pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26447 · v1 · pith:L54MVSASnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Nuclear Isomers and Their Impact on Gamma-Ray Emission in Binary Neutron Star Mergers

M. C. Babiuc Hamilton , A. P. Gross , O. T. Odney This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 00:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords nuclear isomersr-process nucleosynthesisgamma-ray emissionbinary neutron star mergerskilonovanuclear reaction networksastrophysical gamma rays
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nuclear isomers tracked dynamically in r-process networks produce gamma-ray lines detectable at galactic distances from neutron star mergers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper relaxes the usual assumption of rapid de-excitation by treating selected nuclear isomers as separate states inside the reaction network, with temperature-dependent transition rates and beta-feeding probabilities derived from nuclear level data. This changes the calculated gamma-ray output from the decay of r-process nuclei made in binary neutron star mergers. The resulting flux estimates indicate that the 743.3 keV line of Nb-97m and the 555.6 keV line of Y-91m reach levels observable by COSI, AMEGO, and LOX if the merger occurs within the galaxy. A reader would care because these lines would give a direct spectroscopic signature of specific nuclei formed in the event, independent of the kilonova light curve. The work also notes that the current calculation covers only a small fraction of known isomers.

Core claim

By including nuclear isomers as independent states in the nuclear reaction network with temperature-dependent effective transition rates between ground and isomeric states and beta-feeding probabilities calculated using the nuclear level structure, the gamma-ray flux from isomeric transitions is estimated, finding that the 743.3 keV line of Nb-97m and the 555.6 keV line of Y-91m may be detectable in gamma-ray observatories such as COSI, AMEGO, and LOX at galactic distances.

What carries the argument

Nuclear isomers modeled as independent states in the reaction network with temperature-dependent effective transition rates and beta-feeding probabilities.

If this is right

  • Gamma-ray spectra from mergers include contributions from longer-lived isomeric states beyond ground-state decays.
  • The 743.3 keV and 555.6 keV lines reach detectable fluxes at galactic distances.
  • Robust inclusion of nuclear isomers across more nuclei is required for accurate gamma-ray modeling.
  • Careful modeling of the resultant gamma-ray spectroscopy is needed to characterize observational signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Detection of these lines would confirm the presence of the corresponding r-process nuclei in the merger ejecta.
  • Extending the isomer treatment to additional nuclei could reveal more lines or alter the total gamma-ray flux estimate.
  • The same dynamic isomer modeling could be applied to other sites of heavy-element nucleosynthesis.

Load-bearing premise

The selected list of nuclei with isomers is representative of the broader set of r-process nuclei that possess isomers.

What would settle it

Non-detection of the 743.3 keV Nb-97m and 555.6 keV Y-91m lines in gamma-ray observations of a galactic-distance binary neutron star merger by COSI, AMEGO, or LOX.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26447 by A. P. Gross, M. C. Babiuc Hamilton, O. T. Odney.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Isomeric abundances for the isomers realized in the network above the numerical threshold ≥ 10−12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observable γ-ray energy fluxes for the individual isomers at D = 15 kpc. Solid curves correspond to the slab and dashed to the sphere escape prescriptions. Horizontal lines indicate detector sensitivities and vertical orange lines the thermal emergence time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observable γ-ray energy fluxes for Nb-97m and Y-91m at D = 15 kpc. The left panels compare the delayed isomeric line flux with the local β-decay continuum at the same energy and with detector sensitivities. The right panels show the ratio between the line and continuum fluxes. Solid curves correspond to the slab and dashed to the sphere escape prescriptions. Horizontal lines indicate detector sensitivities… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison of effective transition rates for Al-26m between this work (blue squares), (G. W. Misch et al. 2021a) (black triangles), (S. S. Gupta & B. S. Meyer 2001) (orange circles), and (R. Reifarth et al. 2018) (magenta x’s). Solid lines represent the isomer-to-ground transition rates, while dashed lines represent ground-to-isomer transition rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of β-decay rates for Al-26m between this work (blue squares), (G. W. Misch et al. 2021a) (black triangles), and (R. Reifarth et al. 2018) (magenta x’s). Dotted lines denote decay from the isomeric state, and dash-dot lines denote decay from the ground state. regard the temperature-independent treatment as physically inadequate for the conditions relevant to neutron-star merger ejecta, and incl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effective transition rates as function of temperature for selected isomers. Solid lines denote isomer-to-ground rates, dashed lines ground-to-isomer rates, and dotted lines isomeric β-decay rates. Top: isomers around 1st r-process peak. Middle: isomers around 2nd r-process and rare-Earth peaks. Bottom: isomers around 3rd r-process peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of β-decay feeding rates, isomer to ground, for twelve different isomers, as a function of temperature. Solid curves show the full temperature dependent behavior, while the dashed lines represent the maximum (optimal) ratio value. The black solid line denotes a ratio of 1, with equal transitions to ground and isomeric states from parent β-decay. REFERENCES Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Isomeric abundances for temperature-dependent and optimal β-feeding treatments. Sustained β-fed isomers show treatment-dependent enhancements (Nb-97m) or suppression (Pb-207), while the prompt component remains unchanged. Garg, S., Maheshwari, B., Singh, B., et al. 2023, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 150, 101546, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101546 Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2023,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The multi-messenger observations of GW170817 have provided strong evidence that binary neutron star mergers are a site of heavy-element production through the rapid neutron capture process. The decay of unstable $r$-process nuclei produces a significant number of $\gamma$-rays, which not only power the associated kilonova, but may also be observable in current and future $\gamma$-ray observatories, providing a direct probe of the nuclei synthesized. Current models of the emitted $\gamma$-rays link a nuclear reaction network with individual decay spectra. Typically, only the population of the ground state of the nuclei is tracked in the reaction network, and rapid de-excitation of the daughter nuclei is assumed when calculating the decay spectra. This may not be accurate in nuclei where there are longer-lived, high-energy nuclear isomers. In this work, we relax these assumptions, modeling the dynamic behavior of nuclear isomers for a select list of nuclei. These isomers are included as independent states in the network, with temperature-dependent effective transition rates between ground and isomeric states and $\beta$-feeding probabilities calculated using the nuclear level structure. We estimate the $\gamma$-ray flux from isomeric transitions, finding that the 743.3 keV line of Nb-97m and the 555.6 keV line of Y-91m may be detectable in $\gamma$-ray observatories such as COSI, AMEGO, and LOX at galactic distances. These results, calculated for a small fraction of nuclei with isomers, highlight the need for the robust inclusion of nuclear isomers in nuclear reaction networks, as well as careful modeling of the resultant $\gamma$-ray spectroscopy to characterize observational signals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extends r-process reaction networks for binary neutron star mergers by treating a select list of nuclear isomers as independent states with temperature-dependent transition rates and β-feeding probabilities derived from nuclear level structure. It computes the resulting γ-ray line fluxes and identifies the 743.3 keV line of Nb-97m and the 555.6 keV line of Y-91m as potentially detectable at galactic distances by instruments such as COSI, AMEGO, and LOX, while noting that the modeled set covers only a small fraction of isomeric nuclei and calling for broader inclusion.

Significance. If the modeling approach proves robust when extended, the work would establish that isomeric states can produce observable γ-ray lines distinct from ground-state decays, offering a new spectroscopic probe of r-process yields in mergers. The explicit call for network expansion is a constructive acknowledgment of current limitations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The detectability claim for the 743.3 keV Nb-97m and 555.6 keV Y-91m lines rests on a reaction network that includes only a select list of isomers explicitly described as covering 'a small fraction' of nuclei with isomers. No test is presented showing that the predicted fluxes remain stable or that signal-to-noise is unaffected when additional isomers are incorporated, making the representativeness assumption load-bearing for the central observational result.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: No error bars, sensitivity tests, or validation against known isomer populations or decay data are reported for the flux estimates, leaving the quantitative basis for the 'may be detectable' statement unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a table or section listing the exact nuclei and isomers included, together with the nuclear data sources used for level structure and transition rates.
  2. Clarify whether the temperature-dependent effective rates are computed on-the-fly during the network evolution or pre-tabulated, and how this choice affects computational cost and accuracy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which help clarify the limitations of our current modeling approach. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The detectability claim for the 743.3 keV Nb-97m and 555.6 keV Y-91m lines rests on a reaction network that includes only a select list of isomers explicitly described as covering 'a small fraction' of nuclei with isomers. No test is presented showing that the predicted fluxes remain stable or that signal-to-noise is unaffected when additional isomers are incorporated, making the representativeness assumption load-bearing for the central observational result.

    Authors: We agree that the representativeness of the select list is an important caveat for the detectability claims. The manuscript already states that the modeled set covers only a small fraction of isomeric nuclei and explicitly calls for broader inclusion. The specific lines identified (743.3 keV from Nb-97m and 555.6 keV from Y-91m) arise directly from the isomers we have included as independent states. We do not claim these fluxes are representative of the full set of isomers; rather, they demonstrate that isomeric transitions can produce distinct observable lines. A full stability test with additional isomers is not feasible at present due to incomplete nuclear data for the full set of r-process nuclei. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract and conclusions to more explicitly qualify the detectability statements as applying to the current select list and to note that additional isomers could alter the continuum background without removing the distinct line signatures from the included states. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: No error bars, sensitivity tests, or validation against known isomer populations or decay data are reported for the flux estimates, leaving the quantitative basis for the 'may be detectable' statement unquantified.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current version provides no error bars, sensitivity tests, or direct validation of the flux estimates against independent isomer data. The fluxes are computed from the temperature-dependent rates and β-feeding probabilities derived from the nuclear level structure for the included isomers. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods or results section discussing the principal sources of uncertainty (nuclear level energies, transition rates, and β-branching ratios) and will qualify the abstract language to reflect that the 'may be detectable' assessment is based on the central values from the present network without quantified uncertainties. A comprehensive sensitivity study and validation against measured isomer populations will be reserved for future work that expands the isomer set. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external nuclear data with explicit scope limitation

full rationale

The paper tracks a select list of isomers as independent states in the reaction network using temperature-dependent rates and beta-feeding from nuclear level structure data. Gamma-ray fluxes for the quoted lines are computed directly from those external inputs. The abstract explicitly states the list covers only a small fraction and calls for broader inclusion, without claiming representativeness or deriving any prediction by fitting to the same data. No self-citation chains, self-definitional loops, or fitted-input-as-prediction steps appear in the provided text. The central claim remains a forward calculation from independent nuclear data, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of nuclear level data for the chosen isomers and on the assumption that the select list captures the dominant isomeric contribution; no free parameters are numerically fitted in the abstract, but the choice of which nuclei to include is ad hoc.

free parameters (1)
  • select list of nuclei with isomers
    The paper restricts the dynamic isomer treatment to a small fraction of nuclei; the list itself is not derived from first principles within the work.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Nuclear level structure data can be used to compute temperature-dependent effective transition rates and beta-feeding probabilities between ground and isomeric states
    Invoked when the isomers are added as independent network states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5850 in / 1416 out tokens · 26530 ms · 2026-06-26T00:47:40.102584+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    Agency, I. A. E. 2009, LiveChart of Nuclides,, https://https://www- nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html

    2009

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2016, ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/110 2016

  4. [4]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1147

    Bernuzzi, S., Magistrelli, F., Jacobi, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1147 2025

  5. [5]

    M., & Weisskopf, V

    Blatt, J. M., & Weisskopf, V. F. 1952, Theoretical nuclear physics (New York: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-9959-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-9959-2 1952

  6. [6]

    Center, N. N. D. 2004, Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File,, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov

    2004

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Chen, M.-H., Hu, R.-C., & Liang, E.-W. 2022, ApJL, 932, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7470

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7470 2022

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Chen, M.-H., Li, L.-X., Chen, Q.-H., Hu, R.-C., & Liang, E.-W. 2024a, MNRAS, 529, 1154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae475

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae475

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Chen, M.-H., Li, L.-X., & Liang, E.-W. 2024b, ApJ, 971, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ec

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Chen, M.-H., Li, L.-X., Lin, D.-B., & Liang, E.-W. 2021, ApJ, 919, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1267 2021

  11. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3128

    Curtis, S., M¨ osta, P., Wu, Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3128 2023

  12. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L103, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa016 20 Figure 8.Isomeric abundances for temperature-dependent and optimalβ-feeding treatments

    Fujimoto, S.-i., & Hashimoto, M.-a. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L103, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa016 20 Figure 8.Isomeric abundances for temperature-dependent and optimalβ-feeding treatments. Sustainedβ-fed isomers show treatment-dependent enhancements (Nb-97m) or suppression (Pb-207), while the prompt component remains unchanged

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa016 2020

  13. [13]

    2023, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 150, 101546, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101546

    Garg, S., Maheshwari, B., Singh, B., et al. 2023, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 150, 101546, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101546

    work page doi:10.1016/j.adt.2022.101546 2023

  14. [14]

    H., Troja, E., Fryer, C

    Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00633

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00633 2023

  15. [15]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  16. [16]

    Gross, A., Cupp, S., & Mumpower, M. R. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08560

  17. [17]

    Gross, A., Cupp, S., & Mumpower, M. R. 2025b, ApJL, 995, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2465

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2465 2041

  18. [18]

    S., & Meyer, B

    Gupta, S. S., & Meyer, B. S. 2001, PhRvC, 64, 025805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.025805

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.64.025805 2001

  19. [19]

    Hamilton, M. C. B., & Powell, J. I. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1384488, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1384488

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2024.1384488 2024

  20. [20]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 35, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw404

    Hotokezaka, K., Wanajo, S., Tanaka, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 35, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw404

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw404 2016

  21. [21]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80–84, doi: 10.1038/nature24453 10

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017

  22. [22]

    Kierans, C. A. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den

    2021

  23. [23]

    Nikzad, & K

    Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1144431, doi: 10.1117/12.2562352

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2562352

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Korobkin, O., Hungerford, A. M., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab64d8 2020

  25. [25]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  26. [26]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

    2011

  27. [27]

    Mumpower, M. R. 2024, ApJ, 964, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ef 2024

  28. [28]

    Ex Luna, Scientia: The Lunar Occultation eXplorer (LOX)

    Miller, R., Ajello, M., Beacom, J. F., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 123, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07005 2019

  29. [29]

    Mumpower, M. R. 2021a, ApJS, 252, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc41d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc41d

  30. [30]

    W., Sprouse, T

    Misch, G. W., Sprouse, T. M., & Mumpower, M. R. 2021b, ApJL, 913, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb74

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfb74 2041

  31. [31]

    W., Sprouse, T

    Misch, G. W., Sprouse, T. M., Mumpower, M. R., et al. 2021c, Symmetry, 13, 1831, doi: 10.3390/sym13101831 21

    work page doi:10.3390/sym13101831

  32. [32]

    R., Jaffke, P., Verriere, M., & Randrup, J

    Mumpower, M. R., Jaffke, P., Verriere, M., & Randrup, J. 2020, PhRvC, 101, 054607, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.054607

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.101.054607 2020

  33. [33]

    R., Kawano, T., Sprouse, T

    Mumpower, M. R., Kawano, T., Sprouse, T. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeaca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeaca 2018

  34. [34]

    R., Kawano, T., Ullmann, J

    Mumpower, M. R., Kawano, T., Ullmann, J. L., Krtiˇ cka, M., & Sprouse, T. M. 2017, PhRvC, 96, 024612, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024612

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.024612 2017

  35. [35]

    2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    Aprahamian, A. 2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001 2016

  36. [36]

    2019, ApJL, 886, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5794

    Nedora, V., Bernuzzi, S., Radice, D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 886, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5794

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5794 2019

  37. [37]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    1989

  38. [38]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    Perego, A., Radice, D., & Bernuzzi, S. 2017, ApJL, 850, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9 2017

  39. [39]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  40. [40]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 33, 1843011, doi: 10.1142/S0217751X1843011X

    Reifarth, R., Fiebiger, S., G¨ obel, K., et al. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 33, 1843011, doi: 10.1142/S0217751X1843011X

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x1843011x 2018

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.23354, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.23354

    Singh, P., Stratta, G., Rossi, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.23354, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.23354

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.23354 2025

  42. [42]

    M., Mumpower, M

    Sprouse, T. M., Mumpower, M. R., & Surman, R. 2021, PhRvC, 104, 015803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.015803 2021

  43. [43]

    V., Schneider, C., Jeet, J., & Hudson, E

    Tkalya, E. V., Schneider, C., Jeet, J., & Hudson, E. R. 2015, PhRvC, 92, 054324, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.054324

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.054324 2015

  44. [44]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0652

    Tomsick, J., & COSI Collaboration. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0652

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0652 2022

  45. [45]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Tomsick, J., Zoglauer, A., Sleator, C., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 98, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.04334

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.04334 2019

  46. [46]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745 5.3

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0745 2024

  47. [47]

    A., & Gade, A

    Tostevin, J. A., & Gade, A. 2021, PhRvC, 103, 054610, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054610 van Dommelen, L. 2018, Quantum Mechanics for Engineers,, https://web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/∼dommelen/ quantum/pdf/index.pdf

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.054610 2021

  48. [48]

    P., Qiu, Y

    Wang, J., Xin, L. P., Qiu, Y. L., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 115006, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad7fb5

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad7fb5 2024

  49. [49]

    I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al

    Wang, X. I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6 2024

  50. [50]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3 2019