MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neutrinoless ββ decay nuclear matrix elements complete up to N2LO in heavy nuclei

2024· article· en· W4405105198 on OpenAlexaff
Lotta Jokiniemi, Pablo Soriano, J. Menéndez

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersGeneralitat de CatalunyaEuropean CommissionEuropean Social FundMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsNuclear physicsParticle physicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Double beta decayNuclear matrixNeutrino

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluate all nuclear matrix elements (NMEs) up to next-to-next-to leading order (N2LO) in chiral effective field theory (χEFT) for the neutrinoless double-beta (0νββ) decay of the nuclei most relevant for experiments, including 76Ge, 100Mo, and 136Xe. We use the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation (pnQRPA) and the nuclear shell model to calculate the N2LO NMEs from very low-momentum (ultrasoft) neutrinos and from loop diagrams usually neglected in 0νββ studies. Our results indicate that the overall N2LO contribution is centered around −(5-10)% for the shell model and +(10-15)% for the pnQRPA, with sizable uncertainties due to the scale dependence of the ultrasoft NMEs and the short-range nature of the loop NMEs. The sign discrepancy between many-body methods is common to all studied nuclei and points to the different behavior of the intermediate states of the 0νββ decay. Within uncertainties, our results for the ultrasoft NME are of similar size as contributions usually referred to as “beyond the closure approximation”.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207