flux and validated against no-veto data; the reactor-neutron input comes from a dedicated Bonner-sphere measurement; radon and cosmogenic components are normalized to observed gamma lines; and the sub-400 eVee region was kept blinded during model construction. The manuscript is also transparent about its main weakness, namely the absence of a local cosmic-neutron spectrum measurement. Because the cosmic-neutron component is the largest single term in the CEνNS ROI, and because the high-energy agreement of the model is not as good as the abstract suggests, the central claim needs additional systematic support before the model can be considered validated for the likelihood fit.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Table 8] The cosmic-neutron component, which is the largest single term in the [0.4,1] keVee ROI (50.3% for C5, 42.8% for C2, and 44.2% for C3 in reactor-on data), is normalized using the Gordon et al. (2004) surface spectrum from Yorktown Heights scaled in integral flux only, with no change to the spectral shape. Since the 7.3 m.w.e. overburden preferentially transmits the high-energy tail, the ROI recoil rate is controlled by exactly the part of the input spectrum that is most sensitive to altitude, latitude, and local overburden. The ~15% uncertainty quoted in Section 9.3 covers the integrated surface flux and concrete density but not the spectral shape. The authors should quantify a shape systematic by reweighting the cosmic-neutron spectrum within plausible variations (for example, changing the fast-neutron spectral index or comparing with an alternative surface spectrum model) and report the resulting change in the [0.4,1] keVee prediction and in the likelihood fit of [1]. Without this, the claim that the ROI model is safe for the CEνNS extraction is not fully supported.
  2. [Table 8 and Section 9.2] The abstract and Section 9.2 state that the model agrees with the data in all energy regions, with differences mostly within 1-2σ, but Table 8 contains several larger discrepancies. For example, the C5 reactor-off [100,250] keVee bin has model 283.7 ± 4.8 d^-1 kg^-1 versus data 242.6 ± 3.6 d^-1 kg^-1, a difference of about 6.9σ; the C3 reactor-on [100,250] keVee bin has model 658.9 ± 11.3 d^-1 kg^-1 versus data 606.6 ± 2.3 d^-1 kg^-1, about 4.5σ; and the C5 reactor-on [30,100] keVee bin has model 204.5 ± 4.6 d^-1 kg^-1 versus data 220.9 ± 1.4 d^-1 kg^-1, about 3.4σ. The text should qualify the all-energy agreement claim and discuss whether these high-energy deficits indicate normalization issues in components such as radon, 210Pb, or metastable germanium states that could affect the low-energy model through shared systematics.
  3. [Section 8.3 and Eq. (2)] The leakage-test background is an empirical term fitted to data in the same sub-keV region used to validate the model. For C2 it contributes 14.3% of the model below 0.4 keVee and 6.5% in [0.4,1] keVee; for C3 the contributions are 9.8% and 1.9% (Table 8). The agreement below 1 keVee for these two detectors is therefore not a fully independent check of the background model. The authors should state the fit range and data set used to determine θ1 and θ2, report the values with uncertainties, and provide a cross-check such as fitting the leakage parameters to reactor-off data alone or demonstrating that the [0.4,1] keVee model-data agreement is insensitive to the parameter values within their uncertainties.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Eq. (1)] The muon-veto efficiency below 15 keVee is described by a polynomial that is normalized at 15 keVee and applied to the dominant muon-induced component in the ROI. The polynomial is derived from the ratio of simulated untagged to tagged muon events, and the text does not give the fitted polynomial parameters, their uncertainties, or the covariance between them. Since the muon component contributes roughly 33-46% of the [thr,0.4] and [0.4,1] keVee model rates, the authors should either report the fit results and propagate their uncertainty, or show via a variation test that the ROI prediction is insensitive to the polynomial shape.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 9.2] The phrase 'Similar agreement is found in all energy regions' should be reworded to acknowledge the high-energy discrepancies listed in Major Comment 2, for example by stating that the agreement is best below 1 keVee and that some high-energy bins show larger deviations.
  2. [Section 5.1] The sentence containing Eq. (1) states that the fitted values are 'taken to be the inverse muon veto efficiency' and then writes epsilon = 1 - FV_norm; the terminology is confusing because epsilon is the efficiency, not the inverse efficiency, and the normalized polynomial FV_norm is not defined explicitly.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Figure 12] The text refers to spectra drawn in black, blue, red, and green, but the figure caption does not define the colors; a legend entry matching the colors to the surface spectrum, the room total, cosmogenic neutrons, and muon-induced neutrons should be added.
  4. [Section 8.3] Equation (2) would be easier to use for reproducibility if the fitted numerical values of θ1 and θ2 for C2 and C3 were reported, together with the energy range over which the fit was performed.
  5. [Section 4.1] Figure 3 compares the reactor-neutron simulation to 'C5 run 1 data' without specifying whether the shown data are from the reactor-on or reactor-off period; the text implies reactor-on, but the caption should state this explicitly.
  6. [Section 7] The sentence 'The line was recently measured for the first by the CONUS+ experiment' should read 'for the first time', and the reference [33] appears to lack venue information.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Secondary model-data 'prediction' is partly a post-fit residual; the central background decomposition retains independent external anchors.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 8.3, Eq. (2); applied in Section 9.2 / Table 8; Abstract]
    "The same empirical parametrization as in [21] is therefore retained here, bLeak(E) = θ1 e−θ2 E, with detector-dependent normalisation and slope parameters. ... it is still required for C2 and C3 in order to reproduce the data below 1 keVee."

    The two free parameters of bLeak are adjusted to the residual C2/C3 spectra below 1 keVee, which includes the [0.4,1.0] keVee interval for which the Abstract reports 'excellent agreement' as a model prediction (47.5±3.2 vs 48.0±0.6 d−1 kg−1). A component whose normalisation and slope are fit to data in that same interval cannot independently confirm the model in that interval; for C2 and C3 the agreement is partly enforced by the fit rather than predicted. The paper's central claim that reactor-correlated backgrounds are subdominant does not rely on this component.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 8.2; Table 8 (C2, C3)]
    "After including all identified components, an excess remained in the C2 and C3 spectra in both reactor on and reactor off data. ... A satisfactory description is obtained with a small 60Co activity in copper parts near the passivation-side region of the detectors. ... An activity of order 5 µBq is sufficient to reproduce both the shape and the absolute rate of the missing component."

    The 60Co activity of order 5 µBq is not independently measured or constrained by screening; it is chosen so that the simulation reproduces the residual C2/C3 spectrum, including the sub-keV / ROI region. This tuned component then appears in the final decomposition (e.g. about 8.7% of the C2 [0.4,1] keVee reactor-on rate) and contributes to the reported model-data agreement. Part of the claimed agreement for two of the three detectors is therefore a post-fit description of the missing component, not an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The central decomposition has substantial independent anchoring: cosmic neutron input comes from an external Gordon et al. 2004 surface measurement scaled to KKL, the muon flux comes from literature models and is checked against no-veto data, reactor neutrons use the measured room spectrum from [7], and the reactor-on ROI below 400 eVee is kept blinded for normalization. The main claim that reactor-correlated backgrounds are subdominant, and specifically one order of magnitude below the expected CEνNS signal below 350 eVee, does not reduce to a fit or to a self-citation chain. However, the Abstract's headline 'prediction' of the [0.4,1.0] keVee rate is partially circular for C2 and C3: two detector-specific residual components (the empirical leakage exponential and the tuned 5 µBq 60Co contamination) are adjusted to reproduce the data below 1 keVee and are then included in the same agreement. The cosmic-neutron surface spectrum from Yorktown Heights, scaled without shape change and without a local KKL measurement, is a large external assumption but is not circularity; it is a correctness risk explicitly acknowledged by the authors. The muon-veto inefficiency is derived from MC rather than from the fitted ROI, and the external anchors keep the paper well short of definitional circularity. Overall: partial circularity in a secondary validation claim, while the primary background-decomposition result remains largely self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds four fitted or data-normalized terms: the empirical leakage background in C2/C3, a muon-veto inefficiency polynomial, a guessed 60Co contamination, and per-detector radon scaling. These are small to moderate in the ROI except leakage, about 2 to 6 percent, but they mean the prediction in [0.4,1] keVee is partly a fit. The dominant cosmic muon and neutron components are normalized externally, which is the independent backbone of the model.

free parameters (4)
  • Leakage test background parameters theta1, theta2 = Not stated
    Detector-dependent exponential normalization and slope for the empirical C2/C3 component below 1 keVee (Eq. 2), fitted to reproduce the same data region used for the model agreement claim.
  • Muon veto inefficiency polynomial coefficients = Not stated
    Polynomial fit to MC ratio of untagged to tagged muon events below 15 keVee, normalized to 0.01 at 15 keVee (Eq. 1); sets the low-energy muon background shape.
  • 60Co activity in C2/C3 cryostat = ~5 micro-Bq
    Chosen to reproduce the shape and absolute rate of the residual smooth excess in C2 and C3; detector-specific ad hoc contamination.
  • Radon activity scale per detector = Detector-dependent
    MC radon spectra scaled to match measured 214Pb line count rates (Table 5); a normalization to data rather than a prediction.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Lindhard model describes nuclear recoil quenching in germanium at sub-keV to keV energies.
    Applied to all hadron energy depositions in post-processing (Section 3); verified in prior CONUS work but assumed here.
  • domain assumption The Yorktown Heights cosmic neutron spectrum [29] is representative of the surface spectrum at KKL after altitude and latitude scaling.
    Used as the boundary input for the cosmic neutron propagation simulation (Section 5.2); no KKL measurement exists.
  • domain assumption Muon flux models from Reyna and Bugaev [24,25] give the flux and angular distribution at 7.3 m w.e.
    Determines the normalization of all muon-induced backgrounds (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption The Bonner-sphere reactor neutron spectrum from [7] is a complete and faithful input up to 20 MeV.
    Used as the source term for reactor neutron simulations (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Secular equilibrium between 214Pb and 214Bi in the detector chamber.
    Radon component simulation scales the full chain to the 214Pb peak rates (Section 6).
  • domain assumption Geant4 physics lists (Livermore EM, NeutronHP, QGSP-BERT-HP) are accurate for this energy regime.
    Governing all MC energy depositions; validated in prior experiments, assumed for CONUS+ geometry.
  • domain assumption Normalizing components on reactor-on data above 400 eVee and on reactor-off data yields unbiased extrapolation below 400 eVee.
    The blindness convention of Section 3; the reliability of the ROI model rests on this transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Background decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAD5DWSI

@misc{pith2026260812065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Background decomposition of the CONUS+ run 1 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAD5DWSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12065}
}
abstract

The CONUS+ experiment is measuring the coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering (CE$\nu$NS) process using reactor anti-neutrinos as a source and four low energy threshold point-contact high-purity germanium spectrometers for their detection. It achieved the first measurement of coherent neutrino scattering at a nuclear reactor in run 1 of the experiment with a detection energy threshold of 160 eV$_{ee}$. This work presents the decomposition of the background spectra of the three detectors used in the run 1 analysis and the development of the corresponding background model with Geant4-based Monte Carlo simulations. The background model is used as the underlying input for the likelihood fit of the analysis. It is shown that reactor-correlated backgrounds are subdominant in all energy regions, specifically in the region of interest for CE$\nu$NS searches below 350 eV$_{ee}$ where their contribution is one order of magnitude below the expected CE$\nu$NS signal. Furthermore, cosmic ray muons and neutrons are identified as the dominant background source below 1 keV$_{ee}$ contributing approximately 75 - 90 \% of the recorded background rate. The final background model predicts an average rate of (47.5 $\pm$ 3.2) d$^{-1}$ kg$^{-1}$ in reactor on measurement in the energy region between [0.4, 1.0] keV$_{ee}$, which is in excellent agreement with the average measured value of (48.0 $\pm$ 0.6) d$^{-1}$ kg$^{-1}$. Similar agreement is found in all energy regions of both reactor on and off measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Measured neutron energy distribution ϕon(En) resulting from the analysis of the reactor on data nor￾malized to the energy emitted by the reactor, as pub￾lished in [7]. for the experiment, as detailed in Section 5.2. Due to constraints detailed in [7], no reliable cosmic neutron spectrum could be extracted from the measurement. The corresponding simulations in 5.2 will instead be based on simulations of the propagati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation result of the reactor neutrons com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of the total simulated muon back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of C5 run 1 data with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated spectrum of muon-induced back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Muon simulation result with the applied muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: High E data measured in the C5 detector with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Neutron flux in the CONUS+ room originat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Neutron simulation result compared to the data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: MC simulation result of metastable germanium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: MC simulation results of 68/71Ge, 68Ga, and 65Zn for the C3 detector. 10) d of cosmic ray exposure is assumed in the follow￾ing. The corresponding MC simulation results for 57Co, 60Co, 54Mn, 55Fe, and 3He in the germanium crystals are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: MC simulation result for radon in the detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Background contributions from cosmogenically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: MC simulation result for 210Pb in the innermost shield layer and comparison to the spectrum of the C5 detector in reactor on measurement in run 1. 8.2 Additional cryostat contamination in C2 and C3 After including all identified components, an excess re￾mained in the …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: MC simulation result of a 5 µBq 60Co con￾tamination in close proximity to the germanium crystal of C2. The spectrum matches the missing background component in the C2 and C3 background model. 8.3 Leakage test background A second residual component at low energies is p…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Full background model for the C5 detector in reactor on measurement in both low and high energy channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Full background model for the C5 detector in reactor off measurement in both low and high energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Full background model for the C2 detector in reactor on measurement in both low and high energy channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Full background model for the C3 detector in reactor on measurement in both low and high energy channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ackermann et al.First observation of reactor antineu- trinos by coherent scattering, 2025

    N. Ackermann et al.First observation of reactor antineu- trinos by coherent scattering, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Colaresi et al.First results from the Dresden-II reactor neutrino experiment

    J. Colaresi et al.First results from the Dresden-II reactor neutrino experiment. Physical Review D,104:072003,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Colaresi et al.First Detection of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Dresden-II Reactor

    J. Colaresi et al.First Detection of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Dresden-II Reactor. Physical Review Letters,129:211802, 2022. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.129.211802. arXiv:2207.03061

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Order-Degree-Height Surfaces for Linear Operators

    A. Lubashevskiy et al.Constraints on coherent elas- tic neutrino-nucleus scattering at the Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant. Physical Review D,106:L051101, 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L051101. arXiv:2205.06030

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    M. K. Singh and T. Collaboration.Status and recent results of the TEXONO experiment. Talk at TAUP 2023 (Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics), 2023. Available at https://indico.cern.ch/event/1199289/

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [9]

    Ackermann et al.The CONUS+ Experiment

    N. Ackermann et al.The CONUS+ Experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C,84(12):1265, 2024. doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-024-13551-6. arXiv:2407.11912, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 19 (2025)]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [10]

    Heusser et al.GIOVE: a new detector setup for high sensitivity germanium spectroscopy at shallow depth

    G. Heusser et al.GIOVE: a new detector setup for high sensitivity germanium spectroscopy at shallow depth. The European Physical Journal C,75(11):531, 2015. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3704-2, zugriff am 24. Mai 2025

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3704-2 2015

  8. [11]

    Chan et al.MaGe - a Geant4-based Monte Carlo framework for low-background experiments, 2008

    Y.-D. Chan et al.MaGe - a Geant4-based Monte Carlo framework for low-background experiments, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [12]

    C. E. Aalseth et al.The Majorana neutrinoless double- beta decay experiment. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 67:2002–2010, 2004. doi:10.1134/1.1833777, [Majorana Collaboration]

    2002 doi

  2. [13]

    Sch¨ onert et al.The GERmanium Detector Array (GERDA) for the search of neutrinolessββdecays of 76Ge at LNGS

    S. Sch¨ onert et al.The GERmanium Detector Array (GERDA) for the search of neutrinolessββdecays of 76Ge at LNGS. Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements,145:242–245, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps. 2005.04.068, [GERDA Collaboration]

    2005 doi

  3. [14]

    Agostini et al.Modeling of the liquid argon veto sys- tem in GERDA Phase II

    M. Agostini et al.Modeling of the liquid argon veto sys- tem in GERDA Phase II. European Physical Journal C,83:307, 2023. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11451-3. arXiv:2212.04678

    2023 arXiv

  4. [15]

    S. I. Alvis et al.A Search for Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay in 76Ge with the Majorana Demonstrator. Physi- cal Review C,100:025501, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 100.025501. arXiv:1902.02299

    2019 arXiv

  5. [16]

    Abgrall et al.The large enriched germanium experi- ment for neutrinoless double beta decay (LEGEND)

    N. Abgrall et al.The large enriched germanium experi- ment for neutrinoless double beta decay (LEGEND). In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1892, page 020027. Author(s), 2017. ISSN 0094-243X. doi:10.1063/1. 5007652. 21

    2017 doi

  6. [17]

    Laubenstein et al.Monte Carlo simulation of back- ground components in low-level germanium gamma spec- trometry

    M. Laubenstein et al.Monte Carlo simulation of back- ground components in low-level germanium gamma spec- trometry. Applied Radiation and Isotopes,194:110661,

  7. [18]

    Heikkinen, N

    A. Heikkinen, N. Stepanov and J. P. Wellisch.Bertini intra-nuclear cascade implementation in Geant4. In Pro- ceedings of the Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics Conference (CHEP 2003). La Jolla, California, USA, 2003

    2003

  8. [19]

    Lindhard, M

    J. Lindhard, M. Scharff and H. Schiøtt. Range concepts and heavy ion ranges. Matematisk-fysiske meddelelser. Munksgaard, 1963

    1963

  9. [20]

    Bonhomme, C

    A. Bonhomme, C. Buck, B. Gramlich and M. Raab.Safe liquid scintillators for large scale detectors. Journal of Instrumentation,17(11):P11025, 2022. ISSN 1748-0221. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/11/p11025

    2022 doi

  10. [21]

    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. Physical Review Letters,133(25), 2024. ISSN 1079-7114. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.251802

    2024 doi

  11. [22]

    D. A. Brown et al.ENDF/B-VIII.0: The 8th Major Re- lease of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library. Nuclear Data Sheets,148:1–142, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001

    2018 doi

  12. [23]

    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

    1995

  13. [24]

    Reyna.A Simple Parameterization of the Cosmic-Ray Muon Momentum Spectra at the Surface as a Function of Zenith Angle, 2006

    D. Reyna.A Simple Parameterization of the Cosmic-Ray Muon Momentum Spectra at the Surface as a Function of Zenith Angle, 2006

    2006

  14. [25]

    E. V. Bugaev et al.Atmospheric muon flux at sea level, underground, and underwater. Physical Review D,58(5),

  15. [26]

    Collaboration.Measurement of the charge ratio of at- mospheric muons with the CMS detector

    C. Collaboration.Measurement of the charge ratio of at- mospheric muons with the CMS detector. Physics Letters B,692:83–104, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.07.033. arXiv:1005.5332

    2010 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Strauss et al.Theν-cleus experiment: A gram-scale fiducial-volume cryogenic detector for the first detection of coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering

    R. Strauss et al.Theν-cleus experiment: A gram-scale fiducial-volume cryogenic detector for the first detection of coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering. Eur. Phys. J. C,77:506, 2017. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5068-2. arXiv:1704.04320

    2017 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Augier et al.Fast neutron background characteriza- tion of the future Ricochet experiment at the ILL re- search nuclear reactor

    C. Augier et al.Fast neutron background characteriza- tion of the future Ricochet experiment at the ILL re- search nuclear reactor. The European Physical Jour- nal C,83(1), 2023. ISSN 1434-6052. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-11150-x

    2023 doi

  18. [29]

    Gordon et al.Measurement of the flux and energy spectrum of cosmic-ray induced neutrons on the ground

    M. Gordon et al.Measurement of the flux and energy spectrum of cosmic-ray induced neutrons on the ground. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,51(6):3427–3434,

  19. [30]

    N. A. Ackermann. Coherent elastic antineutrino-nucleus scattering with CONUS+: precision background model- ing and signal extraction. Dissertation, Heidelberg Uni- versity, Heidelberg, 2025. doi:10.11588/heidok.00037498

    2025 doi

  20. [31]

    https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/indx_dec.jsp,

    National Nuclear Data Center.NuDat 3 Database. https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/indx_dec.jsp,

  21. [32]

    Based on the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF)

    National Nuclear Data Center.NuDat 3.0 Nuclear Structure and Decay Data.https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ nudat/, 2020. Based on the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF)

    2020

  22. [33]

    Sanchez Garcia, S

    E. Sanchez Garcia, S. Y et al.Sub-keV energy calibration of CONUS+ via 71Ge M-shell neutron activation, 2026

    2026

  23. [34]

    Bonet et al.Pulse shape discrimination for the CONUS experiment in the keV and sub-keV regime

    H. Bonet et al.Pulse shape discrimination for the CONUS experiment in the keV and sub-keV regime. The European Physical Journal C,84(2), 2024. ISSN 1434-

    2024

  24. [1998]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.054001

    ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.054001

    doi

  25. [2004]

    doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.839134

    2004

  26. [2021]

    arXiv:2106

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.072003. arXiv:2106. 08257

    doi

  27. [2023]

    doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2023.110661

    2023

  28. [2025]

    Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2025

  29. [6052]

    22 (a) (b) Fig

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12470-w. 22 (a) (b) Fig. 21: Full background model for the C5 detector in reactor on measurement in both low and high energy channels compared to the respective data. 23 (a) (b) Fig. 22: Full background model for the C5 detector in reactor off measu...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.