SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Overview

by L. Cardani

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Laura Cardani
Submission information
Preprint Link:  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2018-10-31 01:00
Submitted by: Cardani, Laura
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: The 15th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (TAU2018)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
  • Gravitation, Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approach: Experimental


Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay is a hypothesised nuclear process in which two neutrons simultaneously decay into protons with no neutrino emission. The prized observation of this decay would point to the existence of a process that violates a fundamental symmetry of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and would allow to establish the nature of neutrinos. Today, the lower limits on the half-life of this process exceed 10$^{25}$-10$^{26}$ yr. I will review the current status of the searches for Double Beta Decay and the perspectives to enhance the experimental sensitivity in the next years.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2018-12-10 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1810.12828v1, delivered 2018-12-10, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.731


This is a very complete review.


There a few sentences that are not 100% correct and some sentences could use some corrections for understanding or grammar.


Please see attach comments.

Requested changes

Please see attached comments.


  • validity: high
  • significance: top
  • originality: top
  • clarity: high
  • formatting: perfect
  • grammar: good

Author:  Laura Cardani  on 2018-12-19  [id 392]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2018-12-10)
answer to question

I thank the Referee for reading carefully my proceeding and improving its quality. I attach my answers to his/her questions: 1) about the schedule of NEXT-100: I wrote "The first mile-stone of the NEXT collaboration should have been the operation of NEXT-100, [..] nevertheless..." and the Referee asked if now NEXT-100 is delayed. I did not mean that NEXT-100 is delayed (even if I have not found recent talks/papers about the status of this project, and the website is not updated, so I can not state that it is on schedule...). I just meant that this step should have been the next step of the collaboration. Nevertheless, they decided to run a medium-scale project before NEXT-100, called NEW (or NEXT-WHITE) and they are now publishing the results obtained with NEW and not with NEXT-100. 2) about AMoRE, the Referee observed (correctly) that they are preparing a 200 kg experiment. I did not mentioned it before because I think it is not going to happen in the immediate future (they are still working on the kg scale), but I understand the point of the Referee, so I added a sentence to clarify that this is not a small R$\&$D, but a part of a long-term plan. Best regards Laura

Login to report or comment