REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 62 references
Neutron quadrupole transition strength in $^{10}$C deduced from the $^{10}$C$(\alpha,\alpha')$ measurement with the MAIKo active target
T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The 2+ transition in carbon-10 is nearly isoscalar, with Mn/Mp = 1.05, unlike the neutron-dominated carbon-16.
desk verdict First (alpha,alpha') extraction of Mn in an unstable nucleus; the model dependence in the transition density is real but the central nearly-isoscalar conclusion is solid. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing machinery is the use of an $\alpha$ particle as an isoscalar hadronic probe: in $\alpha$ inelastic scattering the interaction strengths for neutrons and protons are equal, so the measured cross section carries $M_n$ and $M_p$ with equal weight. The cross section is computed in distorted-wave Born approximation with a single-folding optical potential formed from a phenomenological $\alpha$--nucleon effective interaction and a three-parameter Gaussian point-nucleon ground-state density, both adjusted to the elastic scattering. The $2^+$ transition density is taken from the macroscopic derivative model $\delta\rho_{n(p)}(r) = -\delta_{n(p)}\,\frac{d}{dr}\rho_{n(p)}(r)$, with the proton and neutron densities assumed to have the same radial shape. The MAIKo active-target time projection chamber supplies the low-energy recoil detection (down to 0.5 MeV recoil $\alpha$ energy) that makes $\alpha$ scattering on a radioactive beam feasible.
What would settle it
Repeat the DWBA extraction using a microscopic transition density, for instance from a cluster or antisymmetrized molecular dynamics model, in place of the derivative form; if the resulting $M_n$ moves outside the quoted systematic band, or an independent proton-scattering measurement using the updated $B(E2)$ gives $M_n$ outside $6.9 \pm 1.4$ fm$^2$, the derivative-form assumption is falsified.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that the neutron quadrupole transition matrix element of $^{10}$C is $M_n = 6.9 \pm 0.7 (\mathrm{fit}) \pm 1.2 (\mathrm{sys})$ fm$^2$; with $M_p$ fixed by the known $B(E2; 0^+ \to 2^+) = 44.0 \pm 1.5$ e$^2$fm$^4$, the ratio is $M_n/M_p = 1.05 \pm 0.11 (\mathrm{fit}) \pm 0.17 (\mathrm{sys})$. Because the ratio is close to unity, the ground-state-to-$2_1^+$ transition in $^{10}$C is almost purely isoscalar. This contrasts with the neutron-rich isotope $^{16}$C, where the same ratio is about 3.2, and it indicates that the $Z=6$ subshell suppression seen on the neutron-rich side is not operative in the proton-rich nucleus. The result also matches the mirror expectation: $M_n$ in $^{10}$C is close to the reported $M_p = 6.78 \pm 0.11$ fm$^2$ in $^{10}$Be, so charge symmetry in the $A=10$ system is approximately conserved.
Load-bearing premise
The result rests on the assumption that the $2^+$ transition density has the derivative form $\delta\rho = -\delta\, d\rho/dr$ and that proton and neutron ground-state densities share the same radial shape; if the actual transition density differs, for example because of clustering, the deduced $M_n$ and $M_n/M_p$ would shift.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The $0^+ \to 2^+$ transition in $^{10}$C is nearly isoscalar, so the quadrupole collectivity in this proton-rich carbon isotope does not show the neutron dominance seen in $^{16}$C.
- In the $A=10$ mirror pair, $M_n(^{10}\mathrm{C}) \approx M_p(^{10}\mathrm{Be})$, so charge symmetry in the quadrupole transition is approximately preserved.
- The earlier proton-scattering value of $M_n$ in $^{10}$C is brought into line once the newer, smaller $B(E2)$ value is used, indicating that the alpha-scattering and proton-scattering results are not in conflict.
- The MAIKo active-target technique can extract neutron transition strengths in other unstable nuclei via $(\alpha,\alpha')$ scattering, which had been difficult because low-energy recoil particles are hard to detect.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond this paper, the derivative-form transition density could be tested by refitting the same data with microscopic transition densities; a shift in $M_n$ larger than the quoted systematic uncertainty would indicate that the quoted value is model-dependent.
- Beyond this paper, the same $(\alpha,\alpha')$ measurement on $^{10}$Be would provide a direct, same-analysis mirror test of charge symmetry instead of comparing separate experiments.
- Beyond this paper, applying the same setup and analysis to a chain of carbon isotopes would map how $M_n/M_p$ evolves from proton-rich to neutron-rich nuclei, testing whether the $Z=6$ subshell effect is confined to the neutron-rich side.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper reports the first (α,α') measurement on the unstable nucleus 10C using the MAIKo active target at RCNP. Elastic and inelastic alpha scattering cross sections on 10C at 68 MeV/u were measured over θc.m. ≈ 4°–15°. The elastic data were used to determine a phenomenological α-N effective interaction and a 3pG point-nucleon ground-state density. The inelastic data for the 2+1 state at Ex = 3.35 MeV were analyzed in DWBA with the macroscopic derivative transition density of Eq. (11), with the proton deformation length fixed by the known B(E2) and the neutron deformation length fitted. The authors obtain Mn = 6.9 ± 0.7 (fit) ± 1.2 (sys) fm² and Mn/Mp = 1.05 ± 0.11 (fit) ± 0.17 (sys), concluding that the quadrupole transition is nearly isoscalar and less neutron-dominated than in 16C, and that charge symmetry in A = 10 is approximately preserved.
Significance. If correct, this is a valuable new measurement: it is the first extraction of a neutron transition matrix element from alpha inelastic scattering on an unstable nucleus; it demonstrates the capability of the MAIKo active target to detect very low-energy recoil alpha particles (down to 0.5 MeV); and it provides a new constraint on proton-rich carbon isotopes where the Z = 6 subshell effect can be compared with the neutron-rich side. The experimental analysis is careful: the elastic fit has χ2/ν ≈ 1, the inelastic fit is acceptable (χ2/ν ≈ 1.6), the 12C comparison provides an experimental normalization check, and statistical, fitting, interaction/density, and adopted systematic uncertainties are propagated. The comparison with several theoretical models is informative. The main weakness is the unquantified model dependence of the transition-density prescription for a non-self-conjugate nucleus, which is the subject of the major comment below.
major comments (1)
- [Section IV B, Eq. (11)] The extraction of Mn relies on the macroscopic derivative transition density δρn(p)(r) = -δn(p) d/dr ρn(p)(r) together with the equal-shape assumption ρp = (Z/A)ρ and ρn = (N/A)ρ. The 17% systematic uncertainty taken from Ref. [34] is derived from stable self-conjugate (N = Z) nuclei, where proton and neutron ground-state densities are equal by isospin symmetry; it therefore does not calibrate the possible isovector radial shape difference in 10C (N = 4, Z = 6). Since the alpha probe is isoscalar, the inelastic cross section is sensitive mainly to the total transition density, and the separation into Mn and Mp uses the externally fixed Mp and the assumed common shape. A shape difference between neutron and proton transition densities could shift the deduced Mn by an amount not included in the quoted ±1.2 fm² systematic. I request that the authors test this model dependence explicitly, for example by repeating the extraction with transition densities from the AMD or cluster-model calculations already used for comparison, or by allowing independent radial shapes for ρn and ρp, and report the resulting change in Mn.
minor comments (4)
- [Section IV A] The range parameter α of the effective interaction is fixed at 2.13 fm from α+12C elastic scattering at 60 MeV/u (Ref. [45]), while the present 10C data are at 68 MeV/u; the possible energy dependence of α and its effect on the fitted density and on Mn are not discussed, so a brief sensitivity statement would be useful.
- [Section III, Fig. 9] The 16% fractional uncertainty is added to the statistical uncertainty in quadrature based on the comparison of α+12C data with Ref. [34]; it would be clearer to state explicitly whether this normalization uncertainty is treated as common to all angles or point-to-point, and whether it is applied to both the elastic and inelastic 10C data.
- [Table I] The 3pG parameters c, z, and w are listed without uncertainties, while the rms radius is quoted with an uncertainty; since the error band in Fig. 10 is derived from the χ2 distribution, reporting the individual parameter uncertainties would improve reproducibility.
- [Section V] The statement that the discrepancy with the previous (p,p') result is 'possibly because the authors in Ref. [13] used the old B(E2) value' is plausible and is supported by the re-calculation with the old value, but the (p,p') analysis also involves different model assumptions (e.g., the bn/bp ratio); a sentence reminding the reader of this would prevent over-interpretation of the re-calculation.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: Mn is an explicitly fitted observable, with the alpha-nucleus interaction and ground-state density constrained by independent elastic data and Mp fixed by an external B(E2) measurement.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. In Section IV A, the effective alpha-N interaction and point-nucleon ground-state density are determined from the measured alpha+10C elastic scattering cross section (Eqs. 4-6, Table I), which is an independent observable from the inelastic 2+1 channel. In Section IV B, the proton deformation length delta_p is fixed by the known B(E2;0+1 -> 2+1) = 44.0 +/- 1.5 e2fm4 from Ref. [33], an external electromagnetic measurement, and the neutron deformation length delta_n is then fitted to the measured inelastic alpha scattering cross section (dashed line in Fig. 8), giving Mn = 6.9 fm2 via Eqs. (11)-(12). The quoted quantity is thus a fitted result, explicitly reported with '(fit)' and '(sys)' uncertainties, not a parameter-free prediction, and no equation in the paper defines the elastic or inelastic observable in terms of the final Mn. The macroscopic derivative transition density of Eq. (11) is a standard model assumption, not a self-referential input; its model dependence is acknowledged and partially quantified by the 17% systematic uncertainty adopted from Ref. [34]. Although Ref. [34] shares several authors with the present work, that systematic is calibrated on independent alpha inelastic scattering data for stable self-conjugate nuclei and does not contain or presuppose the 10C result. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (7)
- alpha (range of alpha-N interaction) =
2.13 fm
- V (real potential depth) =
25.8 (+3.1,-2.1) MeV
- W (imaginary potential depth) =
17.0 (+2.7,-2.0) MeV
- c (3pG radius parameter) =
0.21 fm
- z (3pG diffuseness parameter) =
1.98 fm
- w (3pG third parameter) =
-1.8e-4
- delta_n (neutron deformation length) =
2.4 fm
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Macroscopic derivative transition density (Eq. 11)
- domain assumption Proton and neutron ground-state densities have the same radial shape
- domain assumption Phenomenological Gaussian alpha-N interaction (Eq. 5) with density independence
- domain assumption Single-folding optical potential and DWBA (ECIS-95)
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Neutron quadrupole transition strength in $^{10}$C deduced from the $^{10}$C$(\alpha,\alpha')$ measurement with the MAIKo active target." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2AEMI2K6
@misc{pith2026190801910,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Neutron quadrupole transition strength in $^10$C deduced from the $^10$C$(\alpha,\alpha')$ measurement with the MAIKo active target},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2AEMI2K6}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01910}
}
abstract
Elastic and inelastic alpha scatterings on $^{10}$C were measured using a 68-MeV/u radioactive $^{10}$C beam incident on the recently developed MAIKo active target system. The phenomenological effective $\alpha$-$N$ interaction and the point-nucleon density distribution in the ground state were determined from the elastic scattering data. The cross sections of the inelastic alpha scattering were calculated using this interaction and density distribution and were compared with the experiment to determine the neutron quadrupole transition matrix element $M_{n}$ between the ground state and the $2_{1}^{+}$ state at $E_{x} = 3.35$ MeV in $^{10}$C. The deduced neutron transition matrix element is $M_{n} = 6.9\, \pm0.7\, \mathrm{(fit)}\, \pm1.2\, \mathrm{(sys)}$ fm$^{2}$. The ratio of the neutron transition strength to proton transition strength was determined as $M_{n}/M_{p} = 1.05\, \pm0.11\, \mathrm{(fit)}\, \pm0.17\, \mathrm{(sys)}$, which indicates that the quadrupole transition between the ground state and the $2_{1}^{+}$ state in $^{10}$C is less neutron dominant compared to that in $^{16}$C.
Figures
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[34]
L. A. Riley, D. Bazin, J. Belarge, P. C. Bender, B. A. Brown, P. D. Cottle, B. Elman, A. Gade, S. D. Gre- gory, E. B. Haldeman, K. W. Kemper, B. R. Klybor, M. A. Liggett, S. Lipschutz, B. Longfellow, E. Lunder- berg, T. Mijatovic, J. Pereira, L. M. Skiles, R. Titus, A. Volya, D. Weisshaar, J. C. Zamora, and R. G. T. Zegers, Phys. Rev. C 100, 044312 (2019)
2019
-
[1]
A. M. Bernstein, V. R. Brown, and V. A. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 425 (1979)
work page 1979
-
[2]
13 25 . 8+3.1 −2.1 17. 0+2.7 −2.0 0. 21 1 . 98 − 1. 8 × 10−4 2. 6 ± 0. 3 (fm)r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 )-1) (fmr(ρ2r 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 C point nucleon distribution10 3pG AMD FIG. 10. Point-nucleon distribution of the ground state in 10C. The density distribution obtained from the present work is shown by the solid blue line associated with t...
-
[3]
42 ± 0. 10 fm from the proton elastic scattering [13] and 2.52 fm from the AMD calculation; however, it is larger compared to 2 . 27 ± 0. 03 fm, which is deduced from the interaction cross section [48]. B. Analysis of alpha inelastic scattering The transition potential δU(r) for the alpha inelastic scattering to the 2 + 1 state was obtained by folding the...
-
[4]
2 ± 0. 7 was reported in 16C [20]. This indicates that the quadrupole transition in 10C is less neutron dominant compared to that in 16C. The Mn/M p value close to unity in 10C shows that the effect of the Z = 6 subshell closure is less evident compared to the neutron-rich side. The present results are compared with the theoretical predictions by the 2 p +...
-
[5]
K. H. Bhatt, C. W. Nestor, and S. Raman, Phys. Rev. C 46, 164 (1992)
work page 1992
-
[6]
A. Bernstein, V. Brown, and V. Madsen, Neutron and proton transition matrix elements and inelastic hadron scattering, Phys. Lett. B 103, 255 (1981)
work page 1981
-
[7]
2◦. A prominent peak due to the ground state is ob- served with a small contribution from the 2 + 1 state at Ex = 3. 35 MeV. The resolutions of the excitation energy for the ground state and the c.m. angle are ∆ Ex = 1 MeV and ∆ θc. m. = 0 . 07◦ in sigma, respectively. The excitation-energy resolution is limited mainly due to the angular straggling of rec...
Show all 62 references
-
[8]
A. M. Bernstein, V. R. Brown, and V. A. Madsen, Com- ments Nucl. Part. Phys. 11, 203 (1983)
1983
-
[9]
M. A. Kennedy, P. D. Cottle, and K. W. Kemper, Phys. Rev. C 46, 1811 (1992)
1992
-
[10]
L. A. Riley, J. K. Jewell, P. D. Cottle, T. Glasmacher, K. W. Kemper, N. Alamanos, Y. Blumenfeld, J. A. Carr, M. J. Chromik, R. W. Ibbotson, F. Mar´ echal, W. E. Or- mand, F. Petrovich, H. Scheit, and T. Suomij¨ arvi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4196 (1999)
1999
-
[11]
J. K. Jewell, L. A. Riley, P. D. Cottle, K. W. Kemper, T. Glasmacher, R. W. Ibbotson, H. Scheit, M. Chromik, Y. Blumenfeld, S. E. Hirzebruch, F. Mar´ echal, and T. Suomij¨ arvi, Phys. Lett. B , 181 (1999)
1999
-
[12]
Iwasaki, T
H. Iwasaki, T. Motobayashi, H. Akiyoshi, Y. Ando, N. Fukuda, H. Fujiwara, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, K. I. Hahn, Y. Hig- urashi, M. Hirai, I. Hisanaga, N. Iwasa, T. Kijima, T. Minemura, T. Nakamura, M. Notani, S. Ozawa, H. Sakurai, S. Shimoura, S. Takeuchi, T. Teranishi, Y. Yanagisawa, and...
2000
-
[13]
E. Khan, T. Suomij¨ arvi, Y. Blumenfeld, N. Van Giai, N. Alamanos, F. Auger, E. Bauge, D. Beaumel, J. P. De- laroche, P. Delbourgo-Salvador, A. Drouart, S. Fortier, N. Frascaria, A. Gillibert, M. Girod, C. Jouanne, K. W. Kemper, A. Lagoyannis, V. Lapoux, A. L´ epine- Szily, I....
2001
-
[14]
P. D. Cottle, Z. Hu, B. V. Pritychenko, J. A. Church, M. Fauerbach, T. Glasmacher, R. W. Ibbotson, K. W. Kemper, L. A. Riley, H. Scheit, and M. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 172502 (2002)
2002
-
[15]
Elekes, Z
Z. Elekes, Z. Dombr´ adi, A. Krasznahorkay, H. Baba, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, N. Fukuda, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, Z. G´ acsi, J. Guly´ as, N. Iwasa, H. Kinugawa, S. Kubono, M. Kurokawa, X. Liu, S. Michimasa, T. Minemura, T. Motobayashi, A. Ozawa, A. Saito, S. Shimoura, S. Takeuchi, I. Tan...
2004
-
[16]
N. Imai, H. J. Ong, N. Aoi, H. Sakurai, K. Demichi, H. Kawasaki, H. Baba, Z. Dombr´ adi, Z. Elekes, N. Fukuda, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, A. Gelberg, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, K. Ishikawa, H. Iwasaki, E. Kaneko, S. Kanno, T. Kishida, Y. Kondo, T. Kubo, K. Kurita, S. Michi- masa, T. Minemura, M...
2004
-
[17]
Jouanne, V
C. Jouanne, V. Lapoux, F. Auger, N. Alamanos, A. Drouart, A. Gillibert, G. Lobo, A. Musumarra, L. Nal- pas, E. Pollacco, J.-L. Sida, M. Trotta, Y. Blumen- feld, E. Khan, T. Suomij¨ arvi, T. Zerguerras, P. Roussel- Chomaz, H. Savajols, A. Lagoyannis, and A. Pakou, Phys. Rev. C ...
2005
-
[18]
L. A. Riley, M. A. Abdelqader, D. Bazin, M. J. Bojazi, B. A. Brown, C. M. Campbell, J. A. Church, P. D. Cot- tle, D. C. Dinca, J. Enders, A. Gade, T. Glasmacher, M. Honma, S. Horibe, Z. Hu, K. W. Kemper, W. F. Mueller, H. Olliver, T. Otsuka, B. C. Perry, B. T. Roeder, B. M. Sh...
2005
-
[19]
Yamada, T
K. Yamada, T. Motobayashi, N. Aoi, H. Baba, K. Demichi, Z. Elekes, J. Gibelin, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, N. Imai, H. Iwasaki, S. Kanno, T. Kubo, K. Kurita, Y. Matsuyama, S. Michimasa, T. Minemura, M. Notani, T. Onishi K., H.J. Ong, S. Ota, A. Ozawa, A. Saito, H. Sakurai, S. Shimou...
2005
-
[20]
H. J. Ong, N. Imai, N. Aoi, H. Sakurai, Z. Dombr´ adi, A. Saito, Z. Elekes, H. Baba, K. Demichi, Z. S. F¨ ul¨ op, J. Gibelin, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, M. Ishihara, H. Iwasaki, S. Kanno, S. Kawai, T. Kubo, K. Kurita, Y. U. Matsuyama, S. Michimasa, T. Minemura, T. Mo- tobayashi, M....
2006
-
[21]
Becheva, Y
E. Becheva, Y. Blumenfeld, E. Khan, D. Beaumel, J. M. Daugas, F. Delaunay, C.-E. Demonchy, A. Drouart, M. Fallot, A. Gillibert, L. Giot, M. Grasso, N. Kee- ley, K. W. Kemper, D. T. Khoa, V. Lapoux, V. Lima, A. Musumarra, L. Nalpas, E. C. Pollacco, O. Roig, P. Roussel-Chomaz, J...
2006
-
[22]
C. M. Campbell, N. Aoi, D. Bazin, M. D. Bowen, B. A. Brown, J. M. Cook, D. C. Dinca, A. Gade, T. Glas- macher, M. Horoi, S. Kanno, T. Motobayashi, L. A. Riley, H. Sagawa, H. Sakurai, K. Starosta, H. Suzuki, S. Takeuchi, J. R. Terry, K. Yoneda, and H. Zwahlen, Phys. Lett. B 652...
2007
-
[23]
Wiedeking, P
M. Wiedeking, P. Fallon, A. O. Macchiavelli, J. Gibelin , M. S. Basunia, R. M. Clark, M. Cromaz, M.-A. Dele- planque, S. Gros, H. B. Jeppesen, P. T. Lake, I.-Y. Lee, L. G. Moretto, J. Pavan, L. Phair, E. Rodriguez-Vietiez, L. A. Bernstein, D. L. Bleuel, J. T. Burke, S. R. Lesh...
2008
-
[24]
H. J. Ong, N. Imai, D. Suzuki, H. Iwasaki, H. Saku- rai, T. K. Onishi, M. K. Suzuki, S. Ota, S. Takeuchi, T. Nakao, Y. Togano, Y. Kondo, N. Aoi, H. Baba, S. Bishop, Y. Ichikawa, M. Ishihara, T. Kubo, K. Ku- rita, T. Motobayashi, T. Nakamura, T. Okumura, and Y. Yanagisawa, Phys...
2008
-
[25]
Elekes, Z
Z. Elekes, Z. Dombr´ adi, T. Aiba, N. Aoi, H. Baba, D. Be- mmerer, B. A. Brown, T. Furumoto, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, N. Iwasa, A. Kiss, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, T. Motobayashi, T. Nakabayashi, T. Nannichi, Y. Sakuragi, H. Saku- rai, D. Sohler, M. Takashina, S. Takeuchi, K. Tanaka, Y. Tog...
2009
-
[26]
Petri, P
M. Petri, P. Fallon, A. O. Macchiavelli, S. Paschalis, K. Starosta, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, L. Cartegni, R. M. Clark, H. L. Crawford, M. Cromaz, A. Dewald, A. Gade, G. F. Grinyer, S. Gros, M. Hackstein, H. B. Jeppe- sen, I. Y. Lee, S. McDaniel, D. Miller, M. M. Rajabali, A. Ratk...
2011
-
[27]
Petri, S
M. Petri, S. Paschalis, R. M. Clark, P. Fallon, A. O. Mac- chiavelli, K. Starosta, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, L. Cartegni, H. L. Crawford, M. Cromaz, U. Datta Pramanik, G. de Angelis, A. Dewald, A. Gade, G. F. Grinyer, S. Gros, M. Hackstein, H. B. Jeppesen, I. Y. Lee, S. McDaniel, ...
2012
-
[28]
P. Voss, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, R. M. Clark, H. L. Craw- ford, A. Dewald, P. Fallon, A. Gade, G. F. Grinyer, H. Iwasaki, A. O. Macchiavelli, S. McDaniel, D. Miller, M. Petri, A. Ratkiewicz, W. Rother, K. Starosta, K. A. Walsh, D. Weisshaar, C. Forss´ en, R. Roth, and P. Navr´ a...
2012
-
[29]
Togano, Y
Y. Togano, Y. Yamada, N. Iwasa, K. Yamada, T. Mo- tobayashi, N. Aoi, H. Baba, S. Bishop, X. Cai, P. Door- nenbal, D. Fang, T. Furukawa, K. Ieki, T. Kawabata, S. Kanno, N. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, T. Kuboki, N. Kume, K. Kurita, M. Kurokawa, Y. G. Ma, Y. Matsuo, H. Mu- rakami, M. Ma...
2012
-
[30]
Michimasa, Y
S. Michimasa, Y. Yanagisawa, K. Inafuku, N. Aoi, Z. Elekes, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, Y. Ichikawa, N. Iwasa, K. Kurita, M. Kurokawa, T. Machida, T. Motobayashi, T. Naka- mura, T. Nakabayashi, M. Notani, H. J. Ong, T. K. On- ishi, H. Otsu, H. Sakurai, M. Shinohara, T. Sumikama, S. Takeuchi...
2014
-
[31]
L. A. Riley, M. L. Agiorgousis, T. R. Baugher, D. Bazin, M. Bowry, P. D. Cottle, F. G. DeVone, A. Gade, M. T. Glowacki, K. W. Kemper, E. Lunderberg, D. M. McPher- son, S. Noji, F. Recchia, B. V. Sadler, M. Scott, D. Weis- shaar, and R. G. T. Zegers, Phys. Rev. C 90, 011305 (2014)
2014
-
[32]
Corsi, S
A. Corsi, S. Boissinot, A. Obertelli, P. Doornenbal, M. Dupuis, F. Lechaftois, M. Matsushita, S. P´ eru, S. Takeuchi, H. Wang, N. Aoi, H. Baba, P. Bednar- czyk, M. Ciemala, A. Gillibert, T. Isobe, A. Jungclaus, V. Lapoux, J. Lee, M. Martini, K. Matsui, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nis...
2015
-
[33]
M. L. Cort´ es, P. Doornenbal, M. Dupuis, S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Obertelli, S. P´ eru, N. Pietralla, V. Werner, K. Wimmer, G. Authelet, H. Baba, D. Cal- vet, F. Chˆ ateau, A. Corsi, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Gillibert, T. Isobe, V. Lapoux, C. Louchart, M. Mat- sushita...
2018
-
[35]
D. T. Tran, H. J. Ong, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, N. Aoi, T. Suzuki, Y. Kanada-En’yo, L. S. Geng, S. Terashima, I. Tanihata, T. T. Nguyen, Y. Ayyad, P. Y. Chan, M. Fukuda, H. Geissel, M. N. Harakeh, T. Hashimoto, T. H. Hoang, E. Ideguchi, A. Inoue, G. R. Jansen, R. Kanungo, T. Ka...
2018
-
[36]
T. R. Fisher, S. S. Hanna, D. C. Healey, and P. Paul, Phys. Rev. 176, 1130 (1968)
1968
-
[37]
E. A. McCutchan, C. J. Lister, S. C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, D. Seweryniak, J. P. Greene, P. F. Bertone, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, G. G¨ urdal, C. R. Hoff- man, R. V. F. Janssens, T. L. Khoo, T. Lauritsen, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 86, 014312 (2012)
2012
-
[38]
Adachi, T
S. Adachi, T. Kawabata, K. Minomo, T. Kadoya, N. Yokota, H. Akimune, T. Baba, H. Fujimura, M. Fuji- wara, Y. Funaki, T. Furuno, T. Hashimoto, K. Hatanaka, K. Inaba, Y. Ishii, M. Itoh, C. Iwamoto, K. Kawase, Y. Maeda, H. Matsubara, Y. Matsuda, H. Mat- suno, T. Morimoto, H. Mori...
2018
-
[39]
Furuno, T
T. Furuno, T. Kawabata, H. J. Ong, S. Adachi, Y. Ayyad, T. Baba, Y. Fujikawa, T. Hashimoto, K. In- aba, Y. Ishii, S. Kabuki, H. Kubo, Y. Matsuda, Y. Matsuoka, T. Mizumoto, T. Morimoto, M. Murata, T. Sawano, T. Suzuki, A. Takada, J. Tanaka, I. Tani- hata, T. Tanimori, D. T. Tra...
2018
-
[40]
Shimoda, H
T. Shimoda, H. Miyatake, and S. Morinobu, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. B 70, 320 (1992)
1992
-
[41]
Mitsuoka, T
S. Mitsuoka, T. Shimoda, H. Miyatake, Y. Mizoi, H. Kobayashi, M. Sasaki, T. Shirakura, N. Takahashi, T. Murakami, and S. Morinobu, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 372, 489 (1996)
1996
-
[42]
H. J. Ong, AIP Conf. Proc. 1588, 146 (2014)
2014
-
[43]
A. Ochi, T. Nagayoshi, S. Koishi, T. Tanimori, T. Nagae, and M. Nakamura, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 471, 264 (2001)
2001
-
[44]
Mizumoto, Y
T. Mizumoto, Y. Matsuoka, Y. Mizumura, T. Tanimori, H. Kubo, A. Takada, S. Iwaki, T. Sawano, K. Naka- mura, S. Komura, S. Nakamura, T. Kishimoto, M. Oda, S. Miyamoto, T. Takemura, J. Parker, D. Tomono, S. Sonoda, K. Miuchi, and S. Kurosawa, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A ...
2015
-
[45]
Hough, 2nd Int
P. Hough, 2nd Int. Conf. High-Energy Acc. Inst. , 554 (1959)
1959
-
[46]
R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Commun. ACM 15, 11 (1972)
1972
-
[47]
Ziegler, M
J. Ziegler, M. Ziegler, and J. Biersack, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 268, 1818 (2010)
2010
-
[48]
Raynal, Computer program: ECIS-95, NEA-0850/19
J. Raynal, Computer program: ECIS-95, NEA-0850/19
-
[49]
B. John, Y. Tokimoto, Y.-W. Lui, H. L. Clark, X. Chen, and D. H. Youngblood, Phys. Rev. C 68, 014305 (2003)
2003
-
[50]
P. R. Bevington and D. K. Robinson, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (McGraw-Hill, 2003)
2003
-
[51]
Kanada-En’yo, Phys
Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014315 (2015)
2015
-
[52]
Ozawa, I
A. Ozawa, I. Tanihata, T. Kobayashi, Y. Sugahara, O. Yamakawa, K. Omata, K. Sugimoto, D. Olson, W. Christie, and H. Wieman, Nucl. Phys. A 608, 63 (1996)
1996
-
[53]
Satchler, Nucl
G. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. A 472, 215 (1987)
1987
-
[54]
E. A. McCutchan, C. J. Lister, R. B. Wiringa, S. C. Pieper, D. Seweryniak, J. P. Greene, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, R. V. F. Janssens, T. L. Khoo, T. Lauritsen, I. Stefanescu, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 192501 (2009)
2009
-
[55]
Ogawa, K
Y. Ogawa, K. Arai, Y. Suzuki, and K. Varga, Nucl. Phys. A 673, 122 (2000)
2000
-
[56]
Caurier, P
E. Caurier, P. Navr´ atil, W. E. Ormand, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C 66, 024314 (2002)
2002
-
[57]
Sagawa, X
H. Sagawa, X. R. Zhou, X. Z. Zhang, and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 70, 054316 (2004)
2004
-
[58]
L. Liu, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, Y. Utsuno, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C 86, 014302 (2012)
2012
-
[59]
Kanada-En’yo, Phys
Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024317 (2011)
2011
-
[60]
Thompson, M
D. Thompson, M. Lemere, and Y. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A 286, 53 (1977)
1977
-
[61]
Cohen and D
S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Nucl. Phys. 73, 1 (1965)
1965
-
[62]
Machleidt and D
R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)
2011
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.