Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 103 references

Neutron correlations and clustering in neutron-rich nuclear systems

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quasi-free knockout reactions on Borromean nuclei and 10Be show that dineutron correlations are universal and surface-localized, and reveal an α-2n-α molecular cluster in the 10Be ground state.

desk verdict Useful, honest review from the group that ran the experiments; the central dineutron and cluster claims rest on reaction-model assumptions the paper does not stress-test, and the tetraneutron summary overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12131 v1 pith:EYEFQ3IF submitted 2025-01-21 nucl-ex nucl-th

Zaihong Yang , Yuki Kubota This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords neutroncorrelationsdineutronhalonucleiBorromeanalphaclusteringquasi-freeknockouttetraneutrontrineutron
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

This review synthesizes a series of quasi-free knockout measurements on neutron-rich nuclei, arguing that two phenomena—dineutron pairing and α clustering—are enhanced in the low-density surface of these systems. The ($p$,$pn$) data on Borromean nuclei $^{11}$Li, $^{14}$Be, and $^{17}$B show that a spatially compact neutron pair concentrates in a thin shell near the surface, a universal feature that weakens as the halo becomes more dilute. The $^{17}$B measurement yields a $1s_{1/2}$ component of only 9(2)%, establishing a weak halo with no need for dominant $s$- or $p$-wave occupancy. For $^{10}$Be, the ($p$,$p\alpha$) cross section matches DWIA calculations built on α-2n-α cluster wave functions, supporting a dumbbell-like molecular ground state. If these interpretations hold, pairing and clustering in neutron-rich matter are density-dependent and must be included in models of neutron-star structure.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is the quasi-free knockout reaction, in which a high-energy proton knocks a neutron or an α cluster out of the projectile, and the momentum of the residual system is measured in complete kinematics. The load-bearing analysis tool is the distorted-wave impulse approximation (DWIA), which connects the measured momentum distribution to the ground-state single-particle or cluster wave function. For the dineutron studies, the key observable is the correlation angle $\theta_{nf}$ between the knocked-out neutron and the residual fragment; its mean cosine, plotted against the knocked-out neutron's missing momentum, maps where the two-neutron pair lives in the nucleus. For $^{10}$Be, the same logic is applied to the knocked-out α, and the data are compared with microscopic cluster-model wave functions folded into the reaction calculation.

What would settle it

A kinematically complete experiment that detects the four decay neutrons from the $^{8}$He($p$,$p\alpha$) reaction and reconstructs their invariant mass and angular correlations would settle whether the near-threshold peak is a genuine tetraneutron resonance or a reaction-mechanism artifact, since a true resonance would produce characteristic four-neutron correlations that a non-resonant final-state interaction would not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quasi-free proton-induced knockout reactions provide direct experimental access to the spatial correlations of valence neutrons and α clusters in exotic nuclei. For the Borromean halos $^{11}$Li, $^{14}$Be, and $^{17}$B, the measured correlation-angle distributions show that the dineutron—a spatially compact spin-0 neutron pair—is localized in the low-density surface region, and that this surface localization is universal across these nuclei. For $^{17}$B, the extracted $1s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic factor is only 9(2)%, so the halo is weak and dominant occupation of $s$ or $p$ orbitals is not a prerequisite for halo formation. For $^{10}$Be, the triple differential cross section of the $^{10}$Be($p$,$p\alpha$)$^{6}$He(g.s.) reaction is reproduced by distorted-wave impulse approximation (DWIA) calculations using microscopic cluster wave functions, strengthening the case that the ground state has an α-2n-α dumbbell-like cluster structure. The review also presents two missing-mass experiments, $^{4}$He($^{8}$He,$^{8}$Be) and $^{8}$He($p$,$p\alpha$), as evidence for a resonant tetraneutron, while a high-statistics charge-exchange experiment finds no trineutron resonance.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions assume that the distorted-wave impulse approximation reaction model maps the measured momentum distributions directly onto the ground-state single-particle and cluster configurations, with final-state interactions treated correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If dineutron correlations are surface-localized, the pairing gap in neutron-rich matter is density-dependent, with enhancement just below saturation density, and this should enter equations of state used for neutron-star crusts.
  • The weak halo in $^{17}$B, with only 9(2)% $s$-wave strength, implies that very weakly bound systems can develop extended neutron distributions without a dominant $s$ or $p$ orbital.
  • A confirmed tetraneutron resonance would sharpen constraints on the isospin-dependent part of the nuclear force, while the null trineutron result limits the strength of three-nucleon forces.
  • The α-2n-α ground state of $^{10}$Be suggests that molecular-like cluster configurations can exist in neutron-rich ground states, not just in excited states near cluster-decay thresholds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit is that the same correlation-angle analysis could be applied to heavier two-neutron halo candidates, such as $^{19}$B or $^{22}$C, to test whether surface-localized dineutron correlation persists as neutron excess grows.
  • If dineutron clusters condense in dilute neutron matter, one would expect enhanced superfluidity in neutron-star crusts, which could be probed indirectly through pulsar glitch statistics or cooling curves.
  • The $^{10}$Be result suggests that molecular cluster degrees of freedom should be included in the equation of state of low-density neutron-rich matter, an ingredient the authors note is usually omitted.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a review article, written by two experimenters from the RIBF quasi-free scattering program, of recent progress on neutron correlations and clustering in neutron-rich nuclei. It covers (p,pn) knockout measurements on the Borromean nuclei 11Li, 14Be, and 17B, the (p,2p) study of 16Be, missing-mass searches for the tetraneutron and trineutron, and (p,pα) knockout measurements on 10Be and on stable tin isotopes. The central claims are that 17B has a small 1s1/2 component of 9(2)% revealing a definite but weak neutron halo; that dineutron correlations are universal and enhanced in a limited low-density surface region of Borromean nuclei; that two missing-mass experiments support a low-lying 4n resonance while no 3n resonance was seen in the t(t,3He)3n reaction; and that 10Be(g.s.) has a well-developed α-2n-α molecule-like cluster structure. The text is largely faithful to the cited literature and explicitly presents the main contested interpretations, including the non-resonant reaction-model explanation of the 8He(p,pα) tetraneutron peak by Lazauskas et al. and the alternative explanation of the 16Be two-neutron decay pattern by Marqués et al. The one notable inconsistency is that the Summary section states that the tetraneutron resonance is supported by two missing-mass experiments, which is stronger than the body of the review warrants.

Significance. The experimental program summarized here is significant: if the reviewed results stand, they establish that dineutron correlations are density-dependent and surface-localized in Borromean nuclei, that a neutron halo can exist with a very small low-ℓ component, and that quasi-free knockout can image α-cluster structure in the ground state of a neutron-rich nucleus. These findings bear on the role of pairing and clustering in low-density neutron-rich matter and on the equation-of-state input from neutron-skin measurements. The review's strengths are its organization, the clarity of the experimental descriptions (MINOS, SAMURAI, SHARAQ, WINDS/NEBULA), and the fair presentation of several controversies, notably the Lazauskas et al. alternative to the tetraneutron resonance and the Marqués et al. alternative interpretation of the 16Be data. The paper contains no new data or derivations and its value is synthetic rather than original. The main risk, which the revision should address, is that the abstract and Summary state some conclusions more categorically than the qualified body of the review supports.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5 (Summary)] Section 5, first paragraph: the sentence 'The existence of a tetraneutron resonance was supported by two missing-mass experiments [22, 71]' is internally inconsistent with Section 3.1, where the low-energy peak observed in the 8He(p,pα) measurement is reported to be reproduced by the reaction model of Lazauskas et al. [31] without invoking a tetraneutron resonance, as an effect of the initial α+2n+2n cluster structure and of the reaction mechanism. As written, the Summary attributes to both experiments a status that the body of the review itself qualifies. The same paragraph also states that 'many theoretical models consistently find that the characteristics of the four-neutron system are insensitive to the three-body force [30, 31, 73], but its essential role was stressed in the QMC and GFMC calculations [24, 76]'; this is self-contradictory and should be rephrased as a documented disagreement between two groups of calculations. The abstract's wording ('provided evidence for the 4n resonance') is appropriately hedged and could serve as a model for the Summary.
  2. [Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 4] Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 4: the central quantitative claims—the 1s1/2 spectroscopic factor of 9(2)% in 17B, the density-dependent behavior of the dineutron correlation angle cosθnf (Fig. 3), and the extraction of the α-2n-α cluster structure of 10Be from the triple differential cross section (Fig. 9)—all rest on comparisons between measured momentum distributions and DWIA quasi-free reaction-model calculations. The review does not discuss the systematic uncertainty associated with this reaction model for weakly bound halo nuclei: the quoted 9(2)% is not separated into statistical and systematic parts, the mapping from missing momentum k to a radial density region is stated without qualification ('inversely correlated with the density'), and the single-step-knockout plus distorted-wave treatment of final-state interactions is not examined. Because the review presents these extractions as established field results, the authors should add a caveat paragraph stating the model dependence explicitly and, if available, quoting sensitivity studies from Refs. [19, 20, 37, 17], or stating their absence as an open question.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'The 8He(p, pα) experiment of Li et al. was performed at RIBF' is a factual error: the experiment discussed in this section is the 10Be(p,pα) reaction, so the sentence should read 'The 10Be(p, pα) experiment of Li et al.'.
  2. [Section 2.1] The claim that the work 'gives the smallest percentage of s or p orbitals among known halo nuclei' is imprecise because only the 1s1/2 and 0d5/2 spectroscopic factors were extracted; the statement should refer to the s-wave fraction (or to the combined low-ℓ fraction) and should specify the halo nuclei used as the comparison set.
  3. [Typos] The manuscript contains numerous typos, including 'udner hot debate' (Section 2.3), 'conincidently' (Section 3.1), 'albeil' (Section 3.2), 'prediciton' and 'targe' (Section 4), 'resonace-like' (Section 3.1), 'calculaitons' (Section 2.2), 'have been studies' (Section 2.3), and 'thet(t,3 He)' in the Abstract; Ref. [28] also contains a non-ASCII character ('P loszajczak'), so a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Section 3.1] The statement that the Duer et al. resonance parameters (E4n = 2.37 ± 0.38 (stat) ± 0.44 (syst) MeV) are 'compatible with' the Kisamori et al. values (0.83 ± 0.65 (stat) ± 1.25 (syst) MeV) is defensible only after folding in the large systematic uncertainty of the earlier measurement; a sentence stating this compatibility criterion would be more informative.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence 'A trineutron resonance was predicted by the ab initio NCGSM and GFMC calculations [73, 76]—both predicting a 3n resonance even lower than 4n, hinting at the working interactions or correlations beyond two neutrons' is unclear; the final clause should be rewritten to state what a near-threshold 3n resonance would imply for three-nucleon forces or three-body correlations.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption notes that the black hatched area shows a previous study using a carbon target [53], but the text does not explain whether that result is directly comparable to the (p,pn) data; a sentence clarifying the comparability of the two observables would help the reader assess the claimed surface localization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review summarizes prior experimental analyses with independent theoretical comparisons, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review article, not a derivation paper. The central statements—the small s-wave fraction in 17B, surface dineutron localization in Borromean nuclei, the 16Be dineutron decay, the 4n and 3n findings, and the 10Be α-2n-α structure—are explicitly attributed to prior measurements (Refs. 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 60, 71, 17) that compared data with external model calculations such as DWIA, three-body models, and THSR/AMD. The review does not introduce a new quantity defined in terms of the claimed result, does not fit a parameter and then relabel it as a prediction, and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. Self-citations are present, but they point to the primary datasets being reviewed; this is normal review practice and is not load-bearing in the sense of replacing an argument with an unverified assertion. The DWIA reaction-model assumption noted by the reader is a physics assumption about reaction mechanisms, not a circularity: even if incorrect, it would change the extracted values, but the extraction is not equivalent to the conclusion by construction. No quoted equation or passage exhibits a target result reducing to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; it is a review. It relies on established reaction-model assumptions (DWIA, quasi-free mechanism, missing-mass resonance identification) that are standard in the cited experimental literature.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quasi-free knockout (p,pn) and (p,pα) cross sections at high momentum transfer are well described by DWIA calculations, so extracted spectroscopic factors and correlation angles reflect ground-state properties.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 4 to convert measured momentum distributions into structure information (e.g., Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 9).
  • domain assumption The correlation angle θ_nf and its distribution provide a direct, model-independent measure of neutron-neutron correlation without large final-state interaction corrections.
    Central to the dineutron universality claim in Section 2.2; the paper notes FSI effects can be important in other reactions (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption Missing-mass spectra of multi-neutron systems, after background subtraction, can identify resonant states even though the decay neutrons are not detected.
    Assumed in interpreting the 4n and 3n experiments in Section 3, where only the recoil or projectile fragments are measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron correlations and clustering in neutron-rich nuclear systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYEFQ3IF

@misc{pith2026250112131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron correlations and clustering in neutron-rich nuclear systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYEFQ3IF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12131}
}
abstract

In this paper, we will briefly review the recent progress on neutron correlations and clustering in neutron-rich nuclei from quasi-free scattering experiments. The quasi-free ($p$, $pn$) reaction was measured for Borromean nuclei $^{11}$Li, $^{14}$Be, and $^{17}$B. A surprisingly small $s$-wave component was found for $^{17}$B, revealing a weak neutron halo in $^{17}$B, and the comparative study of the three nuclei shows the surface localization of dineutron correlation and its universality in Borromean nuclei. The two-neutron emission of $^{16}$Be was also studied, finding strong dineutron correlation in $^{16}$Be(g.s.) but weak correlation in $^{16}$Be($2^+$). Two missing-mass measurements using $^{4}$He($^{8}$He, $^{8}$Be) and $^{8}$He($p$, $p\alpha$) reactions provided evidence for the $^{4}n$ resonance, but the $^{3}n$ resonance was not supported by the recent experiment employing the $t(t,^3$He)$^3n$ charge-exchange reaction. The quasi-free $(p,p \alpha)$ reaction has been extended to unstable nuclei, and the recent experiment unravels the $\alpha$-$2n$-$\alpha$ molecule-like cluster structure of $^{10}$Be(g.s.).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Lazauskas, E

    R. Lazauskas, E. Hiyama, and J. Carbonell, Phys Rev Lett, 130, 102501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Yanlin Ye, Xiaofei Yang, Hiroyoshi Sakurai, and Baishan Hu, Nature Reviews Physics, 7, 21 (Jan 2025)

    2025

  3. [2]

    Kang Wei, Yanlin Ye, and Zai-Hong Yang, Nuclear Science and Techniques, 35, 216 (Dec 2024)

    2024

  4. [3]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev Mod Phys, 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  5. [4]

    Commun., 14(1), 8206 (December 2023)

    Bo Zhou, Yasuro Funaki, Hisashi Horiuchi, et al., Nat. Commun., 14(1), 8206 (December 2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    Adachi, Y

    S. Adachi, Y. Fujikawa, T. Kawabata, et al., Phys. Lett. B, 819, 136411 (August 2021)

    2021

  7. [6]

    Bull., 68(11), 1119–1126 (2023)

    Jia Hao Chen, Yan Lin Ye, Kai Ma, et al., Sci. Bull., 68(11), 1119–1126 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Z. H. Yang, Y. L. Ye, Z. H. Li, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 162501 (4 2014)

    2014

Show all 103 references
  1. [8]

    Freer, E

    M. Freer, E. Casarejos, L. Achouri, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 042501 (1 2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    J. X. Han, Y. L. Ye, J. L. Lou, et al., Commun. Phys., 6, 220 (2023). 17

    2023

  3. [10]

    Yamaguchi, D

    H. Yamaguchi, D. Kahl, S. Hayakawa, et al., Phys. Lett. B, 766, 11–16 (3 2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Y. Liu, Y. L. Ye, J. L. Lou, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 192501 (May 2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Kimura, T

    M. Kimura, T. Suhara, and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 1273–1288 (Dec 2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Typel, Phys

    S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C, 89, 064321 (Jun 2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, et al., Phys. Rev. C,81, 015803 (Jan 2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 015007 (Mar 2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    Junki Tanaka, Zaihong Yang, Stefan Typel, et al., Science, 371(6526), 260–264 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    P. J. Li, D. Beaumel, J. Lee, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 212501 (Nov 2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Nakamura, A

    T. Nakamura, A. M. Vinodkumar, T. Sugimoto, N. Aoi, H. Baba, D. Bazin, N. Fukuda, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, N. Imai, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 96, 252502 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Kubota, A

    Y. Kubota, A. Corsi, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavigny, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 125, 252501 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Corsi, Y

    A. Corsi, Y. Kubota, J. Casal, M. G´ omez-Ramos, A. M. Moro, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, et al., Phys Lett B, 840, 137875 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, M. Labiche, N. A. Orr, J. C. Ang´ elique, L. Axelsson, B. Benoit, U. C. Bergmann, M. J. G. Borge, W. N. Catford, S. P. G. Chappell, et al., Phys Rev C, 65, 044006 (2002)

    2002

  15. [22]

    M. Duer, T. Aumann, R. Gernh¨ auser, V. Panin, S. Paschalis, D. M. Rossi, N. L. Achouri, D. Ahn, H. Baba, C. A. Bertulani, et al., Nature, 606, 678 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    K. Miki, K. Kameya, D. Sakai, R. Urayama, N. Imai, S. Ishikawa, S. Michimasa, S. Ota, M. Sasano, H. Takeda, T. Uesaka, H. Haba, M. Hara, Y. Hatano, T. Hayamizu, N. Kobayashi, A. Tamii, S. Adachi, T. Chillery, M. Dozono, Y. Fujikawa, H. Fujita, N. Fukuda, T. Furuno, J. Gao, S. ...

    2024

  17. [24]

    S. C. Pieper, Phys Rev Lett, 90, 252501 (2003)

    2003

  18. [25]

    N. K. Timofeyuk, J Phys G: Nucl Part Phys, 29, L9 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Lazauskas and J

    R. Lazauskas and J. Carbonell, Phys Rev C, 72, 034003 (2005)

    2005

  20. [27]

    A. M. Shirokov, Y. Kim, A. I. Mazur, I. A. Mazur, I. J. Shin, and J. P. Vary, AIP Conf Proc, page 020038 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Fossez, J

    K. Fossez, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, and M. P loszajczak, Phys Rev Lett, 119, 032501 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Deltuva, Phys Lett B, 782, 238 (2018)

    A. Deltuva, Phys Lett B, 782, 238 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    M. D. Higgins, C. H. Greene, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys Rev Lett, 125, 052501 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    F. M. Marqu´ es and J. Carbonell, Eur Phys J A, 57, 105 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Tanihata, H

    I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida, N. Yoshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Phys Rev Lett, 55, 2676 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    P. G. Hansen and B. Jonson, Europhysics Letters, 4(4), 409 (aug 1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    Isao Tanihata, Herve Savajols, and Rituparna Kanungo, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 68, 215–313 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Frederico, A

    T. Frederico, A. Delfino, Lauro Tomio, and M.T. Yamashita, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 67(4), 939–994 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Z. H. Yang, Y. Kubota, A. Corsi, K. Yoshida, X.-X. Sun, J. G. Li, M. Kimura, N. Michel, K. Ogata, C. X. Yuan, Q. Yuan, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavigny, J.-M. Gheller, J. Gibelin, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, K. Hasegawa, T. ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    A. et al. Obertelli, The European Physical Journal A, 50 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Takeuchi, T

    S. Takeuchi, T. Motobayashi, Y. Togano, M. Matsushita, N. Aoi, K. Demichi, H. Hasegawa, and H. Murakami, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 763, 596–603 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Kobayashi, N

    T. Kobayashi, N. Chiga, T. Isobe, Y. Kondo, T. Kubo, K. Kusaka, T. Motobayashi, T. Nakamura, J. Ohnishi, 18 H. Okuno, H. Otsu, T. Sako, H. Sato, Y. Shimizu, K. Sekiguchi, K. Takahashi, R. Tanaka, and K. Yoneda, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Bea...

    2013

  33. [41]

    Kondo, T

    Y. Kondo, T. Tomai, and T. Nakamura, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 463, 173–178 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ozawa, T

    A. Ozawa, T. Suzuki, and I. Tanihata, Nuclear Physics A, 693(1), 32–62, Radioactive Nuclear Beams (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Suzuki, Y

    T. Suzuki, Y. Ogawa, M. Chiba, M. Fukuda, N. Iwasa, T. Izumikawa, R. Kanungo, Y. Kawamura, A. Ozawa, T. Suda, I. Tanihata, S. Watanabe, T. Yamaguchi, and Y. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 012501 (Jun 2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Estrad´ e, R

    A. Estrad´ e, R. Kanungo, W. Horiuchi, F. Ameil, J. Atkinson, Y. Ayyad, D. Cortina-Gil, I. Dillmann, A. Evdokimov, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, G. Guastalla, R. Janik, M. Kimura, R. Kn¨ obel, J. Kurcewicz, Yu. A. Litvinov, M. Marta, M. Mostazo, I. Mukha, C. Nociforo, H. J. Ong, S. ...

    2014

  37. [45]

    H. T. Fortune and R. Sherr, Eur. Phys. J. A, 48, 103 (July 2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    D. Hove, E. Garrido, P. Sarriguren, D. V. Fedorov, H. O. U. Fynbo, A. S. Jensen, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 052502 (Jan 2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    A. B. Migdal, Sov J Nucl Phys, 16, 238 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    Matsuo, Phys Rev C, 73, 044309 (2006)

    M. Matsuo, Phys Rev C, 73, 044309 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Smith, M

    M. Smith, M. Brodeur, T. Brunner, S. Ettenauer, A. Lapierre, R. Ringle, V. L. Ryjkov, F. Ames, P. Bricault, G. W. F. Drake, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 101, 202501 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Hagino, H

    K. Hagino, H. Sagawa, J. Carbonell, and P. Schuck, Phys Rev Lett, 99, 022506 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    J. Chen, S. M. Wang, H. T. Fortune, J. L. Lou, Y. L. Ye, Z. H. Li, N. Michel, J. G. Li, C. X. Yuan, Y. C. Ge, Q. T. Li, H. Hua, D. X. Jiang, X. F. Yang, D. Y. Pang, F. R. Xu, W. Zuo, J. C. Pei, J. Li, W. Jiang, Y. L. Sun, H. L. Zang, N. Aoi, H. J. Ong, E. Ideguchi, Y. Ayyad, K...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Yuma Kikuchi, Kiyoshi Kat¯ o, Takayuki Myo, Masaaki Takashina, and Kiyomi Ikeda, Phys. Rev. C,81, 044308 (Apr 2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Simon, D

    H. Simon, D. Aleksandrov, T. Aumann, L. Axelsson, T. Baumann, M. J. G. Borge, L. V. Chulkov, R. Collatz, J. Cub, W. Dostal, B. Eberlein, Th. W. Elze, H. Emling, H. Geissel, A. Gr¨ unschloss, M. Hellstr¨ om, J. Holeczek, R. Holzmann, B. Jonson, J. V. Kratz, G. Kraus, R. Kulessa...

    1999

  46. [54]

    H. T. Johansson, Y. Aksyutina, T. Aumann, K. Boretzky, M. J. G. Borge, A. Chatillon, L. V. Chulkov, D. Cortina-Gil, U. D. Pramanik, H. Emling, et al., Nucl Phys A, 847, 66 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Kohley, E

    Z. Kohley, E. Lunderberg, P. A. DeYoung, A. Volya, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, G. Christian, N. L. Cooper, N. Frank, A. Gade, et al., Phys Rev C, 87, 011304 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Spyrou, Z

    A. Spyrou, Z. Kohley, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, B. A. Brown, G. Christian, P. A. DeYoung, J. E. Finck, N. Frank, E. Lunderberg, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 108, 102501 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, M. Labiche, N. A. Orr, J. C. Ang´ elique, L. Axelsson, B. Benoit, U. C. Bergmann, M. J. G. Borge, W. N. Catford, S. P. G. Chappell, et al., Phys Rev C, 64, 061301 (2001)

    2001

  50. [58]

    Aksyutina, T

    Y. Aksyutina, T. Aumann, K. Boretzky, M. J. G. Borge, C. Caesar, A. Chatillon, L. V. Chulkov, D. Cortina- Gil, U. D. Pramanik, H. Emling, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 111, 242501 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, N. A. Orr, N. L. Achouri, F. Delaunay, and J. Gibelin, Phys Rev Lett, 109, 239201 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Monteagudo, F

    B. Monteagudo, F. M. Marqu´ es, J. Gibelin, N. A. Orr, A. Corsi, Y. Kubota, J. Casal, J. G´ omez-Camacho, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavigny, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, K. Hasegawa, T. Isobe, Y. Kanaya, S. Kawa...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Andr´ e, A

    P. Andr´ e, A. Corsi, A. Revel, Y. Kubota, J. Casal, K. Fossez, J. G´ omez-Camacho, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavigny, J.-M. Gheller, J. Gibelin, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, K. Hasegawa, T. Isobe, Y. Kanaya, S. Kawakami, D. K...

    2024

  54. [62]

    S. M. Wang, W. Nazarewicz, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 126, 142501 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    J. E. Ungar, R. D. McKeown, D. F. Geesaman, R. J. Holt, J. R. Specht, K. E. Stephenson, B. Zeidman, and C. L. Morris, Phys Lett B, 144, 333 (1984)

    1984

  56. [64]

    T. P. Gorringe, S. Ahmad, D. S. Armstrong, R. A. Burnham, M. D. Hasinoff, A. J. Larabee, C. E. Waltham, G. Azuelos, J. A. Macdonald, J. M. Poutissou, et al., Phys Rev C, 40, 2390 (1989)

    1989

  57. [65]

    Gr¨ ater, P

    J. Gr¨ ater, P. A. Amaudruz, R. Bilger, P. Camerini, J. Clark, H. Clement, E. Friedman, L. Felawka, S. N. Filippov, E. Friagiacomo, et al., Eur Phys J A Hadron Nucl, 4, 5 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    G. G. Ohlsen, R. H. Stokes, and P. G. Young, Phys Rev, 176, 1163 (1968)

    1968

  59. [67]

    Cerny, R

    J. Cerny, R. B. Weisenmiller, N. A. Jelley, K. H. Wilcox, and G. J. Wozniak, Phys Lett B, 53, 247 (1974)

    1974

  60. [68]

    A. V. Belozyorov, C. Borcea, Z. Dlouh` y, A. M. Kalinin, N. H. Chau, and Y. E. Penionzhkevich, Nucl Phys A, 477, 131 (1988)

    1988

  61. [69]

    H. G. Bohlen, B. Gebauer, T. Kirchner, M. von Lucke-Petsch, W. Von Oertzen, A. N. Ostrowski, C. Seyfert, T. Stolla, M. Wilpert, T. Wilpert, et al., Nucl Phys A, 583, 775 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, N. A. Orr, H. A. Falou, G. Normand, and N. M. Clarke, arXiv preprint nucl-ex/0504009 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kisamori, S

    K. Kisamori, S. Shimoura, H. Miya, S. Michimasa, S. Ota, M. Assie, H. Baba, T. Baba, D. Beaumel, M. Dozono, et al., Phys Rev Lett, 116, 052501 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    A. M. Shirokov, G. Papadimitriou, A. I. Mazur, I. A. Mazur, R. Roth, and J. P. Vary, Phys Rev Lett, 117, 182502 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    J. G. Li, N. Michel, B. S. Hu, W. Zuo, and F. R. Xu, Phys Rev C, 100, 054313 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Hiyama, R

    E. Hiyama, R. Lazauskas, J. Carbonell, and M. Kamimura, Phys Rev C, 93, 044004 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Faestermann, A

    T. Faestermann, A. Bergmaier, R. Gernh¨ auser, D. Koll, and M. Mahgoub, Phys Lett B, 824, 136799 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Gandolfi, H

    S. Gandolfi, H. W. Hammer, P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, Phys Rev Lett, 118, 232501 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    I. A. Mazur, M. K. Efimenko, A. I. Mazur, I. J. Shin, V. A. Kulikov, A. M. Shirokov, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C, 110, 014004 (Jul 2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Wakasa, K

    T. Wakasa, K. Ogata, and T. Noro, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 96, 32–87 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Aumann, C

    T. Aumann, C. Barbieri, D. Bazin, et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 118, 103847 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    P. G. Roos, N. S. Chant, A. A. Cowley, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 15, 69–83 (Jan 1977)

    1977

  73. [81]

    T. A. Carey, P. G. Roos, N. S. Chant, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 23, 576–579 (Jan 1981)

    1981

  74. [82]

    T. A. Carey, P. G. Roos, N. S. Chant, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 29, 1273–1288 (Apr 1984)

    1984

  75. [83]

    Meng Jiao Lyu, Kazuki Yoshida, Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 97, 044612 (Apr 2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    Kazuki Yoshida, Yohei Chiba, Masaaki Kimura, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 100, 044601 (Oct 2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    Martin Freer, Hisashi Horiuchi, Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys., 90, 035004 (Aug 2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Phys., 13, 132108 (Sep 2018)

    Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo and Hisashi Horiuchi, Front. Phys., 13, 132108 (Sep 2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C, 91, 014315 (Jan 2015)

    2015

  80. [88]

    Z. H. Yang, Y. L. Ye, B. Zhou, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 242501 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    S. W. Huang, Z. H. Yang, F. M. Marqu´ es, N. L. Achouri, D. S. Ahn, T. Aumann, H. Baba, D. Beaumel, M. B¨ ohmer, K. Boretzky, et al., Few Body Syst,62, 1 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Hagel, R

    K. Hagel, R. Wada, L. Qin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 062702 (Feb 2012)

    2012

  83. [91]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Abe, T. Yoshida, et al., Nature Communications, 13, 2234 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Serdar Elhatisari, Evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 222505 (Dec 2017)

    2017

  85. [93]

    Delion, A

    D.S. Delion, A. Insolia, and R.J. Liotta, Nuclear Physics A, 549(3), 407–419 (1992)

    1992

  86. [94]

    Id Betan and W

    R. Id Betan and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C, 86, 034338 (Sep 2012)

    2012

  87. [95]

    J.M. Dong, Q. Zhao, W. Wang, L.J.and Zuo, and J.Z. Gu, Physics Letters B, 813, 136063 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Qian and Z

    Y. Qian and Z. Ren, Physics Letters B, 777, 298–302 (2018)

    2018

  89. [97]

    R¨ opke, P

    Chang Xu, Zhongzhou Ren, G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, A. Tohsaki, T. Yamada, and Bo Zhou, Phys. Rev. C, 93, 011306 (Jan 2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    Yasutaka Taniguchi, Kazuki Yoshida, Yohei Chiba, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 103, L031305 (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    Uesaka and N

    T. Uesaka and N. Itagaki, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A., 382, 20230123 (June 2024)

    2024

  92. [100]

    Chong Qi, Roberto Liotta, and Ramon Wyss, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 105, 214–251 (2019)

    2019

  93. [101]

    Zaihong Yang and Siwei Huang, Science Bulletin, 66(20), 2054–2056 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Zhao Wen Zhang and Lie Wen Chen, Phys. Rev. C, 95, 064330 (Jun 2017). 20

    2017

  95. [103]

    Tanaka, R

    J. Tanaka, R. Tsuji, K. Higuchi, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B, 542, 4–6 (2023). 21

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.