Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

$^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne reaction rate and the puzzling calcium abundance in metal poor stars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A first-principles nuclear-model calculation makes $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\gamma)^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ a viable CNO-cycle breakout, potentially explaining the calcium seen in the most metal-poor stars.

desk verdict A legitimate new GSM-CC rate calculation whose headline astrophysical conclusion is undercut by the paper's own numbers and an unsupported (p,alpha) comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17243 v1 pith:JNQCAEVI submitted 2024-11-26 nucl-th

G.X. Dong , X.B. Wang , N. Michel , M. P{l}oszajczak This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords 19F(pγ)20NereactionCNOcyclebreakoutGamowshellmodelcoupled-channelmethodthermonuclearratecalciumabundancemetal-poorstarsJUNAexperiment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\gamma)^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ reaction rate is far larger than the traditional NACRE value once the reaction is computed in the Gamow shell model with a coupled-channel representation. At $T_9=0.1$ GK the calculated rate is 2.24 times the NACRE recommendation, close to the rate measured by the JUNA experiment, and at slightly higher temperatures it exceeds JUNA's value by a substantial margin. That makes this reaction a viable way for stars to break out of the CNO cycle at temperatures below 0.1 GK, so it could account for the observed calcium abundance in metal-poor first-generation stars. The result matters because with the old NACRE rate, stellar models predict almost two orders of magnitude too little calcium.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gamow shell model in the coupled-channel representation (GSM-CC), a unified structure-and-reaction framework in which the $A$-body wave function is built from channels coupling $^{19}\mathrm{F}$ target states to proton partial waves, with the continuum represented by Berggren contours of resonant and non-resonant single-particle states. It is doing the work of generating $S$ factors without fitting reaction data; the Hamiltonian is fixed by a Woods-Saxon core potential plus a finite-range two-body force, and the experimental ground-state energy of $^{19}\mathrm{F}$ is inserted so that the proton separation energy in $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ is exact. The mechanism that decides the rate is the $f_{7/2}$ proton partial wave, whose coupling creates the $3^-$ resonance at 225 keV and lifts the rate in the 0.1–0.5 GK window, together with the near-threshold $1^+$ state near 11 keV that controls the very-low-temperature rate.

What would settle it

Take the same underground detection technique used by JUNA and push it below 186 keV to measure the $S$ factor near 11 keV; if the near-threshold $1^+$ peak does not appear with roughly the calculated strength, the very-low-temperature rate (over 100 times NACRE at 0.01 GK) and the CNO-breakout conclusion would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the fully antisymmetrized coupled-channel Gamow shell model, the $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\gamma)^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ cross section is computed from the structure of $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$: the scattering wave functions are expanded on proton Berggren contours, and electromagnetic E1, M1 and E2 transitions to the ground and first excited states of $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ give the $S$ factor. The calculation reproduces the measured level energies and magnetic moments, and it identifies two decisive features: the $3^-$ resonance at $E_{\rm c.m.}=225$ keV, generated by coupling to the $f_{7/2}$ proton partial wave, and a near-threshold $1^+$ state around 11 keV. The resulting thermonuclear rate is 2.24 times the NACRE rate at $T_9=0.1$ GK, lower than the JUNA rate below 0.1 GK, equal to it at 0.12 GK, and about 1.7 times larger at 0.15 GK. The authors conclude that this rate is large enough for $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\gamma)^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ to outrun $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\alpha)^{16}\mathrm{O}$, making CNO breakout a plausible source of calcium in the first stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the calculated gamma and proton widths of the near-threshold resonances, chiefly the $1^+$ state around 11 keV and the $3^-$ state at 225 keV, are correct; the paper benchmarks level energies and magnetic moments, but not those widths directly, and the 11 keV state's experimental evidence is an unpublished thesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $T_9=0.1$ GK the GSM-CC rate exceeds the NACRE recommendation by a factor of 2.24, putting $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\gamma)^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ in position to compete with $^{19}\mathrm{F}(p,\alpha)^{16}\mathrm{O}$, which recycles fluorine back into the CNO cycle.
  • Including the $f_{7/2}$ proton partial wave is essential: without it the $3^-$ resonance peak at 225 keV disappears and the rate between 0.1 and 0.5 GK drops back toward older estimates.
  • Below 0.1 GK the calculated rate is above NACRE but below JUNA, while at $T_9=0.01$ GK it exceeds NACRE by more than a factor of 100 through the near-threshold $1^+$ state.
  • Above 0.12 GK the GSM-CC rate is higher than the JUNA rate, reaching about 1.7 times at 0.15 GK mainly because the $2^-$ resonance at 213 keV is included.
  • If the rate is correct, stellar models of the most metal-poor stars would produce calcium close to the observed abundance, resolving the discrepancy that motivated the paper.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A targeted measurement of the $2^-$ resonance at 213 keV, missing from the JUNA R-matrix analysis, would independently test the paper's higher rate above $T_9=0.12$ GK.
  • The same GSM-CC machinery, with its threshold-sensitive continuum, could be applied to other near-threshold capture reactions in the CNO and Ne-Na cycles, where direct measurements are equally difficult.
  • Because the calculation depends on inserting the experimental $^{19}\mathrm{F}$ ground-state energy, a sensitivity study varying the proton separation energy would show how much of the 11 keV peak's contribution is a threshold effect; a small Q-value shift could amplify or suppress it.
  • The $f_{7/2}$-driven $3^-$ explanation suggests that other sd-shell proton-capture rates in the 0.1–0.5 GK window may be underestimated by calculations whose model spaces omit the intruder $f_{7/2}$ partial wave.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Gamow shell model in coupled-channel representation (GSM-CC) calculation of the 19F(p,γ)20Ne radiative capture reaction. The authors compute the astrophysical S factor for capture to the ground and first excited states of 20Ne, derive the thermonuclear rate for 0.01–1 GK, and compare with NACRE, JUNA, deBoer et al., and Williams et al. They find a rate 2.24 times NACRE at 0.1 GK, reaching the JUNA rate near 0.12 GK and exceeding it at higher temperatures, and from this they conclude that the (p,γ) breakout from the CNO cycle may explain the calcium abundance in metal-poor stars.

Significance. If the calculation is robust, this is a valuable new microscopic determination of a reaction rate relevant to CNO breakout, providing a theoretical cross-check on the JUNA measurement and a prediction for the near-threshold S factor. The paper reproduces the low-lying 20Ne spectrum and magnetic moments, and the use of a many-body Hamiltonian whose parameters are set by structure rather than by the target reaction is a strength. However, the central astrophysical conclusion is not established by the calculation as presented, because the competition with the (p,α) channel is never quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Conclusions, final paragraph] The concluding assertion that the GSM-CC 19F(p,γ)20Ne rate is 'sufficiently large to overcome' the 19F(p,α)16O reaction is not supported by any calculation or comparison in the paper. Breakout requires the (p,γ) rate to compete with the (p,α) rate, but no (p,α) rate, no branching ratio, and no stellar model are presented. A factor-of-2.24 enhancement over NACRE for (p,γ) at 0.1 GK is not, by itself, evidence that (p,γ) dominates (p,α); the manuscript's Introduction states that (p,γ) is 'believed to be much weaker' than (p,α). The astrophysical conclusion should either be supported by a quantitative comparison with the 19F(p,α)16O rate (for example from the R-matrix evaluation of Ref. [14]) or removed and replaced by a more limited statement about the (p,γ) rate itself.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions vs Fig. 4] The abstract states that around 0.1 GK the GSM-CC rate is 'close to' the JUNA rate, but the paper's own Fig. 4 shows that at T9=0.1 the GSM-CC rate is 2.24 times NACRE while the JUNA rate is 5.4–7.4 times NACRE (text near Fig. 5). This is a factor of 2.4–3.3 discrepancy at the temperature most relevant to the calcium puzzle. Agreement is reached only near 0.12 GK and above. The wording should be corrected to state the actual temperature range of agreement, and the abstract should not imply that the rates agree at 0.1 GK.
  3. [Results, near-threshold 1+ state and Fig. 2] The low-temperature rate (over 100 times NACRE at 0.01 GK, Fig. 4) is governed by the near-threshold 1+ state at Ec.m. ≈ 11 keV, whose experimental identification rests on the unpublished thesis of Ref. [35]. The validation in Table I (level energies and magnetic moments) does not benchmark the electromagnetic or proton widths of this state or of the 3− resonance at 225 keV that dominates the rate near 0.1 GK. Since the S factor and rate are directly proportional to these widths, the paper should provide a comparison of resonance strengths (e.g., ωγ for the 1+, 2−, and 3− states) and an uncertainty estimate for the rate, or clearly state that the near-threshold prediction is a model prediction awaiting experimental test.
  4. [Results, insertion of experimental 19F ground-state energy] The procedure of inserting the experimental 19F ground-state energy into the coupled-channel equations (second paragraph of Results) is an ad hoc adjustment that fixes the threshold rather than a prediction of the separation energy. The paper should state how this insertion affects the calculated widths of the near-threshold 1+ state and the 3− resonance; without this information, the reader cannot assess whether the 11 keV peak is a robust prediction or partly an artifact of the threshold adjustment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Paragraph before Fig. 4] '19F(p, α)20Ne' appears twice in the sentence about NACRE recommended rates; the second reaction should be 19F(p, α)16O.
  2. [Introduction and Fig. 1 caption] The 11 keV resonance is first mentioned in the Results section and its only cited source is the unpublished thesis Ref. [35]; this should be stated explicitly in the main text when the resonance is first discussed, not only in the figure caption.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 3] The text refers to 'panel (a)' and 'panel (b)' while the Fig. 2 caption says 'left panel' and 'right panel'; please make the labeling consistent.
  4. [Fig. 4] The JUNA band in Fig. 4 would be easier to interpret if the caption stated that the band corresponds to the factor 5.4–7.4 range quoted in the text.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'close to the rate found by JUNA' is imprecise; please specify the temperature range (e.g., around 0.12 GK) over which the GSM-CC rate agrees with JUNA within the stated factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GSM-CC rate is a genuine prediction from a many-body calculation, with only a standard threshold-energy input and external data benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The astrophysical S factor and reaction rate are computed with the Gamow shell model in the coupled-channel representation (GSM-CC) from a many-body Hamiltonian whose parameters are fixed by nuclear-structure considerations (Woods-Saxon core potential, Furutani-Horiuchi-Tamagaki two-body interaction, harmonic-oscillator and Berggren basis choices), not by fitting the 19F(p,gamma)20Ne reaction rate or S factor. The calculated level energies, magnetic moments, and S-factor shapes are then compared with external experimental data (JUNA, Couture et al., NuDat), which are benchmarks rather than inputs. The insertion of the experimental 19F ground-state energy into the coupled-channel equations is explicitly described: it ensures that the experimental proton separation energy in 20Ne is exactly reproduced. This is a standard threshold calibration, not a fit of the reaction cross section, and it does not by construction determine the resonance widths or transition strengths that set the S factor. No step in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to its inputs by definition: the resonance peaks, the f7/2 dependence, and the temperature-dependent rate are all computed consequences of the model. Self-citations to the GSM-CC framework and prior radiative-capture applications are method references, not load-bearing circular arguments that forbid alternatives or import an unverified uniqueness claim. The astrophysical breakout conclusion is an interpretive inference that may be overstrong or incompletely supported — for example, no explicit comparison with the competing 19F(p,alpha)16O rate is made — but that is a correctness or completeness concern, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GSM-CC many-body framework, the inert 12C core assumption, the chosen Woods-Saxon and FHT interactions, and the ad hoc insertion of the experimental 19F ground-state energy to fix the threshold. None of these are derived in the paper; the first three are standard domain assumptions of the method, while the threshold insertion is a specific modeling choice that directly affects the near-threshold 1+ contribution.

free parameters (3)
  • Woods-Saxon core potential parameters = R=3.5 fm, a=0.65 fm, V0=50 MeV (55 MeV for d,f shells), Vso=7.5 MeV
    These parameters define the Berggren basis and single-particle energies; they are chosen, not derived, and the central S factor depends on them.
  • Furutani-Horiuchi-Tamagaki two-body interaction parameters = Not stated in main text (Supplemental [24])
    The finite-range two-body force is the main valence interaction; its parameters are not given in the Letter, so the prediction is not independently reproducible from the main text.
  • Harmonic oscillator length and basis truncation = b=1.75 fm; at most two nucleons in scattering states
    The HO length and truncation discretize the 19F target continuum; results depend on these numerical choices, with convergence deferred to Supplemental [24].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 12C is an inert core; only valence nucleons outside 0s1/2 and 0p3/2 are active.
    Invoked in the model-space description; core polarization or core excitations are neglected, which could shift resonance energies and widths.
  • domain assumption The Berggren ensemble built on the Woods-Saxon basis provides a complete representation of bound, resonant, and scattering states with the stated contours.
    The calculation uses 60 non-resonant continuum states per contour; convergence is claimed in Supplemental [24] but not demonstrated in the main text.
  • domain assumption The Furutani-Horiuchi-Tamagaki two-body interaction accurately describes valence nucleon interactions in the psd-f7/2 space.
    This interaction is taken from prior literature and used without presenting its parameters or a dedicated benchmark in this Letter; spectra and magnetic moments are the only validation shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Inserting the experimental 19F ground-state energy into the coupled-channel equations yields the correct threshold and near-threshold physics.
    This replacement pins the proton separation energy of 20Ne to experiment; the near-threshold 1+ state at 11 keV and the low-energy S factor are sensitive to this choice.
  • domain assumption The selected 19F target states (three lowest 1/2+, 5/2+, 9/2+, 7/2-, 9/2-; two 7/2+; one each of 3/2+, 1/2-, 3/2-, 5/2-) are sufficient to converge the capture cross section.
    The channel-space truncation is stated but its convergence relative to including more target states is not shown in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne reaction rate and the puzzling calcium abundance in metal poor stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNQCAEVI

@misc{pith2026241117243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $^19$F$(p,\gamma)$$^20$Ne reaction rate and the puzzling calcium abundance in metal poor stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNQCAEVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17243}
}
abstract

The $^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne reaction is the only process to break out of the CNO cycle at temperature below 0.1 GK and may serve as the origin of calcium in first generation of stars after the Big Bang. In the recent measurement, the Jinping Underground Nuclear Experiment (JUNA) obtained the rate of $^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne reaction, significantly larger than the previously recommended values. In this work, we perform the theoretical studies of the $^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne reaction using the Gamow shell model in the coupled-channel representation (GSM-CC). At temperature around 0.1 GK, the predicted rate by GSM-CC is close to the rate found by JUNA. Thus, based on GSM-CC, the break-out reaction $^{19}$F$(p,\gamma)$$^{20}$Ne from the CNO-cycle might win over its competing reaction $^{19}$F$(p,\alpha)$$^{16}$O, and produce enough calcium in the metal poor stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17243 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The astrophysical factor of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The GSM-CC energy levels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the ratio between the GSM-CC reaction rate and the NACRE recommended reaction rate [5]. For comparisons, the ratio of reaction rates obtained in ear￾lier studies of different groups are also shown. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The ratio of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    R. J. DeBoer, O. Clarkson, A. J. Couture, J. Görres, F. Herwig, I. Lombardo, P. Scholz, and M. Wiescher, Phys. Rev. C103, 055815 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [35]

    Kious, Determination of nuclear reaction rates lead- ing to the stellar nucleosynthesis of fluorine

    M. Kious, Determination of nuclear reaction rates lead- ing to the stellar nucleosynthesis of fluorine. PhD thesis, Université de Paris-Sud (1990)

    work page 1990

  3. [1]

    Lorenz-Wirzba, P

    H. Lorenz-Wirzba, P. Schmalbrock, H. Trautvetter, M. Wiescher, C. Rolfs, and W. Rodney, Nucl. Phys. A 313, 346 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [2]

    Wiescher, H

    M. Wiescher, H. Becker, J. Görres, K.-U. Kettner, H. Trautvetter, W. Kieser, C. Rolfs, R. Azuma, K. Jack- son, and J. Hammer, Nucl. Phys. A349, 165 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [3]

    Wiescher, J

    M. Wiescher, J. Görres, and H. Schatz, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 25, R133 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    Keller, M

    S. Keller, M. S. Bessell, A. Frebel, A. Casey, M. Asplund, H. Jacobson, K. Lind, J. E. Norris, D. Yong, A. Heger, Z. Magic, G. S. Da Costa, B. P. Schmidt, and P. Tis- serand, Nature 506, 463 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [5]

    Angulo, M

    C. Angulo, M. Arnould, M. Rayet, P. Descouvemont, D. Baye, C. Leclercq-Willain, A. Coc, S. Barhoumi, P. Aguer, C. Rolfs, R. Kunz, J. Hammer, A. Mayer, T. Paradellis, S. Kossionides, C. Chronidou, K. Spyrou, S. Degl’Innocenti, G. Fiorentini, B. Ricci, S. Zavatarelli, C. Providencia, H. Wolters, J. Soares, C. Grama, J. Rahighi, A. Shotter, and M. Lamehi Rac...

    work page 1999

  8. [6]

    Clarkson and F

    O. Clarkson and F. Herwig, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc 500, 2685 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    R. M. Sinclaii, Phys. Rev.93, 1082 (1954)

    1954

  2. [8]

    G. K. Farney, H. H. Givin, B. D. Kern, and T. M. Hahn, 6 Phys. Rev. 97, 720 (1955)

    1955

  3. [9]

    Keszthelyi, I

    L. Keszthelyi, I. Berkes, I. Demeter, and I. Fodor, Nucl. Phys. 29, 241 (1962)

    1962

  4. [10]

    Berkes, I

    I. Berkes, I. Dézsi, I. Fodor, and L. Keszthelyi, Nucl. Phys. 43, 103 (1963)

    1963

  5. [11]

    Subotić, R

    K. Subotić, R. Ostogić, and B. Stepančić, Nucl. Phys. A 331, 491 (1979)

    1979

  6. [12]

    Couture, M

    A. Couture, M. Beard, M. Couder, J. Görres, L. Lamm, P. J. LeBlanc, H. Y. Lee, S. O’Brien, A. Palumbo, E. Stech, E. Strandberg, W. Tan, E. Uberseder, C. Ugalde, M. Wiescher, and R. Azuma, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015802 (2008)

    2008

  7. [13]

    Williams, P

    M. Williams, P. Adsley, B. Davids, U. Greife, D. Hutcheon, J. Karpesky, A. Lennarz, M. Lovely, and C. Ruiz, Phys. Rev. C103, 055805 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. He, R. J. DeBoer, M. Wiescher, A. Heger, D. Kahl, J. Su, D. Odell, Y. Chen, X. Li, J. Wang, L. Zhang, F. Cao, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Jiang, L. Wang, Z. Li, L. Song, H. Zhao, L. Sun, Q. Wu, J. Li, B. Cui, L. Chen, R. Ma, E. Li, G. Lian, Y. Sheng, Z. Li, B. Guo, X. ...

    2022

  9. [16]

    Michel and M

    N. Michel and M. Płoszajczak,Gamow Shell Model - The Unified Theory of Nuclear Structure and Reactions, Lec- ture Notes in Physics Vol. 983 (Springer, Cham, 2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Jaganathen, N

    Y. Jaganathen, N. Michel, and M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034624 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Mercenne, N

    A. Mercenne, N. Michel, and M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044606 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    J. P. Linares Fernandez, N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, and A. Mercenne, Phys. Rev. C108, 044616 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Fossez, N

    K. Fossez, N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, Y. Jaganathen, and R. M. Id Betan, Phys. Rev. C91, 034609 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    G. X. Dong, N. Michel, K. Fossez, M. Płoszajczak, Y. Ja- ganathen, and R. M. Id Betan, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44, 045201 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    G. X. Dong, X. B. Wang, N. Michel, and M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Pev. C105, 064608 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    G. X. Dong, X. B. Wang, N. Michel, and M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. C107, 044613 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL inserted by pub- lisher] for the formulations of GSM-CC in more details; the core potential and the two-body interaction used for GSM-CC Hamiltonian

  18. [25]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, and T. Vertse, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 36, 013101 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    Suzuki and K

    Y. Suzuki and K. Ikeda, Phys. Pev. C38, 410 (1988)

    1988

  20. [27]

    Berggren, Nucl

    T. Berggren, Nucl. Phys. A109, 265 (1968)

    1968

  21. [28]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, and K. Ben- naceur, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 042502 (2002). R. Id Betan, R. J. Liotta, N. Sandulescu, and T. Vertse, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 042501 (2002)

    2002

  22. [29]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, and J. Okołowicz, Phys. Rev. C67, 054311 (2003)

    2003

  23. [30]

    H.Furutani, H.Horiuchi, andR.Tamagaki,Prog.Theor. Phys. 60, 307 (1978)

    1978

  24. [31]

    H.Furutani, H.Horiuchi, andR.Tamagaki,Prog.Theor. Phys. 62, 981 (1979)

    1979

  25. [32]

    Jaganathen, R

    Y. Jaganathen, R. M. Id Betan, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, and M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054316 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    bnl.gov/nudat3/

    NuDat 3.0 database (National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory), http://www.nndc. bnl.gov/nudat3/

  27. [34]

    R. R. Betts, H. T. Fortune, and R. Middleton, Phys. Rev. C 11, 19 (1975)

    1975

  28. [36]

    Tilley, C

    D. Tilley, C. Cheves, J. Kelley, S. Raman, and H. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A636, 249 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Stone, International Nuclear Data Committee Report INDC (NDS)-0658, Vienna, Austria (2014)

    N. Stone, International Nuclear Data Committee Report INDC (NDS)-0658, Vienna, Austria (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    W. F. Hornyak,Nuclear Structure (Academic Press, New York, 1975)

    1975

  31. [39]

    Y. K. Ho and C. Coceva, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys.14, S207 (1988)

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.