arXiv:1504.03600v2 [hep-ex] 11 Jun 2015 l ihetadmnin.Osrig0 Observing dimensions. extra with els rns hr r eea te oeta oes[]that [3] models, neu- models ric 0 Majorana potential to other light contribute In several could these are neutrinos. of there active exchange trinos, the the for to masses gener- addition and Majorana neutrinos light right-handed left-handed ate the heavy with Here, mix neutrinos [2]. generation mass neutrino suigteecag falgtMjrn neutrino Majorana light factors space a phase Here, of mechanism). exchange (mass the assuming aseigenstates, mass egtdb h qae ftecrepnigelements corresponding the of squares U the by weighted arxadteMjrn phases Majorana the and matrix et oeetsmoe h masses the over sum coherent a sents ae Guzowski, Pawel ieetiooe ol ept ietnl hs mecha- these disentangle [4]. to nisms help could isotopes different eiet htuedffrn stps xeiet where Experiments isotopes. different use that periments aywt stp.Tedcyrt spootoa othe mass to neutrino proportional effective is the rate of decay square The isotope. with vary rns[] ersnigdrc vdnefrpyisbe- double- physics Neutrinoless for neu- model. evidence of standard direct the nature yond representing Majorana [1], the trinos demonstrate would cays aflf fteiooedcyn hog 0 through decaying isotope the of half-life eastruhteeiso ftoeetos ( nucleus electrons, two a of where emission process the through electroweak decays second-order a is ( ie by given ,Z A, m ei h eswmcaimi h otcmo oe for model common most the is mechanism seesaw The h erhfr0 for search The h bevto fnurnls double- neutrinoless of observation The ββ obndLmto h etioMs rmNurnls Doub Neutrinoless from Mass Neutrino the on Limit Combined A ftePneov aiNkgw aaa(PMNS) Sakata Nakagawa Maki Pontecorvo the of )+2 + 2) + =

m 1 R o utpeiooe n eiealmto h ffcieneut effective the on limit a derive and isotopes multiple for ASnmes 23.40.-s,14.60.Pq,14.60.St numbers: PACS particles. Majorana are neutrinos nrydsrbtos h obndlmt on limits combined The distributions. energy sdrvd h iison limits The clai observation derived. signal the is and elemen result matrix this nuclear between of values) calculations model different to due | U prt iltn uesmer,o mod- or supersymmetry, violating -parity [ e T epeetafaeokt obn aafo h aetneutri latest the from data combine to framework a present We e − 1 1 .INTRODUCTION I. 0 1 hrb iltn etnnme.The number. lepton violating thereby , / | ν 2 2 νββ ueBarnes, Luke ] G + − νββ 1 0 m ν = easi use narneo ex- of range a in pursued is decays n ula arxelements matrix nuclear and 2 1 | G h nvriyo acetr acetrM39L ntdKi United 9PL, M13 Manchester Manchester, of University The U eas .. etrgtsymmet- left-right e.g., decays, m 0 e ν 2 e | | osrit nSeieMjrn Neutrinos Majorana Sterile on Constraints M 2 steeeto as The mass. electron the is e 1 0 iα utnEvans, Justin ν α | + 2 and m m m m m m ββ 2 ββ e 2 3 νββ i ββ β | U , fteneutrino the of r loeautdi 3+1 trl etiomdl assumi model, neutrino sterile 1) + (3 a in evaluated also are . hc repre- which , e β νββ 3 | easwith decays Dtd etme 8 2018) 18, September (Dated: 2 (0 1 e νββ iβ eri Karagiorgi, Georgia ,Z A, ea is decay β

decay , de- ) M ) (1) (2) → 0 m ν ββ ag ewe 130 between range 136 g.Ti prahi mlydb olbrtossc as such technol- collaborations detector by gerda employed the is by approach isotope This of ogy. choice the in strained 200 eetrmtra n 0 and material detector aeo TeO of made eetradiooecnb eaae,wihalw ex- allows which separated, as such be periments can isotope and detector oe,e.g., topes, fterrsls n ooti obndlmt on limits combined obtain to com- and consistency quantitative the results, make study their to to of us experiments, allows between This parisons range a with isotopes. experiments different of by taken data the bine sn h ulse iison limits results published experimental the different of using comparison previous A orltosbtentedffrn oes h nllim- final The on systematic models. its different consid- determining the not require between would is correlations the it case since of this here, princi- estimate but ered better isotopes, In different a for give model. NMEs could NME models different The particular is ple, each distributions model. for is energy NME experimental performed procedure any the the of include but combination to combinations, applicable the generally perform to els nmlil stps efis eosrt htw can we that demonstrate first We isotopes. multiple on aflvso h aiu stpsbfr eiigalimit a deriving before isotopes various the on relate the to of calculation NME half-lives specific a requires isotopes the fit combined simultaneously a we obtain analysis, to limit. distributions this energy In experimental [12]. Ref. in n s tt eieafis obndlmton limit combined first a experiments derive recent to all it use from and distributions energy lished are they where theo- calculations account the available. into on take uncertainties We retical experiments. individual employed normally by procedure the following models, NME ti hrfr motn odvlptcnqe ocom- to techniques develop to important therefore is It uhadrc obnto fterslsfrmultiple for results the of combination direct a Such nti ril,w rsn ehdbsdo h pub- the on based method a present we Article, this In e and Xe, m e yteHiebr-ocwexperiment Heidelberg-Moscow the by med 6 and [6] ββ s(Ms.Tesaitclcnitny( consistency statistical The (NMEs). ts m 1 5,wihue high-purity a uses which [5], ecoeasto omnyue M mod- NME used commonly of set a chose We . iomass rino ahnMcCabe, Nathan ββ 100 cuoricino r ie sarnecvrn h ulstof set full the covering range a as given are oesdouble- noless k 2 oand Mo am rsascontaining crystals − 1 e,weetesra is spread the where meV, 310 land-z m nemo-3 ββ sn h experimental the using 82 νββ 8 and [8] Se. β n[] hc oti enriched contain which [7], en 1 ngdom ea experiments decay n tfnS¨oldner-Rembold Stefan and 1]t td ait fiso- of variety a study to [11] stp r dnia r con- are identical are isotope T cuore-0 1 0 le- / ν 2 130 β a enperformed been has 76 e Alternatively, Te. edetector, Ge gall ng ea and Decay 9,bolometers [9], p m ββ based m exo- ββ 1 . 2 reproduce the published half-life limits of each individ- obtain a total expected number of 18 signal decays for ual experiment, before performing the combination using a half-life of 2.8 × 1024 years. The energy distribution different NME calculations. We study the consistency of for the signal published in Fig. 9 of Ref. [8] normalized the combined mββ limit with the positive claim of the to this decay rate is used as the input distribution for Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [13]. We also interpret the limit setting. We use an uncertainty for the signal the combined limit on mββ as a constraint on a (3+1) normalization of 1.5% and an energy scale uncertainty model with three active and one sterile Majorana neutri- of 0.8 keV. A normalization uncertainty of 4.2% is ap- nos. plied for the constant background, and the 60Co back- ground, which is centred at an energy of 2505 keV, has a normalization uncertainty of 7.7%. These background II. METHOD uncertainties are the exposure-weighted statistical uncer- tainties taken from Table 4 of Ref. [8].

Limits are calculated using the CLs method [14–16], The cuore experiment has also published results from which applies a modified-frequentist approach using a a first phase, cuore-0, which utilizes a single tower with Poisson log-likelihood ratio (LLR) test statistic. The 52 TeO2 crystals. The results correspond to an expo- 130 value of CLs is defined as the p value of the data un- sure of 9.8 kg·y for the isotope Te. We use the data der the hypothesis that we observe both signal and back- published in Fig. 3 of Ref. [9] and the reported signal ground, CLsb, divided by the p value for the background- efficiency of (81.3 ± 0.6)%. The signal shape is taken only hypothesis (CLb). Systematic uncertainties are from Ref. [10], parametrized by a Gaussian function with marginalized through Gaussian constraints on the pri- width of ≈ 5 keV. The statistical uncertainty on the ors, with the best fits of these parameters determined background normalization is 3.45%, whereas the effect by maximizing the likelihood with respect to the data of other systematic uncertainties is negligible. in both the signal-plus-background and background-only The exo-200 detector contains a liquid xenon time hypotheses. A limit at the 90% Confidence Level (CL) is projection chamber that has been in operation since obtained from the signal strength that produces a value 2011 [6]. A total of 200 kg of xenon is used, with 136Xe of CLs = (100−90)%. The expected limit corresponds to enriched to 81%. We use the energy distribution of the the median of an ensemble of pseudo-experiments gener- single-site (SS) decays published by the exo-200 Collab- ated from the background-only probability distributions, oration in Fig. 4(a) of Ref. [6] for an exposure of 100 kg·y, and the ±1 standard deviation ranges are derived from since the sensitivity of SS topologies to 0νββ decays is the ensemble. When combining multiple experiments, significantly higher than for multi-site (MS) topologies. the limit setting process uses a sum of the experiments’ We apply a signal normalization uncertainty of 8.6% with individual LLRs, assuming no correlations. an energy scale uncertainty of 0.2%. The background For a single experiment, the signal strength is inversely normalization uncertainty is 10.9%. We also apply an 0ν proportional to the half-life T1/2. When combining mul- overall normalization uncertainty of 9.6%, correlated be- tiple experiments, the signal strength is calculated for a tween signal and background distributions, which is de- 0ν common mββ, which is related to T1/2 using Eq. 1 and rived from the ratio of SS to MS topologies. for a specific NME calculation. The kamland-zen detector is filled with 13 tons of liq- uid scintillator, which is loaded with enriched 136Xe [7]. We use Fig. 1(a) of Ref. [7], published after a total expo- III. EXPERIMENTAL INPUTS sure 89.5 kg·y with a background normalization uncer- tainty of 11.21% and a signal normalization uncertainty The most stringent published limits on neutrinoless of 3.99%. double-β decay are currently provided by the cuoricino, The gerda Collaboration uses high-purity germanium 76 cuore, exo-200, kamland-zen, gerda, and nemo-3 calorimeters enriched in Ge [5]. We use the dataset experiments. We use their most recent published energy obtained between 2011 and 2013 [5], with an exposure of distributions, together with the statistical and system- 21.6 kg·y. The energy distribution is taken from Fig. 1 atic uncertainties on signal and backgrounds, and the of Ref. [5] after pulse shape discrimination. We apply a correlations of the systematic uncertainties as quoted by 9% uncertainty on the signal normalization and a 20% the experiments. The input distributions are shown in uncertainty on the constant background normalization. Fig. 1 with their statistical uncertainties. In total, we The nemo-3 Collaboration took data from 2003 to combine 250 data points. The experimental systematic 2011 with a tracker-calorimeter detector measuring seven uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated between ex- 0νββ candidate isotopes [11]. Since the 100Mo measure- periments, because the data are taken using completely ments are the most sensitive due to the larger isotope different experimental approaches. mass, we focus on this isotope. The input distribution is cuoricino was a bolometric detector comprising 62 the data shown in Fig. 2 of Ref. [11], which corresponds TeO2 crystals, which were operated between 2003 and to an exposure of 34.7 kg·y. The signal normalization 2008, for a total exposure of 19.75 kg·y [8]. Using this uncertainty is 7%, and the normalization uncertainty are exposure and the average signal efficiency of 82%, we 0.7% for the two-neutrino background and 10% for the 3

40 20 Data (a) Data (b) 35 18 Background Background 24 16 24 30 Signal (T = 2.8×10 y) Signal (T = 2.7×10 y) 1/2 14 1/2 Counts / keV

25 Counts / 2 keV 12 20 10

15 8 6 10 4 5 2 0 0 2480 2500 2520 2540 2560 2580 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 2520 2530 2540 2550 2560 2570 E (keV) E (keV)

16 70 Data (c) Data (d) 14 Background 60 Background 25 25 12 Signal (T = 1.1×10 y) Signal (T = 1.9×10 y) 1/2 50 1/2 10 Counts / 14 keV 40

8 Counts / 0.05 MeV 30 6 20 4

2 10

0 0 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 E (keV) E (MeV)

5 4 Data 10 Data 4.5 (e) (f) Background Background 4 25 3 24 Signal (T = 2.1×10 y) 10 Signal (T = 1.1×10 y) 3.5 1/2 1/2 Counts / keV

3 2 Counts / 0.1 MeV 10 2.5 2 10 1.5 1 0.5 1 0 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 E (keV) E (MeV)

FIG. 1: Energy distributions for signal and background used as input for the combination with their statistical uncertainties: (a) cuoricino, (b) cuore-0, (c) exo-200, (d) kamland-zen, (e) gerda, and (f) nemo-3 data. The signal distributions are normalized to represent the 90% CL observed limits. other backgrounds. are 15% − 20% higher with our limit setting method, whereas the result for kamland-zen is about 10% lower. We expect small differences between our method and We observe the same effect for a previously published the published results, since we use a different limit set- exo-200 result [17], which has also been used by the ting procedure and only a single input distribution for kamland-zen Collaboration to set a combined limit for each experiment. As a first step designed to validate our 136Xe [7]. We combine the same two 136Xe data sets and method, we determine the lower limits on the half-lives obtain a limit of T 0ν = 34 × 1024 y, in perfect agreement at the 90% CL and compare them to the values published 1/2 by the collaborations (see Table I). The results for 76Ge with the published kamland-zen combination. and 100Mo are in very good agreement with the pub- We also obtain perfect agreement for the cuoricino 130 0ν lished values. The half-life limit for the exo-200 data result using Te, while the limit on T1/2 obtained by the 4

0ν 24 Limit on T1/2 (10 y) uncertainties on the NMEs. The IBM-2 model uncertain- Experiment Publ. Obs. Exp. ±1σ range 1−CLb ties on the NMEs are 16%, which we have assumed to be 130Te: fully correlated across isotopes. The (R)QRPA model in- cuoricino 2.8 [8] 2.8 2.9 2.0 – 4.2 0.474 cludes a correlation matrix between isotopes, which we cuore-0 2.7 [9] 3.0 3.0 2.1 – 4.3 0.520 take into account in the limit setting. The uncertainties Combined 4.0 [9] 4.4 4.3 2.9 – 6.2 0.513 are evaluated in Ref. [23] by using (i) two values of the 136Xe: weak axial-vector coupling parameter, gA =1 and 1.25, exo-200 11 [6] 13 21 14 – 30 0.131 (ii) two different approaches to short-range correlations, kamland-zen 19 [7] 17 11 7 – 15 0.918 (iii) two many-body models, QPRA and RQPRA, and Combined — 21 24 16 – 34 0.360 76 (iv) three different sets of single-particle states. The un- Ge: gerda 21 [5] 20 21 14 – 29 0.450 certainties also include the experimental uncertainties on 100Mo: the particle-particle coupling constant gpp extracted from nemo-3 1.1 [11] 1.1 0.9 0.6 – 1.4 0.634 2νββ data. The resulting 24 combinations are used to ex- tract correlation coefficients from the error ellipses which 0ν cover the full range of possible outcomes. For our exper- TABLE I: The published limits on T1/2 for each experiment are compared to the calculated observed and expected limits. imental combination, we reinterpret these model uncer- The ±1σ range around the expected limit and the 1−CLb tainties as Gaussian uncertainties by reducing them by value of the data are also shown. a factor of 0.68. We quote the reduced uncertainties in Table II. The phase space factors G0ν are taken from a recent cuore-0 Collaboration is 10% lower than the limit we calculation [24]. We set the weak axial-vector coupling derive. Since cuoricino and cuore-0 are two phases of parameter to gA =1.27. The uncertainties on the phase the same experiment, we only use the combined cuore space factors originate from the uncertainties on the Q limit to perform our remaining analysis. values and the nuclear radius. The uncertainty on the The observed limits are also compared to the median nuclear radius dominates and leads to an uncertainty on expected limits and the corresponding ±1σ range around the phase space factor G0ν of ≈ 7%. the median expected limits. All observed limits lie within the ±1σ band, except for the kamland-zen result, where the observed limit of T 0ν = 17 × 1024 y is about 1.5σ 1/2 V. RESULTS better than the expected limit, corresponding to 1−CLb of 0.918. This is caused by the deficit of data compared 136 to the background expectation in the signal region. Only in the case of Xe, two independent experi- ments, kamland-zen and exo-200, measured the same isotope. Their data can be combined directly without T 0ν IV. NUCLEAR MATRIX ELEMENTS using NMEs to derive a limit on 1/2. The combination 0ν 25 yields a limit of T1/2 > 2.1 × 10 y, which is dominated We derive limits on the effective neutrino mass for dif- by the exo-200 measurement due to the higher exposure ferent NME calculations, which are summarized in Ta- compared to kamland-zen. This observed value is less stringent than the previously published combined value ble II. The five different models used in the combina- 0ν 25 tion are the Generating Coordinate Method (GCM) [18], of T1/2 > 3.4×10 y [7] based on a smaller exo-200 data the Interacting Boson Model (IBM-2) [19], the Inter- set [17], which displays a downward fluctuation of the acting Shell Model (NSM) [20], and three models using data relative to the background expectation. The com- the Quasiparticle Random-Phase Approximation: (i) the bined sensitivity, given by the median expected limit, has 0ν 25 0ν 25 QRPA model using four different sub-calculations based improved from T1/2 =1.6 × 10 y to T1/2 =2.4 × 10 y on the Argonne V18 (A) or charge-dependent Bonn (B) due to the increased exposure. nucleon-nucleon potentials with an older (old) or newer To combine results for multiple isotopes, we include (new) version of the parametrization of the particle- the effects of NMEs. We show an example in Fig. 2 for particle interactions [21], (ii) the proton-neutron QRPA the GCM calculation. The results for mββ are shown model (pnQRPA) [22], and (iii) a QRPA model that uses for each individual experiment, ordered by their sensi- its renormalized version for evaluating uncertainties, la- tivities using this model. The combined observed limit is belled (R)QRPA [23]. mββ < 130 meV for an expected limit of mββ < 130 meV, The model calculations predict values for the NMEs which improves upon the best individual limit obtained which can differ by up to a factor of ≈ 2 for a particular by kamland-zen of mββ < 150 meV and the best indi- isotope. The NSM model predicts the smallest NMEs for vidual expected limit by exo-200 of mββ < 140 meV. all isotopes, apart from 100Mo which is not evaluated in All limits are given at the 90% CL. Since the mass limit this calculation, whereas the models differ in their pre- depends on the fourth root of the exposure, these im- dictions of the isotopes with the largest NMEs. provements corresponds to an increase in exposure by a The (R)QRPA and the IBM-2 calculations also provide factor of 1.4–1.6. 5

Isotope Phase Space Nuclear Matrix Element Models Factor G0ν GCM IBM-2 NSM QRPA [21] pnQRPA [22] (R)QRPA [23] − − (10 14y 1) [24] [18] [19] [20] A-old A-new B-old B-new NME Rel. Unc. Correlation Matrix 76Ge 0.615 4.60 4.68 2.30 5.812 5.157 6.228 5.571 5.26 4.315 0.191 1 100Mo 4.142 5.08 4.22 — 5.696 5.402 6.148 5.850 3.90 3.184 0.254 0.973 1 130Te 3.699 5.13 3.70 2.12 4.306 3.888 4.810 4.373 4.00 3.148 0.247 0.899 0.862 1 136Xe 3.793 4.20 3.05 1.76 2.437 2.177 2.735 2.460 2.91 1.795 0.293 0.805 0.747 0.916 1

TABLE II: Phase space factors for gA = 1.27 for the four isotopes, values of the nuclear matrix elements for the GCM, IBM-2, NSM, QRPA, pnQRPA, and for the (R)QRPA NME calculation, together with the relative uncertainties on the (R)QRPA NMEs and their correlation matrix. The relative uncertainties quoted for the IBM-2 calculation are 0.16 for each isotope.

only some of the calculations provide them. The ordering of the experimental sensitivities changes with the NME NEMO-3 model used to derive the mββ limit, further emphasising the need for using a range of isotopes to search for 0νββ GERDA decays. The coefficients of the correlation matrix provided by CUORE the (R)QRPA calculations for the four isotopes consid- ered here range from 0.747 to 0.973 (see Table II). To KamLAND-Zen study the effect of these correlations, we derive the limits on m assuming no NME uncertainties, the full cor- EXO-200 ββ Observed limit relation matrix, and a single correlation coefficient for ± σ Combination Expected limit 1 all isotope combinations ranging from −0.3 to 1. The

100 200 300 400 500 600 m (meV) ββ 320 No uncertainty ρ FIG. 2: Individual experiment effective mass limits, and the 310 Single correlation coefficient Full correlation matrix of (R)QRPA model combined limit, using the GCM model. Range of correlation coefficients in (R)QRPA model 300

290 Using the GCM model, the cuore and gerda data 280 have sensitivities of m = 250 meV and 310 meV, re- (meV) ββ ββ 136 spectively, while the two experiments using Xe have m 270 the best sensitivities in the range mββ = 140–190 meV. Figure 3 shows the observed and expected limits for each 260 250

240 1.1 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 GCM IBM-2 NSM QRPA pnQRPA (R)QRPA ρ 1 obs. 0.9 exp. FIG. 4: Limit on mββ as a function of a single correlation coef- 0.8 ficient ρ in the (R)QRPA model. The lines at mββ = 250 meV 0.7 and 290 meV represent the limits without uncertainties and 0.6 with the full correlation matrix of the (R)QRPA model, re- (eV) ββ 0.5 spectively. The red line shows the range of correlation coeffi- m 0.4 cients.

0.3

0.2 results are shown in Fig. 4. Using no NME uncertain- 0.1 ties yields a limit of mββ < 250 meV, which increases 0 to mββ < 290 meV once the model uncertainties and NEMO-3 CUORE GERDA KamLAND-Zen EXO-200 Combination the full correlation matrix are taken into account, and to mββ < 300 meV assuming 100% correlation between the

FIG. 3: Observed and expected limit on mββ for the different NME uncertainties for the different isotopes. The vari- experiments and NME models without NME model uncer- ation in limits of ≈ 40 − 50 meV is comparable to the tainties. range observed for the different model assumptions with the QPRA calculation, which are expected to represent NME model and experiment separately. For this compar- similar model uncertainties. ison, NME uncertainties are not taken into account, since In Table III, we show the combined limits on mββ for 6

obs exp NME mββ m Improvement p value between the result obtained by the HM experiment us- ββ 76 (meV) (meV) Limit Sensitivity (HM) ing Ge and the combined upper limits, are also given GCM 130 120 14% (K) 10% (E) 0.001 in Table III. They are calculated taking into account the IBM-2: experimental uncertainties. no unc. 170 170 16% (K) 12% (E) 0.010 The p values differ significantly between different NME with unc. 190 180 16% (K) 13% (E) 0.021 models, and any conclusion on the level of consistency be- NSM 310 290 14% (K) 10% (E) 0.003 tween the combination of the latest experimental results QRPA: and the result obtained with the the T 0ν reported by the A-new 200 200 23% (G) 25% (E) 0.095 1/2 A-old 180 180 26% (G) 25% (E) 0.100 HM group depends strongly on the chosen NME model. B-new 180 180 28% (K) 24% (E) 0.073 The p values range from 0.001 (about 3 standard devi- B-old 170 160 28% (K) 23% (E) 0.077 ations) for the GCM model to 0.311 for the (R)QRPA pnQRPA 170 170 19% (K) 16% (E) 0.029 models. The p value for the gerda result and this HM (R)QRPA: measurement is 0.63, independent of NME model since no unc. 250 240 25% (G) 25% (E) 0.109 the experiments both use the isotope 76Ge. with unc. 290 290 23% (G) 21% (G) 0.311

TABLE III: For each NME calculation, the combined ob- 1 Excluded at 90% confidence level served and expected limits on mββ, the improvement in the limit and the sensitivity relative to the best individual experi- Combination (CUORE, EXO-200, GERDA, KamLAND-Zen, NEMO-3) -1 ments for that NME model. The best experiments are gerda 10 (G), exo-200 (E), or kamland-zen (K). The p value of the limit with respect to the Heidelberg-Moscow (HM) positive Inverted Hierarchy claim [13] are also shown. All mββ limits are given to two -2 Planck (eV) 10 significant digits. ββ 95% limit m Normal Hierarchy -3 10

700 Observed limit (no unc.) -4 Observed limit 10 -4 -3 -2 -1 600 10 10 10 10 1 Expected limit ± 1σ m (eV) 0 HM claim ± 1σ 500

FIG. 6: Combined limits on the effective mass mββ as a func- 400 tion of the lightest neutrino mass m0. The width of the hor- (meV) ββ

m izontal band represents the range of limits obtained with the 300 different NME models. The neutrino oscillation parameters are taken from Ref. [25], using the best fit values. The inner 200 band for the NH and IH fits shows the full range associated with the unknown Majorana phases and the outer band the 100 additional effect of the 3-standard deviation experimental un- GCM IBM-2 NSM QRPA QRPA QRPA QRPA pnQRPA (R)QRPA (A-new) (A-old) (B-new) (B-old) certainties on the oscillation parameters. The limit on m0 derived from the Planck data is also shown. FIG. 5: Mass limits (observed and expected) for each NME The best published limit on mββ by kamland-zen [7] calculation. For the IBM-2 and (R)QRPA models, the limits is obtained by combining their data with the earlier are given both with and without the uncertainty on the NME calculation. The effective mass for the positive Heidelberg- exo-200 result [17]. Using a similar set of NMEs, the Moscow (HM) claim [13] is also shown. mass range they obtain is mββ = 120–250 meV, whereas our observed combined limit in the range mββ = 130– 310 meV is slightly higher because we use the latest exo- 200 data set. each NME model. We provide the observed and expected In Fig. 6, we overlay the range of observed combined limits for each combination and the improvements in ob- limits on the allowed effective mass m as a function served limit and sensitivity over the result obtained by ββ of the lightest neutrino mass m0, with the bands rep- the best individual experiment. As shown in Fig. 3, the resenting current measurement uncertainties of the neu- most sensitive experiments change for the different mod- trino oscillation parameters assuming either the normal els. hierarchy (NH) with m1 < m2 < m3 or the inverted hi- The combined results are compared to the result ob- erarchy (IH) with m3

of Pi mi < 492 meV at the 95% CL based on the tem- perature and the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave 5 Normal Hierarchy Background. 4.5 NSM; α=β=0; γ=π GCM; α=β=γ=0 We also interpret the combined limit on mββ as a con- 4 m1 = 0 meV straint on a single sterile Majorana neutrino that mixes 3.5 m1 = 50 meV m = 100 meV with the three active Majorana states. In this model, the 1 3 m1 = 150 meV expression for the effective neutrino mass mββ defined in ∆m2 = 1.78 eV2 2.5 41 (eV) 2

4 θ Eq. 2 is modified to take into account the mixing with sin 2 14 = 0.09 the fourth neutrino state: m 2 1.5 2 2 iα mββ = m1 |Ue1| + m2 |Ue2| e + 1 2 iβ 2 iγ 0.5 +m3 |Ue3| e + m4 |Ue4| e . (3) 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 It includes an additional mass term m4, a Majorana Ue4 phase γ, and the element Ue4 of the now extended, 4 × 4 mixing matrix, which is related to the sterile neu- FIG. 7: Limits on mββ for different NME models translated 2 2 2 trino mixing angle θ14 through |Ue4| = sin θ14 in the into a constraint on the sterile neutrino in the (m4, |Ue4| ) parametrization used here. In this model, the unitarity plane in a (3 + 1) model. Different values of the Majorana constraint applies only for the 4×4 mixing matrix. How- phases α,β,γ and of the lightest active neutrino mass m1 in the NH are shown. The complete region is excluded for ever, the central values of the elements Uei(i =1, 2, 3) do not change significantly when the 3 × 3 unitarity con- m1 = 150 meV with the GCM model and vanishing Majorana phases. straint is removed from the global fit [27]. The unitar- ity constraint on the 4 × 4 mixing matrix will restrict 2 2 |Ue4| = sin θ14 to be . 0.1. 2 Our ability to probe a certain range of m4 |U 4| de- 5 e Inverted Hierarchy pends on m0 and the Majorana phases (see, e.g., [28, 29]). 4.5 NSM; α=β=0; γ=π GCM; α=β=γ=0 We take the approach of translating the limits on mββ 4 m3 = 0 meV 2 m = 50 meV into corresponding limits on the combination m4 |Ue4| 3.5 3 m3 = 100 meV under two extreme situations for a given m0: 3 m3 = 150 meV ∆m2 = 1.78 eV2 2.5 41 • The NME model (NSM) that predicts the highest (eV) 2

4 θ sin 2 14 = 0.09 (least stringent) limit on mββ, together with the m 2

phases α = β = 0, and γ = π that provide the 1.5 smallest contribution to m . ββ 1

• The NME model (GCM) that predicts the lowest 0.5

(most stringent) limit on mββ, together with the 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 phases α = β = γ = 0 that provide the largest Ue4 contribution to mββ.

FIG. 8: Limits on mββ for different NME models translated This first parameter set allows for large contributions 2 2 into a constraint on the sterile neutrino in the (m4, |Ue4| ) from m4 |Ue4| and thus provides the least constraining 2 plane in a (3 + 1) sterile neutrino model. Different values of limit on m4 |Ue4| , whereas the second set allows for only 2 the Majorana phases α,β,γ and of the lightest active neu- small contributions from m4 |Ue4| and thus yields the trino mass m3 in the IH are shown. The complete region is 2 most constraining limit on m4 |Ue4| . excluded for m3 = 150 meV with the GCM model and van- In Figs. 7 and 8, we translate the measured combined ishing Majorana phases. limit on mββ for the two situations above into a limit in 2 the (m4, |Ue4| ) plane for a set of different assumptions on m0. To be consistent with cosmological bounds, we gallium, solar neutrino, and lsnd/karmen νe disappear- vary m0 between 0 and 150 meV. For any of the m0 ance data, all of which are directly sensitive to m4 and values considered, all other NME model and Majorana |Ue4|, is also shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The limit from the phase combinations will produce limit curves that lie in 0νββ combined fit is currently close to the (3+1) global 2 between these extremes. The values of ∆mij and Uei best fit value only in the more constraining scenarios cal- (i, j = 1, 2, 3) are taken from a recent global fit [25]. culated using the GCM model and with m0 > 100 meV Including the three-standard deviation uncertainties on and favorable Majorana phases. Our results are consis- these fit values has negligible effect on the results. tent with previous analyses (see, e.g., [29, 31]) that in- 2 2 The central value of sin 2θ14 = 0.09 and ∆m41 = vestigate mββ regions allowed by global fits to oscilla- 1.78 eV2 from a global fit [30] of the oscillation parame- tion experiments under a (3+1) hypothesis. Assuming ters in a (3 + 1) sterile neutrino model including reactor, the sterile neutrino is a Majorana particle, neutrinoless 8 double-β decay can therefore independently constrain the increase by a factor of ≈ 1.5 − 2.4 in exposure. We existence of a sterile neutrino under those extreme as- compare these limits with the claimed observation of the sumptions. For a more detailed discussion on constraints Heidelberg-Moscow experiment and obtain p values that to (3+1) sterile neutrino models from neutrinoless double differ significantly depending on the NME calculations β decay and projected implications for next-generation chosen, ranging from 0.001 for the GCM model to 0.31 experiments, see Ref. [32]. for the (R)QRPA model. Using the uncertainties and the full correlation matrix provided by the (R)QRPA model changes the limit on mββ by 40 − 50 meV compared to VI. SUMMARY using no NME uncertainties. We also translate the com- bined limit on mββ into a constraint on a light sterile We have performed the first combination of the lat- Majorana neutrino in a (3 + 1) model. This translated est data sets from experiments searching for neutrinoless limit is NME and m0 and Majorana phase dependent. double-β decay using multiple isotopes. Using the CLs method, we set a limit on the effective neutrino mass Acknowledgements mββ in the range 130 − 310 meV, depending on NME model. Combining the data from multiple isotopes and experiments significantly increases the sensitivity over us- We want to thank Fedor Simkovicˇ and Sean Freeman ing the single-best experiment only, corresponding to an for useful discussions about the nuclear matrix elements.

[1] W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev. 56, 1184 (1939). 034304 (2015). We use the values of Table I. [2] For a recent review, see S.M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, Mod. [20] J. Menendez, A. Poves, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Nucl. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1230015 (2012). Phys. A 818, 139 (2009). We use the values of Table 8 [3] F. F. Deppisch, M. Hirsch, and H. P¨as, J. Phys. G 39, for the Jastrow short-range correlations. 124007 (2012). [21] F. Simkovic,ˇ V. Rodin, A. Faessler, and P. Vogel, Phys. [4] R. Arnold et al. (SuperNEMO Collaboration), Eur. Phys. Rev. C 87, 045501 (2013). We use the values of Tables II J. C 70, 927 (2010). and III. [5] M. Agostini et al. (GERDA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. [22] J. Hyv¨arinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 91, 024613 Lett. 111, 122503 (2013). (2015). We use the values of Table III. [6] J. B. Albert et al. (EXO-200 Collaboration), Nature 510, [23] A. Faessler, G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, V. Rodin, A. M. Ro- 229 (2014). tunno, and F. Simkovic,ˇ Phys. Rev. D 79, 053001 (2009). [7] A. Gando et al. (KamLAND-Zen Collaboration), Phys. We use the values of Table I. Rev. Lett. 110, 062502 (2013). [24] J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034316 (2012). [8] E. Andreotti et al., Astropart. Phys. 34, 822 (2011). We use the values of Table III. [9] K. Alfonso et al. (CUORE Collaboration), [25] M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and Th. Schwetz, J. arXiv:1504.02454 [nucl-ex], submitted to Phys. Rev. High Energy Phys. 11, 52 (2014). Lett. [26] P.A.R. Ade et al. (Planck Collab.), arXiv:1502.01589 [10] C. Tomei (CUORE Collaboration), INFN Seminar, 22 [astro-ph.CO], submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics April 2015, pg. 56. (2015). [11] R. Arnold et al. (NEMO-3 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [27] S. Parke and M. Ross-Lonergan, private communications. 89, 111101(R) (2014) [28] Y. F. Li and S. S. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 706, 406 (2012). [12] A. Faessler, G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, V. Rodin, A. M. Ro- [29] I. Girardi, A. Meroni, and S. T. Petcov, J. High Energy tunno, and F. Simkovic,ˇ Phys. Rev. D 87, 053002 (2013). Phys. 11, 146 (2013). [13] H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and I. Krivosheina, Mod. [30] J. Kopp, P.A.N. Machado, M. Maltoni, and Th. Schwetz, Phys. Lett. A 21, 1547 (2006). J. High Energy Phys. 05, 050 (2013). [14] T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A 434, 435 (1999). [31] C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. F. Li, Q. Y. Liu, and [15] A. L. Read, J. Phys., G 28, 2693 (2002). H. W. Long, Phys. Rev. D 86, 113014 (2012); C. Giunti, [16] W. Fisher, FERMILAB-TM-2386-E (2007). M. Laveder, Y. F. Li, and H. W. Long, Phys. Rev. D 87, [17] M. Auger et al. (EXO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 013004 (2013); A. Abada, V. De Romeri, and A. M. Teix- 109, 032505 (2012). eira, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 074 (2014). [18] T. R. Rodriguez and G. Martinez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. [32] C. Giunti, E. M. Zavanin, arXiv:1505.00978 [hep-ph]. Lett. 105, 252503 (2010). We use the values of Table I. [19] J. Barea, J. Kotila, and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C 91,