{"id":"85386227-51f9-4cf6-a76e-0b0ebfbd798e","arxiv_id":"2608.07137","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":6,"one_line_summary":"In 240Pu fission dynamics, a model with six excited intrinsic configurations finds 84% of scission flux flows through excited channels and fragment yields broaden toward experiment.","lead":"Using the Schrödinger Collective Intrinsic Model, this paper performs the first dynamical fission simulation of 240Pu that couples the fission path to six excited internal configurations of the nucleus. It reports that excited channels carry about 84% of the scission probability flux, a result that calls into question adiabatic-only treatments of fission dynamics and helps explain why fragment yields are broader than standard models predict.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The 84.2% excited-flux headline is a finite-time, window-averaged number, not the asymptotic scission flux: at t_f only 60.6% of the norm has crossed c#=600, and no sensitivity to propagation time or averaging window is shown.","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption was the completeness of the six selected variational excitations, which is a legitimate concern and is explicitly flagged by the authors in Sec. IV.B.2. I partially agree, but the more immediately load-bearing issue is that the headline percentage is extracted from a finite-time flux with 39.4% of the norm still inside the physical region, and from an ad hoc averaging window around scission. Even within the chosen six-state basis, the reported 84.2% could shift if the remaining probability eventually crosses scission with a different channel composition or if a different averaging interval is used. The paper's own statement that residual probability continues to leak through the first barrier at late times makes the asymptotic nature of phi_tot questionable. A longer propagation or a late-time extrapolation would settle this directly. The concern does not invalidate the paper; it indicates that the central quantitative claim needs a convergence demonstration before being stated as definitive. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict already captures the need for additional checks, so I recommend keeping the verdict UNCHANGED, but with the added condition that the flux yields be shown to be converged in time and stable with respect to the scission averaging window.","tokens_in":19572,"tokens_out":7604,"duration_ms":80180,"concrete_test":"Rerun the propagation for at least 2x and 4x the current t_f (or extrapolate the late-time current at c#=495) and recompute the channel yields from Eq. (39) using both the finite-time and the converged flux integrals. In parallel, recompute the yields over windows c# in [480,510], [470,520], [420,570], and at the single point c#=495, while keeping all other settings fixed. Report the resulting excited share; if it changes by more than about 3 percentage points under either variation, the headline should be reported as a finite-time/window-dependent value rather than a converged scission-flux statement.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim depends on the channel fluxes at scission being the asymptotic total flux. Section IV.B defines the total flux as the infinite-time integral in Eq. (31), but all reported fluxes are evaluated after t_f=7.90e-20 s (Fig. 15) via the finite-time definition in Eq. (29). At that time, Sec. IV.A.2 reports that only 60.6% of the initial norm has been absorbed, and the residual wave packet is described as continuing to leak through the first barrier by tunneling. Thus phi_tot(c_s) has not demonstrably converged, and the decomposition in Eq. (38) is a snapshot of the flux that crossed by t_f, not the total scission flux. The yields in Eq. (39) are then averaged over the interval 445<=c#<=545, an interval chosen because of strong flux fluctuations in the scission region. No test is reported for how the 84.2% excited share changes with the window width or with additional propagation time. Since the headline conclusion is that an adiabatic-only model retains less than 16% of the scission wave function, a few-percent shift from either effect would weaken the claim quantitatively and could change 'more than 80%' to a substantially lower number.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper reports the first dynamical application of the Schrodinger Collective Intrinsic Model (SCIM) to 240Pu along a one-dimensional asymmetric fission path. It introduces a Savitzky-Golay regularization of the collective potential, inertia, and dissipative tensors; compares the adiabatic SCIM with the Gaussian Overlap Approximation (GOA); constructs and propagates a coupled collective-intrinsic wave packet with a Crank-Nicolson scheme and absorbing boundary conditions; derives channel-resolved probability fluxes from a continuity equation; and extracts excited yields, fragment distributions, and an energy balance at scission. The headline result is that excited channels carry 84.2% of the scission flux (adiabatic 15.8%), with neutron excitations dominant, and that including intrinsic excitations broadens fragment distributions and gives TXE = 34.40 MeV and TKE_int = 178.26 MeV.","tokens_in":19868,"tokens_out":14165,"duration_ms":130967,"significance":"If the 84.2% result is robust, the paper makes a significant contribution: it would indicate that adiabatic-only TDGCM calculations retain at most about 16% of the scission flux, and it would justify the SCIM program as a framework for including intrinsic excitations in fission dynamics. The paper contains genuine technical contributions, including the explicit probability-current decomposition in Appendix A, the coupled-channel dynamical propagation, and the first comparison of SCIM and exact GOA zero-point energies and inertias. The main excited-flux result is not obtained by fitting to the experimental data used for comparison, so it has independent grounding. The significance is conditional, however, on the convergence of the finite-time flux, on the representativeness of the six chosen variational excitations, and on the consistency of the scission-coordinate averaging used for the yields and fragment distributions.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The paper defines the total flux as the infinite-time integral in Eq. (31), but all reported fluxes are evaluated after t_f = 7.90e-20 s using the finite-time definition in Eq. (29). At that time only 60.6% of the initial norm has been absorbed (Sec. IV.A.2) and the remaining 39.4% is still tunneling through the first barrier. The yields in Eq. (39) are therefore snapshot yields of the flux that crossed by t_f, not the converged asymptotic scission flux, and the 84.2% excited share may change with additional propagation time. Please show the convergence of phi_i(c_s) in t_f and report the late-time behavior, or rephrase the claim as a finite-time result.","section":"Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (29)-(38), Fig. 15"},{"comment":"The yields are obtained by averaging fluxes over the interval 445 <= c# <= 545, chosen because of strong fluctuations near scission. No sensitivity to the width or position of this window is reported, despite the strong local variations visible in Figs. 15 and 17. Please provide the window dependence of the channel yields and of the 84.2% excited fraction, or use an alternative definition less sensitive to arbitrary averaging.","section":"Sec. IV.B, Eq. (39) and yields paragraph"},{"comment":"The central excited-flux result, the neutron/proton asymmetry, and the fragment broadening all rest on the assumption that the six selected variational excitations (three neutron, three proton) represent the intrinsic response. The authors explicitly flag in Sec. IV.B that the neutron dominance may be a selection effect, and a similar caveat is given for the proton yields in Sec. IV.C. Since E*_s = 7.55 MeV and the channel decomposition in Eq. (38) depend on this set, please add a sensitivity test with additional or alternative excited configurations, or at least quantify how much the excited flux changes when individual states (e.g., the weakly coupled neutron Omega = 7/2 state) are removed.","section":"Sec. IV.B and IV.C, Figs. 16-19"},{"comment":"As written, the currents J_D and J_B contain explicit factors of i multiplying Im(...), which would make J complex for real D and B. The fluxes in Eqs. (29) and (37) are real observables, so either D and B are purely imaginary by the SOPO convention, which should be stated, or the prefactors contain a typo. Please clarify the Hermiticity/SOPO conventions and verify the prefactors, since all yields are computed from these currents.","section":"Eqs. (35)-(37) and Appendix A"},{"comment":"The channel yields Y_i used in the fragment distributions are averaged over 445 <= c# <= 545, but the fragment probabilities c_i^2(N_l,h) and c_i^2(Z_l,h) are evaluated at the single point c# = 495. Mixing window-averaged channel weights with single-point fragment probabilities is not justified in the text and may bias the broadening comparison with experiment. Please either evaluate both quantities at the same scission point(s) or explain the averaging prescription.","section":"Sec. IV.B-C, Eqs. (39)-(41), Figs. 18-19"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The phrase \"we evaluate, the neutron and proton fragment distributions\" contains a stray comma.","section":"Abstract and Sec. IV.C"},{"comment":"At c# = 600 the imaginary term evaluates to +3.8 i, since -5e-6*c#^2 + 0.1*c# - 62 = -3.8, which would anti-absorb rather than absorb probability; please check the sign convention of the absorbing potential.","section":"Eq. (28)"},{"comment":"The SG filter is motivated as enforcing the same low-frequency character as the GOA, so the close SCIM-GOA agreement should be presented as a consistency check rather than an independent validation; a sensitivity scan in the filter window r would strengthen this claim.","section":"Sec. II.A and II.C, Figs. 4-5"},{"comment":"The statement \"a time step Delta t = 6e-4 hbar\" has incorrect units; the time step should be expressed in units such as hbar/MeV.","section":"Sec. IV.A.2"},{"comment":"The expectation value appears to be written as sum_{c#} v(c#) H_SCIM v(c#) rather than sum_{c#} v*(c#) H_SCIM v(c#); please clarify that the basis states v_i are real.","section":"Eq. (21)"},{"comment":"Reference [3] is the present manuscript and should be marked as \"this work\" rather than as a submitted article.","section":"Reference list"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The manuscript is Part III of a trilogy and relies on Parts I and II for the definitions of the SCIM Hamiltonian, the SOPO conventions, and the construction of the six excited states. If those companion papers are not available to the referee, the current manuscript is not fully self-contained; I would request that the key definitions be summarized in an appendix or that the companion papers be provided. The finite-time convergence and window-sensitivity issues in Sec. IV.B are the main obstacles to accepting the headline quantitative claim."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"First dynamical application of SCIM with intrinsic excitations is here, and it delivers what the framework promised: the excited channels can dominate the scission flux, broaden fragment yields, and generate a plausible energy balance. The channel-resolved probability current in Appendix A is new and looks right; the continuity-equation derivation is clean. I found no internal contradiction in the equations. The authors also deserve credit for flagging that the six excited configurations may not be complete and that the neutron/proton balance could be an artifact of that selection. That is honest.\n\nThe main soft spot is the headline number. The 84.2% yield is an average over the manually chosen window 445 <= c# <= 545 of fluxes evaluated at t_f = 7.90e-20 s. At that time only 60.6% of the initial norm has been absorbed; the rest is still tunneling through the first barrier. So the reported yields are a snapshot of the fast component, not the asymptotic scission flux. If the slow tunneling tail has a different excited/adiabatic composition, the percentages shift, and 'more than 80%' could become something like 70%. No sensitivity to propagation time or window width is shown. This is addressable, but it is the load-bearing claim, so it needs to be nailed down before the quantitative conclusion is trusted.\n\nThe SG filter comparison with GOA is also a bit circular: the filter is justified as a low-frequency regularization, and then SCIM is shown to agree with GOA, which is itself a low-frequency approximation. The agreement is reassuring, but it should be presented as a consistency check rather than an independent validation. The choice r=131 gets no dynamical sensitivity test either.\n\nThe abstract overstates the comparison with experiment. In the body, the fragment distributions remain significantly different from the measured ones, and the text says multidimensional collective space is needed. That is fine for a first application, but the abstract should say 'qualitatively consistent' at most.\n\nWho is this for: fission theorists and anyone working on TDGCM with intrinsic excitations. It deserves a serious peer review, and I would cite the flux decomposition and first SCIM dynamics. The referee should push on flux convergence and basis completeness.","headline":"First dynamical SCIM result is a genuine step forward, but the 84.2% excited-flux headline is a finite-time, window-averaged number rather than a converged scission flux.","tokens_in":20419,"tokens_out":3208,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":30034,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["24.75.+i"],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"In 240Pu fission, intrinsic excitations carry 84% of the probability flux at scission, leaving the adiabatic collective channel with just under 16%.","keywords":["nuclear fission","Schrödinger Collective Intrinsic Model","intrinsic excitations","scission flux decomposition","240Pu fission","Gogny D1S interaction","Savitzky-Golay regularization","Gaussian Overlap Approximation"],"falsifier":"A computational falsifier is a basis-completeness study: enlarge the excitation set (more $\\Omega$ values, additional two-quasiparticle states, or a second-generation selection) and recompute the scission yields; if the excited share drops well below 84% or the neutron/proton balance reverses, the central claim fails. An experimental falsifier is the energy balance: the computed TXE of 34.40 MeV sits about 4 MeV above the ~30 MeV estimate from measured neutron multiplicities and gamma emission for $^{239}\\mathrm{Pu}(n_{\\mathrm{th}},f)$, and a precise measurement of TKE and TXE distributions that excluded this discrepancy would indicate that the inferred 7.55 MeV intrinsic excitation energy is mis-estimated.","tokens_in":19354,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":18573,"duration_ms":142173,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper reports the first dynamical application of the Schrödinger Collective Intrinsic Model (SCIM), which couples the collective fission coordinate of 240Pu to six selected intrinsic excitations — three neutron and three proton configurations. Its central claim is that intrinsic excitations dominate the fission dynamics: at scission, the excited channels carry 84.2% of the total probability flux (after averaging over the scission interval $445 \\le c_\\# \\le 545$), leaving only 15.8% in the adiabatic, collective-only channel. If this is right, an adiabatic-only treatment such as the standard TDGCM is working with the minority component of the scission flux, which would explain why such calculations systematically underestimate the width of fragment distributions. The paper also establishes the tools that make this claim measurable — a Savitzky-Golay regularization of the collective potential, inertia, and dissipative tensors, and a continuity-equation decomposition of the probability flux into channel-resolved yields — and shows that the SCIM adiabatic limit reproduces the Gaussian Overlap Approximation while standard cranking and ATDHFB inertias deviate from it both quantitatively and qualitatively.","feed_headline":"Excited states carry 84% of 240Pu's scission flux","feed_subtitle":"Fission models that ignore intrinsic excitations capture only one-sixth of the probability flux at scission.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the SCIM collective-intrinsic Hamiltonian, $H_{\\mathrm{SCIM}}(c_\\#) = V_{\\mathrm{SCIM}}(c_\\#) + [D_{\\mathrm{SCIM}}(c_\\#)\\,\\partial/\\partial c_\\#]^{(1)} + [B_{\\mathrm{SCIM}}(c_\\#)\\,\\partial/\\partial c_\\#]^{(2)}$, whose collective potential, dissipative tensor, and inertia tensor are built from microscopic kernels of the Gogny D1S interaction by inverting the norm kernel through Symmetric Ordered Products of Operators truncated at second order. Two devices carry the argument. First, a Savitzky-Golay low-pass filter (cubic fits over a window of 131 points) smooths the kernel moments so that the second-order truncation is legitimate; the paper argues this is not merely numerical smoothing but a controlled low-frequency regularization consistent with the GOA, and indeed the SCIM adiabatic limit reproduces the exact GOA zero-point energies and masses, while GOA+Cranking and GOA+ATDHFB deviate qualitatively. Second, a continuity equation derived from the collective-intrinsic Schrödinger equation splits the probability current into a vanishing potential term, a dissipative term $J_D = -\\frac{2i}{\\hbar}\\,\\mathrm{Im}\\sum_{ij} g_i D_{ij} g_j^*$, and an inertial term $J_B = -\\frac{8i}{\\hbar}\\,\\mathrm{Im}\\sum_{ij} g_i B_{ij}\\,\\partial g_j^*/\\partial c_\\#$, so that the total scission flux becomes a sum of per-channel fluxes, each convertible into a yield $Y_i(c_s) = \\phi_i(c_s)/\\phi_{\\mathrm{tot}}(c_s)$. That decomposition is what converts a single wave-packet propagation into the result that excited channels dominate the scission flux.","core_discovery":"The central claim, stated in the abstract and quantified in Section IV.B, is that the excited states account for more than 80% of the total flux at scission — specifically 84.2% once the flux is averaged over the scission interval $445 \\le c_\\# \\le 545$. The adiabatic channel contributes 15.8%, the neutron $\\Omega = 1/2$ excitation 41.5%, the neutron $\\Omega = 3/2$ excitation 20.3%, and the proton $\\Omega = 5/2$ excitation 17.5%. The same channel-resolved flux analysis yields an averaged intrinsic excitation energy at scission of $E^*_s = 7.55$ MeV, a total excitation energy of $34.40$ MeV (some 4 MeV above the experimental estimate for the $^{239}\\mathrm{Pu}(n_{\\mathrm{th}},f)$ reaction), and a dissipation coefficient from saddle to scission of $\\gamma^* \\approx 0.045$ MeV per unit $c_\\#$. Including the excitations broadens the predicted fragment neutron and proton distributions and enhances odd-fragment yields, consistent with the pair-breaking nature of the selected excitations; the results are consistent with available experimental data, though the restriction to a one-dimensional path leaves clear discrepancies.","pith_inferences":["A natural extension the paper leaves open is a convergence test: enrich the excitation set with more two-quasiparticle configurations (additional $\\Omega$ values, or higher-lying neutron and proton states) and recompute the scission yields; this would settle whether the 84.2% excited share and the neutron dominance are physical or artifacts of the six selected excitations, a question the authors e","If the excited share survives basis enrichment, the historical successes of adiabatic-only fission models at reproducing some observables would look partly coincidental, plausibly arising from compensation between missing excited flux and effective inertias — the same kind of compensation the paper identifies between ATDHFB masses and non-local effects.","The approximately linear rise of intrinsic excitation energy from saddle to scission, about $4.5\\times10^{-2}$ MeV per unit $c_\\#$, invites a comparative study across nuclei and initial energies; a roughly universal slope would provide a cheap dissipative term for much lighter collective models.","In a multidimensional SCIM, the broadening and odd-even staggering effects seen here along one dimension could be compared quantitatively against experimental yield and TKE maps, which is the direct test of whether intrinsic excitations are the missing ingredient in fragment-width predictions."],"forward_implications":["A fission model restricted to the adiabatic collective channel captures only about one-sixth of the scission flux in 240Pu, so yield predictions from such models rest on the minority component — the paper's explanation for why adiabatic TDGCM systematically underestimates fragment-distribution widths.","The SCIM inertia and potential in the adiabatic limit agree with the exact Gaussian Overlap Approximation, whereas cranking and ATDHFB inertias deviate substantially near the first barrier and along the descent; this indicates that non-local collective effects, not time-odd corrections, are the leading missing ingredient in standard inertia prescriptions.","The continuity-equation flux decomposition provides a channel-resolved way to assign yields, fragment distributions, and excitation energy at scission, making each intrinsic configuration's contribution to final observables individually assessable.","The scission energy balance closes at TXE $= 34.40$ MeV, TKE$_{\\mathrm{int}} = 178.26$ MeV, and a pre-scission kinetic energy of 14.4% of TKE, and the TKE computed with the full interaction energy (not just Coulomb) lands close to the 181.24 MeV goal TKE extracted from the SCIM fragment distribution."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Part I of the trilogy: defines the SCIM Hamiltonian via symmetric ordered products, the norm-kernel inversion, and the adiabatic 240Pu asymmetric path that carries the propagation.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Part II of the trilogy: supplies the six variational excitation paths (neutron and proton configurations with the listed Ω values) whose couplings drive the excited fluxes.","marker":"[2]"},{"why":"Thesis containing the explicit SCIM expressions and Gogny-D1S computation details for the dynamical ingredients.","marker":"[5]"},{"why":"The Savitzky-Golay smoothing and differentiation method used to regularize kernel moments before constructing the SCIM tensors.","marker":"[6]"},{"why":"Reference for the GOA reduction of the Hill-Wheeler equation, used to validate the SCIM adiabatic limit against exact GOA zero-point energies and masses.","marker":"[7]"},{"why":"Supplies the initial wave-packet construction and the iterative Crank-Nicolson propagation scheme adopted for the collective-intrinsic Schrödinger equation.","marker":"[8]"},{"why":"High-resolution experimental 239Pu(nth,f) neutron and proton yields used as the comparison data for the SCIM fragment distributions.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"Experimental prompt neutron-multiplicity data from which the ~30 MeV TXE benchmark is taken for the scission energy balance.","marker":"[13]"},{"why":"Experimental TKE values and the goal TKE for 240Pu fission used to test the computed total kinetic energies.","marker":"[14]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Excited states drive 84% of scission flux in 240Pu","Adiabatic fission misses 84% of scission flux","Intrinsic excitations dominate 240Pu scission dynamics","Neutron, proton excitations control fission flux at scission","New model quantifies excitation role in 240Pu fission"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The whole argument rests on the completeness of the six selected variational excitations — three neutron and three proton configurations — as a stand-in for the intrinsic response; if other excited states carry significant flux or couple strongly near scission, the headline percentages, the neutron dominance, and the energy balance would all shift, a possibility the authors themselves leave open in Section IV.B.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Excited states drive 84% of scission flux in 240Pu","Adiabatic fission misses 84% of scission flux","Intrinsic excitations dominate 240Pu scission dynamics","Neutron, proton excitations control fission flux at scission","New model quantifies excitation role in 240Pu fission"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000231,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1585,"prompt_tokens":1142,"completion_tokens":443,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":758,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":355}},"tokens_in":758,"tokens_out":443,"duration_ms":4747,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":355,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-10T14:08:13.144546+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"A computational falsifier is a basis-completeness study: enlarge the excitation set (more $\\Omega$ values, additional two-quasiparticle states, or a second-generation selection) and recompute the scission yields; if the excited share drops well below 84% or the neutron/proton balance reverses, the central claim fails. An experimental falsifier is the energy balance: the computed TXE of 34.40 MeV sits about 4 MeV above the ~30 MeV estimate from measured neutron multiplicities and gamma emission for $^{239}\\mathrm{Pu}(n_{\\mathrm{th}},f)$, and a precise measurement of TKE and TXE distributions that excluded this discrepancy would indicate that the inferred 7.55 MeV intrinsic excitation energy is mis-estimated.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Link” and “Drop","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Part I of the trilogy: defines the SCIM Hamiltonian via symmetric ordered products, the norm-kernel inversion, and the adiabatic 240Pu asymmetric path that carries the propagation."},{"cited_title":"adiabatic-excited","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Part II of the trilogy: supplies the six variational excitation paths (neutron and proton configurations with the listed Ω values) whose couplings drive the excited fluxes."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Thesis containing the explicit SCIM expressions and Gogny-D1S computation details for the dynamical ingredients."},{"cited_title":"goal TKE","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The Savitzky-Golay smoothing and differentiation method used to regularize kernel moments before constructing the SCIM tensors."},{"cited_title":"Carpentier, N","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Reference for the GOA reduction of the Hill-Wheeler equation, used to validate the SCIM adiabatic limit against exact GOA zero-point energies and masses."},{"cited_title":"Carpentier, N","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the initial wave-packet construction and the iterative Crank-Nicolson propagation scheme adopted for the collective-intrinsic Schrödinger equation."},{"cited_title":"Younes, D","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Experimental prompt neutron-multiplicity data from which the ~30 MeV TXE benchmark is taken for the scission energy balance."}],"review_version":1}