Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Model-independent measurement of isospin diffusion in Ni-Ni systems at intermediate energy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a model-independent measurement of isospin diffusion in $^{58,64}\mathrm{Ni}+^{58,64}\mathrm{Ni}$ collisions at 32 MeV/nucleon, showing that the isospin transport ratio $R(\langle N/Z\rangle)$ evolves steadily toward…

desk verdict A useful benchmark for isospin diffusion, but the 'model-independent' label overstates the centrality reconstruction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13648 v1 pith:IFFTRCP6 submitted 2024-12-18 nucl-ex

C. Ciampi , J. D. Frankland , D. Gruyer , N. Le Neindre , S. Mallik , R. Bougault , A. Chbihi , L. Baldesi
show 33 more authors
S. Barlini E. Bonnet B. Borderie A. Camaiani G. Casini I. Dekhissi D. Dell'Aquila J. A. Dueñas Q. Fable F. Gramegna C. Gouyet M. Henri B. Hong S. Kim A. Kordyasz T. Kozik M. J. Kweon I. Lombardo O. Lopez L. Manduci T. Marchi K. Mazurek S. H. Nam J. Park M. Pârlog G. Pasquali S. Piantelli G. Poggi A. Rebillard-Soulié R. Revenko S. Valdré G. Verde E. Vient
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 25.70.-z21.65.Ef
keywords isospindiffusiontransportratiosymmetryenergynuclearequationofstateimpactparameterreconstructionINDRA-FAZIAquasiprojectileremnantFermiheavy-ioncollisions
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

At 32 MeV per nucleon, collisions between nickel isotopes with different neutron-to-proton ratios let neutrons and protons mix between projectile and target. This paper combines two datasets—a minimum-bias INDRA run used to reconstruct the impact parameter and an INDRA-FAZIA run that isotopically identifies the quasiprojectile remnant—to build the isospin transport ratio $R(\langle N/Z\rangle)$ as a function of impact parameter $b$. The central result is that $R$ moves steadily from its non-equilibrated limits toward a common value as collisions go from semiperipheral to central, a clear experimental signature of isospin diffusion. Because the centrality scale comes from a model-independent reconstruction rather than from a transport-model prediction, the result can be compared with any theory and can serve as a benchmark for the density dependence of the symmetry energy at sub-saturation densities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the isospin transport ratio and the model-independent impact-parameter reconstruction. The ratio is $R(x_i)=2x_i-x_{AA}-x_{BB}\over x_{AA}-x_{BB}$, built from the four projectile-target combinations so that common systematic effects cancel; $R=\pm1$ marks the non-equilibrated limits and converging $R$ values between the mixed systems signal equilibration. The centrality reconstruction, from Ref. [36], models the conditional probability $P(M|b)$ with a gamma distribution as the fluctuation kernel and fits the inclusive multiplicity distribution; the true impact-parameter distribution is assumed to be the Fermi form $P(b)\propto 2\pi b/[1+\exp((b-b_0)/\Delta_b)]$ with $\Delta_b=0.4$ fm and $b_0$ fixed by the measured total reaction cross section, and Bayes' theorem yields the $b$ distribution for each measured multiplicity. Each event is then assigned an impact parameter randomly drawn from its multiplicity's $b$ distribution, preserving the intrinsic centrality fluctuations.

What would settle it

Reconstruct $R(\langle N/Z\rangle)$ versus $b$ after replacing the multiplicity $M$ with a different centrality observable, such as total transverse energy, using the same model-independent method, and compare the two centrality scales; if the trend toward equilibration shifts beyond the quoted uncertainties, the assumed $P(b)$ shape or the cross-system rescaling is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that it provides a model-independent experimental evaluation of isospin equilibration in the four reactions $^{58,64}\mathrm{Ni}+^{58,64}\mathrm{Ni}$ at 32 MeV/nucleon. Using the isospin transport ratio $R(x_i)=2x_i-x_{AA}-x_{BB}\over x_{AA}-x_{BB}$ with $x=\langle N/Z\rangle$ of the quasiprojectile remnant, it shows in Fig. 7 that for the two mixed systems $R$ evolves monotonically from peripheral values toward the equilibrated common value as the impact parameter decreases, and that even at the most central collisions full equilibration is not reached, suggesting the interaction time is never sufficient for complete $N/Z$ mixing. The novelty is the centrality axis: instead of using a transport-model prediction for an order parameter, the impact parameter is reconstructed by fitting the inclusive multiplicity distribution with a gamma-distribution fluctuation kernel and an assumed Fermi-function $P(b)$, calibrated on the $^{58}\mathrm{Ni}+^{58}\mathrm{Ni}$ INDRA data and transferred to the other systems by a linear multiplicity rescaling. The result is consistent with the authors' earlier, more exclusive analyses but extends to more central collisions, and is intended as a benchmark for any transport model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the detected charged-particle multiplicity can be converted into an impact parameter using a fixed Fermi-function shape for the impact-parameter distribution, calibrated on one system and stretched linearly to the other three; if that conversion is wrong, the horizontal axis of the result is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the centrality scale no longer depends on a transport model, the measured $R(\langle N/Z\rangle)$ versus $b$ can be compared directly with predictions of any transport code, for primary or secondary quasiprojectile fragments.
  • The result extends the collaboration's previous analyses, which used model-dependent centrality from AMD+Gemini++ simulations, to more central collisions and validates the earlier centrality transformation within the overlapping $b$ range.
  • The clear progression toward equilibration with decreasing $b$, together with the incomplete equilibration at the most central points, provides a target that models must reproduce, making the result usable to constrain the symmetry energy at sub-saturation densities.
  • Ongoing comparisons with BUU@VECC-McGill calculations using different equation-of-state parametrizations indicate the ratio preserves sensitivity to the symmetry-energy density dependence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could use the same reconstruction on a second centrality observable, for example total transverse energy or quasiprojectile momentum, as a cross-check; if the resulting $R(b)$ trend changes, the multiplicity-based calibration is the cause.
  • A natural extension would be to repeat the measurement at other beam energies and with larger projectile-target isospin asymmetries; the evolution of the equilibration slope with interaction time would quantify how the symmetry-energy term controls the pace of $N/Z$ mixing.
  • The incomplete convergence at central collisions could be read as an upper limit on the isospin-equilibration timescale for medium-mass nuclei, a quantity transport models currently determine through their symmetry-energy parametrization.
  • Because the centrality fluctuations are propagated event-by-event, the published data points could be re-binned or unfolded to other centrality definitions without re-analysis, easing comparison with models that predict different multiplicity distributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines two datasets, INDRA and INDRA-FAZIA, for 58,64Ni+58,64Ni collisions at 32 MeV/nucleon to measure the isospin transport ratio R(⟨N/Z⟩) as a function of impact parameter b. The impact parameter is reconstructed from the charged-particle multiplicity M using the method of Ref. [36], which assumes a Fermi-function form for P(b) with fixed Δb = 0.4 fm, a gamma-distributed fluctuation kernel, and a b0 derived from a measured total reaction cross section. The calibration, obtained for 58Ni+58Ni, is transferred to the other three systems by a linear rescaling of M (Eq. 5). The resulting R(b) for the two mixed systems shows a clear evolution toward isospin equilibration for increasing centrality. The authors claim that the analysis is completely model-independent and can serve as a benchmark for transport-model predictions of the symmetry energy.

Significance. If the centrality reconstruction is reliable, this is a valuable experimental benchmark: it provides one of the most complete maps of isospin equilibration versus impact parameter at Fermi energies, and the use of the isospin transport ratio reduces sensitivity to evaporation and detection systematics. The paper's strengths include the creative combination of two complementary datasets, the random assignment of b according to the full P(b|M) distribution, the explicit propagation of the b0 uncertainty, and the consistency check against earlier analyses in Appendix A. The central qualitative trend is physically plausible and consistent with previous results. The main weakness is that the label 'completely model-independent' is not fully justified because the b axis depends on several parametric assumptions that are not systematically tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A, Eq. (5)] The linear multiplicity rescaling of Eq. (5) is calibrated only on the high-multiplicity tails (M > 10) of the four systems and then applied to the full multiplicity range. The manuscript provides no test that, after rescaling, events with a given Mresc in 58Ni+64Ni or 64Ni+58Ni have the same true impact-parameter distribution as those in 58Ni+58Ni. Because R(b) is built from the two asymmetric systems, a systematic, system-dependent bias in the assigned b would shift the two branches of Fig. 7 in opposite directions and could create or suppress the observed convergence toward equilibration. A validation using filtered transport-model events (e.g., comparing the b distributions for fixed Mresc across all four systems) or a variation of the fitted range and of α, β should be added before the claim can stand.
  2. [III, Eqs. (3)-(4); Abstract; V] The paper repeatedly calls the analysis 'completely model-independent,' but the reconstruction explicitly depends on a Fermi-function parametrization of P(b), a fixed width Δb = 0.4 fm, a gamma-distributed fluctuation kernel, and a b0 obtained through a chain of normalizations. Appendix A itself concedes that the reconstruction is 'not entirely free of assumptions,' which conflicts with the abstract and conclusions. This is not merely a wording issue: the x-axis of Fig. 7 and the quantitative degree of equilibration depend on these assumptions. I request either tempering the claims to 'transport-model independent' with an explicit list of residual assumptions, or adding sensitivity tests (e.g., varying Δb over a reasonable range and testing an alternative kernel shape) to show that the R(b) trend is robust.
  3. [Appendix A] The consistency check in Appendix A validates the new centrality reconstruction only for the QP evaporation channel and only in the semiperipheral/peripheral region (b ≳ 5 fm) where the present analysis overlaps with the previous results of Ref. [31]. The inclusive analysis of the present paper extends to more central collisions and includes QP breakup events, and Fig. 8 does not validate the reconstruction in this newly probed range. Since the central bins are precisely the ones that drive the conclusion of evolution toward equilibration, the paper should provide an additional cross-check for the inclusive selection at central impact parameters, for example a comparison with a transport-model prediction or a closure test based on the same data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label 'σd/db x 1/2' is easy to misread; please clarify the meaning of the factor 1/2, for example by writing 'divided by 2' or renormalizing the curves in the figure.
  2. [III A] The sentence 'The reduced χ² is 20.1, in line with what obtained in Ref. [36]' is vague; please state explicitly why such a large reduced χ² is considered acceptable and whether the fit was performed over the entire M range or only the tail.
  3. [IV B, Fig. 7] The caption and text should specify that the horizontal shaded rectangles and error bars combine the width of the P(b|Mresc) distribution with the b0 uncertainty, and whether the x-uncertainties of the two branches of R in Fig. 7 are correlated.
  4. [Eq. (4)] Please define the dilogarithm function Li2 explicitly or give the convention used, since it may be unfamiliar to some readers.
  5. [III A] The procedure for obtaining the absolute normalization from the Rutherford cross section and transferring it from the INDRA-FAZIA dataset to the INDRA dataset is described in words; a short equation or a dedicated step list would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: R(b) is computed directly from the four measured N/Z curves, and the centrality calibration, though assumption-laden and partly self-cited, is not fitted to the R(b) result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The observable R(⟨N/Z⟩) is defined by Eq. (1) from the measured ⟨N/Z⟩ of QP remnants in the four systems; no parameter of the transport ratio is fitted to any model. The b-axis is obtained from the INDRA multiplicity distribution through the method of Ref. [36], using the assumed P(b) of Eq. (3), the fixed Δb=0.4 fm, the measured σR, and the linear M-rescaling of Eq. (5). The final R(b) is not used to adjust any of these calibration parameters, so the trend in Fig. 7 is not forced by the fit. The centrality reconstruction does contain assumptions (the paper concedes in Appendix A that it is 'not entirely free of assumptions'), and the transfer of the 58Ni+58Ni calibration to the asymmetric systems via Eq. (5) is a legitimate systematic concern for the x-axis; but concern about the correctness of the centrality axis is not circularity, because there is no reduction of the predicted equilibration trend to the fitted inputs. The self-citations to Refs. [21, 31, 36] provide the method and previous data analyses; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem, and Appendix A checks the new centrality treatment against the earlier AMD-based centrality results. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several parameters and assumptions entering the impact parameter reconstruction. The most important are the shape of P(b), the fixed Delta b, the gamma fluctuation kernel, and the linear multiplicity rescaling. These are not invented entities, but they are modeling choices that limit the strict 'model-independent' wording. The isospin observable itself is directly measured.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta b (impact parameter distribution width parameter) = 0.4 fm (fixed, from Ref. [36])
    Assumed in Eq. (3) for the impact parameter distribution P(b). It is not fitted in this paper, but taken from prior model-based studies of similar INDRA minimum-bias datasets. It controls the width of all reconstructed b distributions.
  • b0 (impact parameter distribution cutoff) = 9.8 +/- 0.7 fm
    Derived from Eq. (4) using the measured total reaction cross section sigma_R = 3.0 +/- 0.5 b. The cross section was obtained by normalizing the INDRA-FAZIA M > 10 multiplicity tail to the INDRA dataset and using the Rutherford cross section from forward FAZIA telescopes. This sets the absolute b scale for all systems.
  • alpha, beta (multiplicity rescaling parameters) = not quoted, fitted to the high-multiplicity tails
    Parameters of Eq. (5) that map the detected multiplicity Msys of 58Ni+64Ni, 64Ni+58Ni and 64Ni+64Ni onto the 58Ni+58Ni multiplicity scale. They are fitted to match the M > 10 tails of the distributions in Fig. 3(a).
  • Gamma kernel parameters for P(M|cb) = not quoted, from fit to inclusive P(M)
    The conditional probability of multiplicity M for a given centrality is modeled as a gamma distribution whose parameters are extracted by fitting the experimental inclusive P(M) distribution (Sec. III A). These parameters control the fluctuations in the b versus M mapping.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The true impact parameter distribution for the minimum-bias INDRA dataset follows the Fermi function of Eq. (3) with Delta b = 0.4 fm.
    This functional form is assumed in Sec. III A and the width is taken from Ref. [36], where it was verified on similar datasets using different models. It is a modeling input, not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional probability P(M|cb) is adequately described by a gamma distribution.
    Introduced in Sec. III A as the fluctuation kernel for the centrality reconstruction method. No physical derivation is given; it is a fitting choice.
  • domain assumption The multiplicity M of charged particles in INDRA rings 6 to 17 behaves consistently in the two experimental datasets.
    Stated in Sec. III A. The authors argue that using the same angular coverage and all charged particles mitigates differences in identification thresholds, but the two setups differ in trigger logic and the presence of ionization chambers.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear rescaling of Eq. (5) can map the multiplicity of the three other systems to the 58Ni+58Ni scale for all centralities.
    The parameters alpha and beta are fitted to the high-multiplicity tails and then applied to the whole multiplicity range. The paper checks only that the right tails match well; the validity for low and intermediate multiplicities is assumed.
  • domain assumption The isospin transport ratio R(x) cancels apparatus systematics and is largely insensitive to statistical evaporation.
    This property is cited from Refs. [24,30,33] in Sec. I. The paper relies on it to interpret R(⟨N/Z⟩) as a direct measure of isospin diffusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-independent measurement of isospin diffusion in Ni-Ni systems at intermediate energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFFTRCP6

@misc{pith2026241213648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-independent measurement of isospin diffusion in Ni-Ni systems at intermediate energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFFTRCP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13648}
}
abstract

In this work we provide a model-independent experimental evaluation of the degree of isospin equilibration taking place in $^{58,64}$Ni+$^{58,64}$Ni collisions at 32 MeV/nucleon across varying reaction centralities. This result has been obtained by combining the complementary information provided by two different datasets, sharing common characteristics. The first dataset has been acquired with the INDRA setup and has been used to implement a model-independent reconstruction of the impact parameter. The second dataset has been acquired in the first experimental campaign of the coupled INDRA-FAZIA apparatus at GANIL. The neutron-to-proton content of the quasiprojectile remnant measured by FAZIA has been employed as isospin observable. The effect of isospin diffusion has been evidenced by means of the isospin transport ratio, reported as a function of the impact parameter of the collision. The evolution towards isospin equilibration from semiperipheral to more central collisions is clearly extracted. This experimental result, expanding our previous works (Phys. Rev. C 106, 024603 (2022) and Phys. Rev. C 108, 054611 (2023)), can be compared with the predictions of any transport model, and can thus be used to set constraints on the behavior of the symmetry energy term of the nuclear Equation of State at sub- to saturation densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Inclusive distributions of the multiplicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Model-independent impact parameter distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Distributions of the multiplicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Model-independent global impact parameter distrib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Correlation between the total charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Neutron-to-proton ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Isospin transport ratio calculated with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between the isospin transport ratio cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Ciampi, S

    C. Ciampi, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, A. Ono, J. D. Frank- 13 land, L. Baldesi, S. Barlini, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, A. Camaiani, A. Chbihi, J. A. Due˜ nas, Q. Fa- ble, D. Fabris, C. Frosin, T. G´ enard, F. Gramegna, D. Gruyer, M. Henri, B. Hong, S. Kim, A. Kordyasz, T. Kozik, M. J. Kweon, N. Le Neindre, I. Lombardo, O. Lopez, T. Marchi, K. Mazurek, S. H. ...

    work page 2023

  2. [31]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032701 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [1]

    Sorensen, K

    A. Sorensen, K. Agarwal, K. W. Brown, Z. Chajecki, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, S. Gandolfi, J. W. Holt, M. Kaminski, C.-M. Ko, R. Kumar, B.-A. Li, W. G. Lynch, A. B. McIntosh, W. G. Newton, S. Pratt, O. Savchuk, M. Stefaniak, I. Tews, M. B. Tsang, R. Vogt, H. Wolter, H. Zbroszczyk, N. Abbasi, J. Aiche- lin, A. Andronic, S. A. Bass, F. Becattini, D. Blasc...

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Roca-Maza and N

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 101, 96 (2018)

    2018

  5. [3]

    with the aforementioned parameter settings. This plot shows the important role of the intrinsic fluctuations, as relatively different selec- tions of our centrality observable can populate partly (or entirely) superimposed b intervals, particularly for less peripheral collisions. These results are valid for the reaction 58Ni+58Ni at 32 MeV/nucleon. However,...

    work page

  6. [4]

    in the four systems and the impact parameter b, extracted model-independently as explained in Sec. III. More specifically, in our analysis, each event is assigned an impact parameter value randomly drawn from the b distribution associated with its corresponding Mresc value (see Fig. 2). This method allows us to correctly take into account the full informat...

    work page

  7. [5]

    complete- ness

    allows in all three cases to reproduce remarkably well the shape of the right tail of the 58Ni+58Ni M distri- bution. These rescaled multiplicities are then treated as the M for the 58Ni+58Ni reaction, and the information on the relationship between M and the impact parame- ter extracted for the latter is applied to all systems. Fig- ure 4 presents the co...

    work page

  8. [6]

    The vertical error bars, often smaller than the marker size, represent statistical errors

    The x- axis value of each data point is the barycenter of the b distribution for the corresponding bin, and the hori- zontal error bars represent the standard deviation. The vertical error bars, often smaller than the marker size, represent statistical errors. For each data point, we also show a shaded rectangle representing our global uncer- tainty, wher...

    work page

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    completeness

    Here the regular trend towards equilibration for increasing centrality is further highlighted, and is in general agreement with other observations available in the literature [ 20, 52], including our previous results of Refs. [ 21, 31], as detailed in Appendix A. The system de...

    2023

  2. [8]

    Colonna, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 113, 103775 (2020)

    M. Colonna, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 113, 103775 (2020)

    2020

  3. [9]

    Yasin, S

    H. Yasin, S. Sch¨ afer, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 092701 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 97, 025806 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    Burgio, H.-J

    G. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na, and J.-B. Wei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 120, 103879 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Physics Reports 333-334, 121 (2000)

    2000

  7. [13]

    S. Huth, P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le F` evre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M. W. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Nature 606, 276 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    W. G. Lynch and M. B. Tsang, Physics Letters B 830, 137098 (2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    P. T. H. Pang, T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, M. Bulla, I. Tews, M. Almualla, T. Barna, R. W. Kiendrebeogo, N. Kunert, G. Mansingh, B. Reed, N. Sravan, A. Toivo- nen, S. Antier, R. O. VandenBerg, J. Heinzel, V. Nedora, P. Salehi, R. Sharma, R. Somasundaram, and C. Van Den Broeck...

    2023

  10. [16]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Kumar, and C. J. Horowitz, Nature Astronomy 8, 328 (2024). 12

    2024

  11. [17]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, M. Zielinska-Pfab´ e, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064620 (2005)

    2005

  12. [18]

    A. B. McIntosh and S. J. Yennello, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 108, 103707 (2019)

    2019

  13. [19]

    Lionti, V

    R. Lionti, V. Baran, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Lett. B 625, 33 (2005)

    2005

  14. [20]

    Lombardo, C

    I. Lombardo, C. Agodi, R. Alba, F. Amorini, A. An- zalone, I. Berceanu, G. Cardella, S. Cavallaro, M. B. Chatterjee, E. De Filippo, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, E. Geraci, G. Giuliani, L. Grassi, A. Grzeszczuk, J. Han, E. La Guidara, G. Lanzalone, N. Le Neindre, C. Maiolino, A. P...

    2010

  15. [21]

    Barlini, S

    S. Barlini, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, P. R. Mauren- zig, A. Olmi, M. Bini, S. Carboni, G. Pasquali, G. Poggi, A. A. Stefanini, R. Bougault, E. Bonnet, B. Borderie, A. Chbihi, J. D. Frankland, D. Gruyer, O. Lopez, N. Le Neindre, M. Pˆ arlog, M. F. Rivet, E. Vient, E. Rosato, G. ...

    2013

  16. [22]

    Piantelli, G

    S. Piantelli, G. Casini, A. Ono, G. Poggi, G. Pastore, S. Barlini, M. Bini, A. Boiano, E. Bonnet, B. Bor- derie, R. Bougault, M. Bruno, A. Buccola, A. Cama- iani, A. Chbihi, C. Ciampi, M. Cicerchia, M. Cinausero, M. Degerlier, J. A. Due˜ nas, Q. Fable, D. Fabris, J. D. Frankla...

    2021

  17. [23]

    Fable, A

    Q. Fable, A. Chbihi, J. D. Frankland, P. Napoli- tani, G. Verde, E. Bonnet, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, E. Galichet, T. G´ enard, D. Gruyer, M. Henri, M. La Commara, A. Le F` evre, J. Lemari´ e, N. Le Nein- dre, O. Lopez, P. Marini, M. Pˆ arlog, A. Rebillard-Souli´ e, W. Trautma...

    2023

  18. [24]

    Johnston, T

    H. Johnston, T. White, J. Winger, D. Rowland, B. Hurst, F. Gimeno-Nogues, D. O’Kelly, and S. Yen- nello, Physics Letters B 371, 186 (1996)

    1996

  19. [25]

    Camaiani, G

    A. Camaiani, G. Casini, S. Piantelli, A. Ono, E. Bon- net, R. Alba, S. Barlini, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, C. Ciampi, A. Chbihi, M. Cicerchia, M. Cinausero, J. A. Due˜ nas, D. Dell’Aquila, Q. Fable, D. Fabris, C. Frosin, J. D. Frankland, F. Gramegna, D. Gruyer, K. I. Hahn, M. H...

    2021

  20. [26]

    Ciampi, S

    C. Ciampi, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, G. Pasquali, J. Qu- icray, L. Baldesi, S. Barlini, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, A. Camaiani, A. Chbihi, D. Dell’Aquila, M. Cicerchia, J. A. Due˜ nas, Q. Fable, D. Fabris, J. D. Frankland, C. Frosin, T. G´ enard, F. Gramegna, D. Gruyer, M. Henri...

    2022

  21. [27]

    Wolter, M

    H. Wolter, M. Colonna, D. Cozma, P. Danielewicz, C. M. Ko, R. Kumar, A. Ono, M. B. Tsang, J. Xu, Y.-X. Zhang, E. Bratkovskaya, Z.-Q. Feng, T. Gaitanos, A. Le F` evre, N. Ikeno, Y. Kim, S. Mallik, P. Napolitani, D. Oli- inychenko, T. Ogawa, M. Papa, J. Su, R. Wang, Y.-J. Wang, ...

    2022

  22. [28]

    Napolitani, M

    P. Napolitani, M. Colonna, F. Gulminelli, E. Galichet, S. Piantelli, G. Verde, and E. Vient, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044619 (2010)

    2010

  23. [29]

    F. Rami, Y. Leifels, B. de Schauenburg, A. Gobbi, B. Hong, J. P. Alard, A. Andronic, R. Averbeck, V. Bar- ret, Z. Basrak, N. Bastid, I. Belyaev, A. Bendarag, G. Berek, R. ˇCaplar, N. Cindro, P. Crochet, A. De- vismes, P. Dupieux, M. Dˇ zelalija, M. Eskef, C. Finck, Z. Fodor, H...

    2000

  24. [30]

    M. B. Tsang, T. X. Liu, L. Shi, P. Danielewicz, C. K. Gelbke, X. D. Liu, W. G. Lynch, W. P. Tan, G. Verde, A. Wagner, H. S. Xu, W. A. Friedman, L. Beaulieu, B. Davin, R. T. de Souza, Y. Larochelle, T. Lefort, R. Yanez, V. E. Viola, R. J. Charity, and L. G. Sobotka, Phys. Rev. ...

    2004

  25. [32]

    T. X. Liu, W. G. Lynch, M. B. Tsang, X. D. Liu, R. Shomin, W. P. Tan, G. Verde, A. Wag- ner, H. F. Xi, H. S. Xu, B. Davin, Y. Larochelle, R. T. de Souza, R. J. Charity, and L. G. Sobotka, Phys. Rev. C 76, 034603 (2007)

    2007

  26. [33]

    M. B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, M. Fami- ano, Z. Li, W. G. Lynch, and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 122701 (2009)

    2009

  27. [34]

    D. D. S. Coupland, W. G. Lynch, M. B. Tsang, P. Danielewicz, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054603 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    Camaiani, S

    A. Camaiani, S. Piantelli, A. Ono, G. Casini, B. Bor- derie, R. Bougault, C. Ciampi, J. A. Due˜ nas, C. Frosin, J. D. Frankland, D. Gruyer, N. LeNeindre, I. Lombardo, G. Mantovani, P. Ottanelli, M. Parlog, G. Pasquali, S. Upadhyaya, S. Valdr´ e, G. Verde, and E. Vient, Phys. R...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Fable, L

    Q. Fable, L. Baldesi, S. Barlini, E. Bonnet, B. Bor- derie, R. Bougault, A. Camaiani, G. Casini, A. Chbihi, C. Ciampi, J. A. Due˜ nas, J. D. Frankland, T. G´ enard, D. Gruyer, M. Henri, B. Hong, S. Kim, A. J. Kordyasz, T. Kozik, A. Le F` evre, N. Le Neindre, I. Lombardo, O. Lo...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Mallik, F

    S. Mallik, F. Gulminelli, and D. Gruyer, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 49, 015102 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Piantelli, A

    S. Piantelli, A. Olmi, P. R. Maurenzig, A. Ono, M. Bini, G. Casini, G. Pasquali, A. Mangiarotti, G. Poggi, A. A. Stefanini, S. Barlini, A. Camaiani, C. Ciampi, C. Frosin, P. Ottanelli, and S. Valdr´ e, Phys. Rev. C 99, 064616 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    L. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, N. Wang, Y. Cui, and J. Winkel- bauer, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044606 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    J. D. Frankland, D. Gruyer, E. Bonnet, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, A. Chbihi, J. E. Ducret, D. Durand, Q. Fa- ble, M. Henri, J. Lemari´ e, N. Le Neindre, I. Lom- bardo, O. Lopez, L. Manduci, M. Pˆ arlog, J. Quicray, G. Verde, E. Vient, and M. Vigilante (INDRA Collabo- ration), P...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Cavata, M

    C. Cavata, M. Demoulins, J. Gosset, M.-C. Lemaire, D. L’Hˆ ote, J. Poitou, and O. Valette, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1760 (1990)

    1990

  35. [43]

    S. J. Das, G. Giacalone, P.-A. Monard, and J.-Y. Olli- trault, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014905 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Rogly, G

    R. Rogly, G. Giacalone, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024902 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    X. Chen, L. Li, Y. Cui, J. Yang, Z. Li, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034613 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Pouthas, B

    J. Pouthas, B. Borderie, R. Dayras, E. Plagnol, M. Rivet, F. Saint-Laurent, J. Steckmeyer, G. Auger, C. Bacri, S. Barbey, A. Barbier, A. Benkirane, J. Ben- lliure, B. Berthier, E. Bougamont, P. Bourgault, P. Box, R. Bzyl, B. Cahan, Y. Cassagnou, D. Charlet, J. Charvet, A. Chbi...

    1995

  39. [47]

    Pouthas, A

    J. Pouthas, A. Bertaut, B. Borderie, P. Bour- gault, B. Cahan, G. Carles, D. Charlet, D. Cussol, R. Dayras, M. Engrand, O. Jouniaux, P. Le Botlan, A. Leconte, P. Lelong, L. Martina, P. Mosrin, L. Olivier, J. Passerieux, B. Piquet, E. Plagnol, E. Plaige, B. Raine, A. Richard, F...

    1996

  40. [48]

    Cussol, T

    D. Cussol, T. Lefort, J. P´ eter, G. Auger, C. O. Bacri, F. Bocage, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, R. Brou, P. Buchet, J. L. Charvet, A. Chbihi, J. Colin, R. Dayras, A. De- meyer, D. Dor´ e, D. Durand, P. Eudes, E. de Filippo, J. D. Frankland, E. Galichet, E. Genouin-Duhamel, E. Ge...

    2002

  41. [49]

    Bougault, G

    R. Bougault, G. Poggi, S. Barlini, B. Borderie, G. Casini, A. Chbihi, N. Le Neindre, M. Pˆ arlog, G. Pasquali, S. Pi- antelli, Z. Sosin, G. Ademard, R. Alba, A. Anastasio, S. Barbey, L. Bardelli, M. Bini, A. Boiano, M. Boisjoli, E. Bonnet, R. Borcea, B. Bougard, G. Brulin, M. ...

    2014

  42. [50]

    Valdr´ e, G

    S. Valdr´ e, G. Casini, N. Le Neindre, M. Bini, A. Boiano, B. Borderie, P. Edelbruck, G. Poggi, F. Salomon, G. Tor- tone, R. Alba, S. Barlini, E. Bonnet, B. Bougard, R. Bougault, G. Brulin, M. Bruno, A. Buccola, A. Ca- maiani, A. Chbihi, C. Ciampi, M. Cicerchia, M. Cin- ausero...

    2019

  43. [51]

    Casini and N

    G. Casini and N. Le Neindre, Nuclear Physics News 32, 24 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Wittwer, Clock event number transmitter receiver uni- 14 versal module, user’s manual, GANIL (2004)

    G. Wittwer, Clock event number transmitter receiver uni- 14 versal module, user’s manual, GANIL (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    J. D. Frankland, N. Le Neindre, M. Henri, A. Chbihi, Q. Fable, C. Gouyet, R. Revenko, Q. Beau- douin, R. Bougault, P. Bourgault, T. Genard, V. Godefroid, D. Gruyer, J. Lemari´ e, L. Leterrier, O. Lopez, E. Loubeau, F. Marie-Saillenfest, C. Nicolle, F. Noury, J. Perronnel, M. P...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Vient, L

    E. Vient, L. Manduci, E. Legou´ ee, L. Augey, E. Bon- net, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, A. Chbihi, D. Dell’Aquila, Q. Fable, L. Francalanza, J. D. Frankland, E. Galichet, D. Gruyer, D. Guinet, M. Henri, M. La Commara, G. Lehaut, N. Le Neindre, I. Lombardo, O. Lopez, P. Marini, M....

    2018

  47. [55]

    Sihver, M

    L. Sihver, M. Lantz, and A. Kohama, Phys. Rev. C 89, 067602 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Lombardo, C

    I. Lombardo, C. Agodi, F. Amorini, A. Anzalone, L. Auditore, I. Berceanu, G. Cardella, S. Cavallaro, M. B. Chatterjee, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, G. Giu- liani, L. Grassi, J. Han, E. La Guidara, D. Lo- ria, G. Lanzalone, C. Maiolino, A. Pagano, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F...

    2011

  49. [57]

    Z. Y. Sun, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, G. Verde, F. Amorini, L. Andronenko, M. Andronenko, G. Cardella, M. Chatterje, P. Danielewicz, E. De Filippo, P. Dinh, E. Galichet, E. Geraci, H. Hua, E. La Guidara, G. Lanzalone, H. Liu, F. Lu, S. Lukyanov, C. Maiolino, A. Pagano, S. Piant...

    2010

  50. [58]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 97, 025805 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    A. Ono, H. Horiuchi, T. Maruyama, and A. Ohnishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 87, 1185 (1992)

    1992

  52. [60]

    R. J. Charity, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014610 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.