Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 93 references

$2\nu\beta\beta$ Spectrum in Chiral Effective Field Theory

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The electron spectrum of two-neutrino double beta decay carries per-mille-level chiral corrections that precision searches for new physics must include.

desk verdict A technically solid chiral-EFT derivation whose weak-magnetism prediction is robust, while the pion-exchange numbers are an honest but uncontrolled estimate until short-range LECs are determined. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14160 v1 pith:LICGITKG submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Saad el Morabit , Ryan Bouabid , Vincenzo Cirigliano , Jordy de Vries , Lukáš Gráf , Emanuele Mereghetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords two-neutrinodoublebetadecaychiraleffectivefieldtheoryweakmagnetismpion-exchangecurrentspotentialnuclearmatrixelementsneutrinolesselectronspectrum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the electron energy spectrum of two-neutrino double beta decay, the slowest nuclear process ever measured, carries small but systematic corrections that any precision analysis must include. Working in chiral effective field theory, the authors identify the next-to-leading-order contributions: weak magnetism from the nucleon current, and double-weak pion exchange between nucleons together with the short-range contact terms that renormalize it. These corrections distort the normalized spectrum at the per-mille level, comparable to the distortions expected from sterile neutrinos, right-handed currents, or tensor interactions, so omitting them can bias or fake beyond-Standard-Model signals. The pion-exchange part is governed by nuclear matrix elements of the same two-body operators that appear in neutrinoless double beta decay, opening a possible path to constrain those matrix elements from ordinary 2νββ spectra once two unknown short-range couplings are determined.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-neutrino potential $\mathcal{V}_{2\nu}(q)$, built from double-weak pion-exchange diagrams plus a short-range contact potential regulated by two unknown low-energy constants $g^{NN}_{2\nu,F}$ and $g^{NN}_{2\nu,GT}$. This potential generates the pionic spectral corrections through Fermi and Gamow-Teller nuclear matrix elements at pion-mass momentum transfers, the same operator structure that appears in 0νββ. The argument is carried also by the lepton-energy expansion, which factorizes lepton phase space from nuclear ratios $\xi_{31}$ and $\xi_{51}$; the weak-magnetism correction enters through an energy-dependent amplitude that requires no new nuclear matrix elements. The paper's master result is the decay-rate kernel $C_{2\nu}$ of Eq. (23), which combines the leading double Gamow-Teller transition with weak magnetism and the pion-exchange/contact corrections.

What would settle it

Compute the two short-range couplings on the lattice (the Gamow-Teller one is related to an isotensor axial polarizability already studied in lattice QCD): if either is far from order one, the predicted pionic distortion changes size or sign. Separately, a normalized 136Xe spectrum measured to about 0.1% precision should show the predicted pattern—mid-spectrum enhancement, attenuations near two-fifths and four-fifths of the energy range—after weak magnetism and the lepton-energy expansion are subtracted; its absence would rule out the claimed pionic correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using chiral effective field theory, the paper derives the 2νββ decay amplitude and differential rate through next-to-leading order and isolates three new ingredients: subleading one-nucleon currents (weak magnetism), a two-nucleon two-neutrino potential from pion exchange, and short-range double-weak contact operators. It shows that weak magnetism shifts the spectral peak to higher energies by a few per-mille and is theoretically well controlled, while the pion-exchange terms produce a spectral modulation that is small for 76Ge and at the few per-mille level for 136Xe. The pion-exchange and contact contributions enter through nuclear matrix elements evaluated at momentum transfers of order the pion mass, which are related by stable ratios to the matrix elements of 0νββ mediated by light Majorana neutrino exchange; the paper therefore asks whether detailed 2νββ spectra can constrain 0νββ matrix elements. It concludes that the short-range low-energy constants are needed first, and that with present nuclear uncertainties the pionic terms are difficult to isolate, whereas weak magnetism is distinguishable, especially at spectral nodes where lepton-energy-expansion uncertainties vanish.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative size of the pion-exchange spectral distortion assumes that two unknown constants, which describe how two nucleons emit electrons and neutrinos at short distances, are naturally of order one; the paper leaves them out of its numerical estimates and states they could change the overall size of the effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 0.1%-precision measurement of the 2νββ spectrum can constrain leptonic right-handed charged currents more tightly than current global fits, but only if the chiral corrections are included in the fit.
  • Weak magnetism mimics a tensor interaction with $|\epsilon_T| \sim 0.0014$; a fit that omits weak magnetism will misinterpret such a signal or cancel it.
  • The pion-exchange part of the spectrum shares its nuclear matrix elements with 0νββ, so 2νββ spectra could become an indirect handle on 0νββ matrix elements once the unknown short-range couplings are known.
  • Sterile-neutrino distortions and chiral distortions pull the spectral peak in opposite directions, so searches for sterile neutrinos in 2νββ data must subtract the chiral corrections to set reliable limits.
  • Total decay rates receive corrections of about 3% for 76Ge and 10% for 136Xe, though these are hidden by nuclear uncertainties in the absolute rate; the normalized shape is where the corrections become observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own analysis, the node structure of Eq. (40) suggests an experimental strategy: measuring the spectrum near those energies, where nuclear-structure uncertainties vanish, gives the cleanest window for isolating weak magnetism and any beyond-Standard-Model distortion.
  • If lattice QCD provides the unknown short-range couplings, the operator-level connection found here implies that 2νββ spectral fits could yield a data-driven, model-independent extraction of 0νββ Gamow-Teller matrix elements; the paper stops short of asserting this is achievable, but its operator-level mapping points in that direction.
  • The near-degeneracy between the tensor-coupling and weak-magnetism spectral shapes implies that a combined analysis across several isotopes with different Q-values could break the degeneracy, since the relative weight of the two contributions varies with isotope; the paper does not perform this multi-isotope fit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a chiral effective field theory description of two-neutrino double beta decay (2νββ), focusing on the electron energy spectrum. It derives next-to-leading-order corrections from weak magnetism and from double-weak pion-exchange diagrams, together with the associated short-range counterterms. Using the lepton-energy expansion of Šimkovic et al. and nuclear matrix elements from QRPA and shell-model calculations for 76Ge and 136Xe, it computes the impact of these corrections on the normalized spectrum and on total rates. It compares the chiral distortions with those from sterile neutrinos and non-standard charged-current interactions, and argues that the pion-exchange contributions involve matrix elements related to 0νββ, potentially allowing 0νββ NMEs to be constrained by precision 2νββ spectral measurements.

Significance. If the central claims hold, precision 2νββ spectral analyses will need to incorporate the weak-magnetism correction, which is a genuine parameter-free prediction at the per-mille level and is robust within the paper's framework. The explicit propagation of nuclear-structure uncertainties in the lepton-energy expansion and the validation of that expansion for the shell model are strengths. The pion-exchange part and the proposed link to 0νββ NMEs are interesting and potentially important, but they are currently conditional on unknown short-range low-energy constants and on the poorly known NME ratios ξ31 and ξ51; as presented, they do not yet constitute a controlled numerical prediction of the spectral distortion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (14)-(15), Table 1] The numerical pion-exchange results are not controlled by the naturalness assumption in Eq. (11). For 76Ge QRPA, the long-range Fermi matrix element in Eq. (14) is M_F(mπ) ≈ -1.16, while the contact term is (mπ^2/Fπ^2) gNN_2ν,F M_F,sd ≈ 2.3 × (-3.46) gNN_2ν,F ≈ -7.9 gNN_2ν,F; hence gNN_2ν,F = +1 changes ϵF by roughly a factor 8 and gNN_2ν,F = -1 reverses its sign. In Eq. (15), the long-range GT combination M_GT^AA - 2 M_GT^AP + 4 M_GT^PP ≈ 8.5 is confronted by a contact contribution ≈ -14.6 gNN_2ν,GT. Consequently the pionic spectral distortions in Figs. 4-7 and the lifetime shifts in Table 2 carry an unquantified, potentially dominant error. The manuscript acknowledges this in Section 2 (after Table 1) and in the Fig. 4 discussion, but the abstract and Section 6 present the pion-exchange corrections as a quantitative result. The revision should either provide estimates of the short-range LECs or explicitly restrict the quantitative 'should be included' claim to the weak-magnetism contribution.
  2. [Section 6 and abstract] The claim that 0νββ NMEs can be isolated from 2νββ spectra is conditional on the same unknown short-range LECs and on the nuclear-structure ratios ξ31 and ξ51. The paper states that with current LECs this program cannot be carried out, yet the concluding bullet '0νββ NMEs can, in principle, be isolated in 2νββ measurements' goes beyond what is demonstrated. For 136Xe, the QRPA and NSM values of ξ31 differ by roughly a factor of 2 (Table 1 and Eqs. (38)-(39)), and Figs. 6-7 show the pionic component is washed out by this uncertainty. Please soften this conclusion to reflect the gating, or specify the LEC and ξ precision required to make the extraction viable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (24)] The known limitations of the Fermi-function treatment (finite nuclear size, electron screening, radiative corrections) are acknowledged, but their ~0.1% effect on the normalized spectrum is not included in the uncertainty bands of Figs. 8-10; a brief statement that these corrections constitute a common systematic for all curves would make the comparison fairer.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (39)] The NSM uncertainty estimate is based on multiplying individual matrix elements by random factors and imposing the half-life range of Eq. (36); please clarify whether this procedure is meant to cover systematic method spread, since for 136Xe it gives ξ31 ≈ 0.16, a factor of 2 below the QRPA value ξ31 ≈ 0.32.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 4] The lifetime shifts labeled T_π^(2) and T_χ^(2) include only the long-range pion piece; the table caption should state explicitly that the short-range LEC contribution is omitted, so these entries are not complete chiral predictions.
  4. [Throughout] There are several minor typographical issues, including 'T able 1' in the Table 1 caption and 'incomplete estimate the size' in Section 2 after Eq. (20); these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the weak-magnetism prediction is parameter-free and the pionic prediction uses independent nuclear-structure inputs with its short-range-LEC caveat stated explicitly.

full rationale

We find no circular reduction in the paper's derivation chain. The NLO decay kernel in Eq. (23) is built from two ingredients: weak magnetism, whose coupling gM = 4.7 is an external nucleon property and enters with no parameter fitted to 2νββ spectra, and two-nucleon pion-range potentials computed from the standard LO χEFT Lagrangian (Eq. (9)) with matrix elements taken from independent QRPA and shell-model calculations (Table 1). The shell-model values are partly drawn from the authors' own Ref. [64], but they are cross-checked against the independent QRPA calculation of Ref. [11], and the quoted NME ratios are not adjusted to reproduce the 2νββ spectral shape. Because the paper analyzes the normalized shape factor S(ϵ), the total-rate normalization cancels, so the QRPA/shell-model tuning of gA and pairing to the total 2νββ rate does not force the spectral prediction. The claimed connection between 2νββ pion-exchange NMEs and 0νββ NMEs is a derived operator relation (Eqs. (14)-(16)), not a definition of one quantity in terms of the other, and the proposed extraction of 0νββ NMEs is explicitly gated on the unknown short-range LECs and on future lattice-QCD input. The paper openly flags the incompleteness of its pionic estimate, stating that 'since we do not control the LECs gNN_2ν,F and gNN_2ν,GT we will not include them in our numerical analysis and we can only provide an incomplete estimate' and that 'the short-distance contributions are not included and could change the overall size of the effect.' That is a limitation on accuracy and a source of uncertainty, but it is not a circular step: the quantitative claim is presented as conditional, not as a disguised input. Self-citations (Refs. [33,52,53,56,64,69,77]) supply framework, NME computations, and EFT context, but none of them injects the central spectral result as an unexamined assumption. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the paper's derivation is self-contained with respect to the patterns considered here.

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

The central numerical predictions rest on chiral power counting, on NME ratios from independent many-body calculations, and on the naturalness of two unknown short-range LECs. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the contact operators in Eq. (10) are standard EFT counterterms required by renormalization.

free parameters (3)
  • gNN_2ν,F and gNN_2ν,GT (short-range double-weak LECs) = unknown; assumed O(1)
    Short-range LECs required to renormalize pion-exchange diagrams; values are unknown and not included in the numerical analysis, so the pionic spectral corrections are incomplete (Eqs. (10)-(15), Section 4).
  • ξ31 and ξ51 (nuclear matrix element ratios) = e.g., 76Ge QRPA: 0.11 ± 0.01, 0.021 ± 0.004; 136Xe NSM: 0.16 ± 0.04, 0.042 ± 0.012
    Taken from QRPA (Ref. [11]) and shell-model (Ref. [64]) calculations; not fitted to the 2νββ spectrum in this paper, but central to the shape-factor predictions and a large source of uncertainty.
  • Quenching factors q(76Ge), q(136Xe) = 0.60, 0.45 (ranges in Refs. [71,74])
    Used to rescale bare shell-model Gamow-Teller matrix elements; chosen from prior literature, not fit here; affects half-life validation and the NME ratio inputs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT power counting organizes 2νββ corrections with expansion parameters ϵχ=kF/Λχ and ϵπ=Q/kF.
    Section 2, Eq. (6). The entire NLO ordering of weak magnetism and pion-exchange contributions rests on this scale separation; if the hierarchy fails, the classification of corrections changes.
  • domain assumption The lepton energy expansion of Ref. [11] converges for the isotopes studied.
    Section 3.1, Eq. (25). Verified numerically for 76Ge and 136Xe up to n=3, but the paper truncates at n=2 and assumes similar behavior for other isotopes shown in Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption Tensor two-nucleon operators are negligible in the two-neutrino potential.
    Section 2 after Eq. (13); justified by citing Refs. [57-59] that find small tensor matrix elements. If this fails, additional spectral distortions appear at the same order.
  • domain assumption The unknown short-range LECs are naturally O(1).
    Eq. (11) sets gNN_2ν,F ~ gNN_2ν,GT = O(1); this naturalness assumption underlies the estimate that pionic corrections are a few per-mille and is explicitly not tested.
  • domain assumption The point-charge Fermi function with R=1.2 A^(1/3) fm describes the normalized spectrum to about 0.1%.
    Section 2, Eq. (24); finite-size and screening effects change the phase space by about 10% but the normalized spectrum by about 0.1%, comparable to the chiral corrections. The authors flag missing radiative corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $2\nu\beta\beta$ Spectrum in Chiral Effective Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LICGITKG

@misc{pith2026241214160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $2\nu\beta\beta$ Spectrum in Chiral Effective Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LICGITKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14160}
}
abstract

We investigate two-neutrino double beta decay ($2\nu\beta\beta$) in chiral effective field theory. We find contributions from weak magnetism and double-weak pion-exchange at next-to-leading-order in the chiral power counting. We discuss the impact of the chiral corrections on the electron spectra and find that they should be included in analyses of $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay that aim to uncover new physics signatures in the electron spectrum. We illustrate this point by revisiting the effect of sterile neutrinos and non-standard charged interactions. We also find that the pion-exchange contributions involve nuclear matrix elements that are related to those appearing in neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu \beta \beta$). We investigate whether the $0\nu \beta \beta$ nuclear matrix elements can be obtained from detailed measurements of the energy spectrum of the outgoing electrons in $2\nu\beta\beta$ transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrams contributing to 2νββ. Gray ellipses denote the initial- and final-state nuclear wave functions, whereas the blue ellipse denotes strong interactions among intermediate nucleons that generate nuclear excited states. The LO diagram (a) describes two nucleons (double lines) undergoing β-decay into an electron (red lines) and anti-neutrinos (single black lines) through LO weak vertices (black dots). Diagram (b)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence of the expansion for Ge (left) and Xe (right). We show the ratio of the expanded to the unexpanded shape factor, S (n) 0 /Stot 0 , for order 0 (black), 1 (green), 2 (red), and 3 (gray). S tot0 denotes the shape factor without expanding in lepton energies. Ref. [64] presented nuclear shell-model calculations of the matrix elements for the transitions from the 0 + ground states of 76Ge and 76Se into 1 + st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effects of theoretical uncertainties on ξ31 and ξ51 on δS(2) for 76Ge (left) and 136Xe (right) in comparison with the effects of the correction induced by the weak magnetism term (red). We show results for both NSM (darker, dashed curves) and QRPA (lighter, solid curves). corresponding to 10%-20% nuclear uncertainty on the ratios. This is only the uncertainty within a given nuclear many-body method. We would like to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distortion in the spectral shape due to weak magnetism term (upper panel) and pion cor￾rections (lower panel) for Germanium (left) and Xenon (right) with the ξ31 and ξ51 parameters varied within the ranges given in Eqs. (39) (NSM, depicted in blue) and in Eqs. (38) (QR…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The weak-magnetic (left) and pionic (right) corrections to the normalized spectral shape for various isotopes. uncertainty on δSi(ϵ). This procedure is equivalent to considering δSi − δSexp, with the assump￾tion that experimental data have no error, and their central v…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Absolute (left) and normalized (right) shift in the spectral shape due to WM (top) and pion (bottom) corrections for 76Ge for QRPA (red) and NSM (blue) NMEs. The procedure to obtain the uncertainty bands is described in the main text. where the phase space integra…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Absolute (left) and normalized (right) shift in the spectral shape due to WM (top) and pion (bottom) corrections for 136Xe for QRPA (red) and NSM (blue) NMEs. The procedure to obtain the uncertainty bands is described in the main text. 5.2 Non-Standard Charged-Cur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shape-factor deviations δSN stemming from the chiral corrections in comparison with devia￾tions introduced by a hypothetical sterile-neutrino contribution with mass MN = 1 MeV and active-sterile mixing |VeN | 2 = 0.1 for 76Ge (left) and 136Xe (right). The corrections t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the effect of adding a coupling of the nucleon to a leptonic right-handed charged￾current (RHC) on the 2νββ decay of 76Ge (left) and 136Xe (right). We set |ϵ˜L −ϵ˜R| = 0.1, which is close to the bound in Eq. (48). In red we show the distortion of the spectral sha…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Shape-factor deviations δS induced by the BSM tensor current (TC) with ϵT = −0.0014 in comparison with the deviations caused by the weak magnetism (WM) correction term. |ϵ˜L − ϵ˜R|, compared to the corrections from WM and the pion-exchange two-neutrino potential, show…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barabash, Universe9, 290 (2023)

    A. Barabash, Universe9, 290 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Nature568, 532 (2019), [arXiv:1904.11002 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. [GERDA, (GERDA Collaboration)* Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 142501 (2023), [arXiv:2308.09795 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025002 (2023), [arXiv:2202.01787 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Adams et al., [arXiv:2212.11099 [nucl-ex]]

    C. Adams et al., [arXiv:2212.11099 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. [KamLAND-Zen Collaboration], [arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    W. R. Armstronget al. [CUPID Collaboration], [arXiv:1907.09376 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 1907

  8. [8]

    S. A. Kharusiet al. [nEXO Collaboration], [arXiv:1805.11142 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Abgrall et al

    N. Abgrall et al. [LEGEND Collaboration], [arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det]]. 20

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C106, 024328 (2022), [arXiv:2205.04158 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Šimkovic, R

    F. Šimkovic, R. Dvornický, D. Stefánik, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C97, 034315 (2018), [arXiv:1804.04227 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gando et al

    A. Gando et al. [KamLAND-Zen Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 192501 (2019), [arXiv:1901.03871 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Phys. Rev. D37, 2575 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    C. P. Burgess and J. M. Cline, Phys. Lett. B298, 141 (1993), [arXiv:hep-ph/9209299]

    1993 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. P. Burgess and J. M. Cline, Phys. Rev. D49, 5925 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9307316]

    1994 arXiv

  8. [16]

    K. Blum, Y. Nir, and M. Shavit, Phys. Lett. B785, 354 (2018), [arXiv:1802.08019 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    F. F. Deppisch, L. Graf, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171801 (2020), [arXiv:2003.11836 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    F. F. Deppisch, L. Graf, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D102, 051701 (2020), [arXiv:2004.11919 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, L. Gráf, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D103, 055019 (2021), [arXiv:2011.13387 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Agostini, E

    M. Agostini, E. Bossio, A. Ibarra, and X. Marcano, Phys. Lett. B815, 136127 (2021), [arXiv:2012.09281 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nitescu, S

    O. Nitescu, S. Ghinescu, and S. Stoica, J. Phys. G47, 055112 (2020), [arXiv:2001.04859 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Agostini et al., Eur

    M. Agostini et al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 416 (2015), [arXiv:1501.02345 [nucl-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Augier et al

    C. Augier et al. [CUPID Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C84, 925 (2024), [arXiv:2405.10766 [nucl-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. [GERDA Collaboration], JCAP12, 012 (2022), [arXiv:2209.01671 [nucl-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. A. Kharusiet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 112002 (2021), [arXiv:2109.01327 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Azzolini et al

    O. Azzolini et al. [CUPID-0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D107, 032006 (2023), [arXiv:2209.09490 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. S. Diaz, Phys. Rev. D89, 036002 (2014), [arXiv:1311.0930 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. S. Díaz, A. Kostelecký, and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D88, 071902 (2013), [arXiv:1305.4636 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.83, 1 (1985). 21

    1985

  22. [30]

    Kotila and F

    J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C85, 034316 (2012), [arXiv:1209.5722 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Niţescu and F

    O. Niţescu and F. Šimkovic, [arXiv:2411.05405 [nucl-th]]

  24. [32]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. De Vries, M. L. Graesser, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore, and U. Van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 202001 (2018), [arXiv:1802.10097 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wirth, J

    R. Wirth, J. M. Yao, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242502 (2021), [arXiv:2105.05415 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Belley et al., Phys

    A. Belley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182502 (2024), [arXiv:2308.15634 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barbero, F

    C. Barbero, F. Krmpotic, A. Mariano, and D. Tadic, Phys. Lett. B445, 249 (1999), [arXiv:nucl-th/9810072]

    1999 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K. Amos, A. Faessler, and V. Rodin, Phys. Rev. C76, 014604 (2007), [arXiv:nucl-th/0702016]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Santopinto, H

    E. Santopinto, H. García-Tecocoatzi, R. I. Magaña Vsevolodovna, and J. Ferretti, Phys. Rev. C 98, 061601 (2018), [arXiv:1806.03069 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cappuzzello et al

    F. Cappuzzello et al. [NUMEN Collaboration], Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.128, 103999 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Shimizu, J

    N. Shimizu, J. Menéndez, and K. Yako, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 142502 (2018), [arXiv:1709.01088 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. M. Yao, I. Ginnett, A. Belley, T. Miyagi, R. Wirth, S. Bogner, J. Engel, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C106, 014315 (2022), [arXiv:2204.12971 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Jokiniemi and J

    L. Jokiniemi and J. Menéndez, Phys. Rev. C107, 044316 (2023), [arXiv:2302.05399 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Belley, J

    A. Belley, J. Pitcher, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt, [arXiv:2408.02169 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Romeo, J

    B. Romeo, J. Menéndez, and C. Peña Garay, Phys. Lett. B827, 136965 (2022), [arXiv:2102.11101 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Romeo, D

    B. Romeo, D. Stramaccioni, J. Menéndez, and J. J. Valiente-Dobón, [arXiv:2411.03539 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. C. Haxton and G. J. Stephenson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.12, 409 (1984)

    1984

  39. [47]

    T. W. Donnelly and J. D. Walecka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.25, 329 (1975)

    1975

  40. [48]

    J. D. Walecka,Theoretical nuclear and subnuclear physics , vol. 16. 1995

    1995

  41. [49]

    Bernard, N

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.-G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E4, 193 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ph/9501384]. 22

    1995 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B478, 629 (1996), [arXiv:nucl-th/9605002]

    1996 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Borasoy and H

    B. Borasoy and H. W. Griesshammer, [arXiv:nucl-th/0105048]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cirigliano, M

    V. Cirigliano, M. Dawid, W. Dekens, and S. Reddy, [arXiv:2411.00097 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. De Vries, M. L. Graesser, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, U. Van Kolck, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C100, 055504 (2019), [arXiv:1907.11254 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. E. Shanahan, B. C. Tiburzi, M. L. Wagman, F. Winter, E. Chang, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 062003 (2017), [arXiv:1701.03456 [hep-lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    B. C. Tiburzi, M. L. Wagman, F. Winter, E. Chang, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, M. J. Savage, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D96, 054505 (2017), [arXiv:1702.02929 [hep-lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12, 082 (2017), [arXiv:1708.09390 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Barea, J

    J. Barea, J. Kotila, and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C91, 034304 (2015), [arXiv:1506.08530 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hyvärinen and J

    J. Hyvärinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C91, 024613 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Menéndez, J

    J. Menéndez, J. Phys. G45, 014003 (2018), [arXiv:1804.02105 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Lopez-Pavon, and J. Menendez, JHEP07, 096 (2010), [arXiv:1005.3240 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Faessler, M

    A. Faessler, M. González, S. Kovalenko, and F. Šimkovic, Phys. Rev. D90, 096010 (2014), [arXiv:1408.6077 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Barea, J

    J. Barea, J. Kotila, and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. D92, 093001 (2015), [arXiv:1509.01925 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, J. Menéndez, P. Soriano, and G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 108, 045501 (2023), [arXiv:2303.04168 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, D. Castillo, J. Menéndez, E. Mereghetti, V. Plakkot, P. Soriano, and G. Zhou, [arXiv:2402.07993 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hayen, N

    L. Hayen, N. Severijns, K. Bodek, D. Rozpedzik, and X. Mougeot, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015008 (2018), [arXiv:1709.07530 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A335, 182 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021803 (2024), [arXiv:2309.07343 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 056006 (2024), [arXiv:2309.15929 [hep-ph]]. 23

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. C110, 055502 (2024), [arXiv:2405.18464 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Salvat and J

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

    2019

  63. [71]

    Jokiniemi, B

    L. Jokiniemi, B. Romeo, P. Soriano, and J. Menéndez, Phys. Rev. C107, 044305 (2023), [arXiv:2207.05108 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Menendez, D

    J. Menendez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062501 (2011), [arXiv:1103.3622 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, and A. Poves, Phys. Lett. B711, 62 (2012), [arXiv:1112.5039 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    E. A. Coello Pérez, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Lett. B797, 134885 (2019), [arXiv:1809.04443 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. B. Albertet al. [EXO-200 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C89, 015502 (2014), [arXiv:1306.6106 [nucl-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Novario, P

    S. Novario, P. Gysbers, J. Engel, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navrátil, T. Papenbrock, and S. Quaglioni, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 182502 (2021), [arXiv:2008.09696 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12, 097 (2018), [arXiv:1806.02780 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Deutsch, M

    J. Deutsch, M. Lebrun, and R. Prieels, Nucl. Phys. A518, 149 (1990)

    1990

  71. [79]

    P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, and P. S. Bhupal Dev, JHEP03, 170 (2020), [arXiv:1912.03058 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev.104, 254 (1956)

    1956

  73. [81]

    Cirigliano, M

    V. Cirigliano, M. Gonzalez-Alonso, and M. L. Graesser, JHEP02, 046 (2013), [arXiv:1210.4553 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    del Aguila, S

    F. del Aguila, S. Bar-Shalom, A. Soni, and J. Wudka, Phys. Lett. B670, 399 (2009), [arXiv:0806.0876 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cirigliano, S

    V. Cirigliano, S. Gardner, and B. Holstein, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 93 (2013), [arXiv:1303.6953 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, and O. Naviliat-Cuncic, JHEP04, 126 (2021), [arXiv:2010.13797 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti, and G. Zhou, JHEP06, 097 (2020), [arXiv:2002.07182 [hep-ph]]. 24

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, and T. Tong, JHEP08, 128 (2021), [arXiv:2104.00140 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Alioli, W

    S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP08, 205 (2018), [arXiv:1804.07407 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti, and R. Ruiz, JHEP08, 103 (2021), [arXiv:2105.11462 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Gupta, Y.-C

    R. Gupta, Y.-C. Jang, B. Yoon, H.-W. Lin, V. Cirigliano, and T. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034503 (2018), [arXiv:1806.09006 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 869 (2022), [arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Nuclear β decay as a probe for physics beyond the Standard Model,

    M. Brodeur et al., “Nuclear β decay as a probe for physics beyond the Standard Model,” 1, 2023. arXiv:2301.03975 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211801 (2024), [arXiv:2405.18469 [hep-ph]]. 25

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.