| Literature DB >> 30881205 |
O Azzolini1, M T Barrera1, J W Beeman2, F Bellini3,4, M Beretta5,6, M Biassoni6, E Bossio6, C Brofferio5,6, C Bucci7, L Canonica7,8, S Capelli5,6, L Cardani4, P Carniti5,6, N Casali4, L Cassina5,6, M Clemenza5,6, O Cremonesi6, A Cruciani4, A D'Addabbo7,9, I Dafinei4, S Di Domizio10,11, F Ferroni3,4, L Gironi5,6, A Giuliani12,13, P Gorla7, C Gotti5,6, G Keppel1, M Martinez3,4,14, S Morganti4, S Nagorny7,9,15, M Nastasi5,6, S Nisi7, C Nones16, D Orlandi7, L Pagnanini5,6, M Pallavicini10,11, V Palmieri1, L Pattavina7,9,17, M Pavan5,6, G Pessina6, V Pettinacci3,4, S Pirro7, S Pozzi5,6, E Previtali6, A Puiu5,6, C Rusconi7,18, K Schäffner9, C Tomei4, M Vignati4, A Zolotarova16.
Abstract
The CUPID-0 experiment searches for double beta decay using cryogenic calorimeters with double (heat and light) read-out. The detector, consisting of 24 ZnSe crystals 95 % enriched in 82 Se and two natural ZnSe crystals, started data-taking in 2017 at Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso. We present the search for the neutrino-less double beta decay of 82 Se into the 0 1 + , 2 1 + and 2 2 + excited states of 82 Kr with an exposure of 5.74 kg · yr (2.24 × 10 25 emitters · yr). We found no evidence of the decays and set the most stringent limits on the widths of these processes: Γ ( 82 Se → 82 Kr 0 1 + )8.55 × 10 - 24 yr - 1 , Γ ( 82 Se → 82 Kr 2 1 + ) < 6.25 × 10 - 24 yr - 1 , Γ ( 82 Se → 82 Kr 2 2 + )8.25 × 10 - 24 yr - 1 (90 % credible interval).Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30881205 PMCID: PMC6394250 DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6340-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Phys J C Part Fields ISSN: 1434-6044 Impact factor: 4.590
Fig. 1Decay scheme of to Kr
Signatures of the decays to the excited states of Kr, grouped according to the decay level: is the energy carried away by electrons in the decay to the 2 state (), to the 2 state (), or to the 0 state (); are the rays emitted in the de-excitation to the ground state (Fig. 1); the vertical bar separates the particles releasing their full energy (E) in the 1 crystal, and the particles releasing their full energy (E) in the second crystal.The detection efficiency is determined by a Monte Carlo simulation. Different decay schemes resulting in the same signature (for example, 1, 7, 11) are labelled with the same letter in the last column; the letter B indicates two states with a slightly different energy , that were grouped given the resolution of the detector
| Signature | E | E |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [keV] | [keV] | [ | |||
| 1 |
| 2220.5 | 776.5 | 1.817±0.009 | A |
| 2 |
| 1522.1 | 776.5 | 0.604±0.004 | B |
| 3 |
| 1522.1 | 698.4 | 0.664±0.004 | C |
| 4 |
| 1522.1 | 1474.9 | 0.919±0.007 | D |
| 5 | 1522.1 | 1474.9 | 0.0141±0.0004 | D | |
| 6 | 2298.6 | 698.4 | 0.201±0.002 | E | |
| 7 | 2220.5 | 776.5 | 0.211±0.002 | A | |
| 8 |
| 1509.4 | 776.5 | 0.606±0.006 | B |
| 9 |
| 1509.4 | 711.1 | 0.660±0.006 | F |
| 10 | 2285.9 | 711.1 | 0.196±0.003 | G | |
| 11 | 2220.5 | 776.5 | 0.200±0.003 | A |
Fraction of time that was spent in physics runs, , Co and Am-Be calibrations (Calib.) and for tests, liquid helium refills of the cryostat, software debug, DAQ problems (Other). In the last column we report the exposure (enriched crystals only) collected in each DataSet
| Physics [ | Calib. [ | Other [ | Exposure [emitters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DataSet 1 | 60.6 | 16.8 | 22.6 | 3.33 |
| DataSet 2 | 65.0 | 27.6 | 7.4 | 2.36 |
| DataSet 3 | 78.6 | 14.1 | 7.3 | 3.68 |
| DataSet 4 | 83.5 | 14.1 | 2.4 | 3.19 |
| DataSet 5 | 82.8 | 11.4 | 5.8 | 4.20 |
| DataSet 6 | 81.8 | 13.1 | 5.1 | 5.65 |
Fig. 2Validation of the calibration (red triangles) with a Co source (black squares). All the energy spectra of the ZnSe crystals were calibrated using the coefficients derived from the fit of the most prominent peaks. Left: residuals of the calibration, defined as (nominal energy - ), as a function of the energy; the data obtained with Co are modelled with a parabolic function (black line). Right: the energy resolution measured for different lines is shown as a function of the energy. Data reported in this plot are modeled with a linear function (see text). The vertical dashed lines indicate the region of interest
Fig. 3Peak produced by the decay of Zn. Top: events in which the acquisition window contains a single pulse. Bottom: events in which the acquisition window contains more than one pulse. The spectra are fitted simultaneously with an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit (RooFit analysis framework) with two components: the function modeling the detector response , and an exponential background
Fig. 4Energy spectra of E corresponding to signatures A (top) and B (bottom) with an exposure of 2.2410 emittersyr. The red vertical bars indicate a ±2 region centered around E (Table 1). The best fit result is shown in blue. In the bottom panel we include also a peaking background to model the excess of events at the energy of K