Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Deviations from the Porter-Thomas Distribution due to Nonstatistical $\gamma$ Decay below the $^{150}$Nd Neutron Separation Threshold

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A measurement in 150Nd shows gamma-decay widths below the neutron threshold deviate from the Porter-Thomas distribution by 7 standard deviations.

desk verdict A genuinely new probe of width fluctuations below the neutron threshold, with solid data and one important statistical assumption left under-verified in the main text. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19185 v3 pith:WTUCBPCU submitted 2025-01-31 nucl-ex nucl-th

O. Papst , J. Isaak , V. Werner , D. Savran , N. Pietralla , G. Battaglia , T. Beck , M. Beuschlein
show 12 more authors
S. W. Finch U. Friman-Gayer K. E. Ide R. V. F. Janssens M. D. Jones J. Kleemann B. Löher M. Scheck M. Spieker W. Tornow R. Zidarova A. Zilges
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords Porter-Thomasdistributionpartialtransitionwidthsnuclearresonancefluorescence150NdquasicontinuumKquantumnumberstatisticalmodelgamma-raybranchingratio
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 introduces a method to test whether the partial gamma-decay widths of excited nuclear states follow the Porter-Thomas distribution, the statistical benchmark of chaotic quantum systems. Applied to $^{150}\mathrm{Nd}$ between 5 and 7 MeV, it yields an average branching ratio of $0.490(16)$ for decays of $1^-$ states to the $2^+_1$ state versus the ground state. Under the standard assumption of $\chi^2$-distributed partial widths, this corresponds to a fluctuation parameter $\nu = 1.93(12)$, which rules out Porter-Thomas ($\nu = 1$) by 7 standard deviations. The result matters because nuclear reaction codes used for astrophysics and reactor design rely on Porter-Thomas fluctuations when predicting gamma-decay rates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the average branching ratio $R_{\rm exp}$, the ratio of energy-integrated nuclear resonance fluorescence cross sections for decays from photoexcited $J=1$ states to the $2^+_1$ state and to the ground state, corrected by the $E^3_\gamma$ phase-space factor. In integral spectroscopy with a quasimonochromatic photon beam, this ratio is obtained by decomposing the scattered-photon spectrum into two humps without resolving individual transitions. For $\chi^2$-distributed partial widths the ratio reduces to $s$ times a photon strength function ratio, and under the Brink-Axel hypothesis that ratio is near unity, so $R_{\rm exp} \approx s = \nu/(\nu+2)$. The derivation of this identity, including the convergence analysis when many states are summed, is what converts a single count-ratio measurement into a constraint on the width distribution.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to measure the same $1^-$ branching ratio in $^{150}\mathrm{Nd}$ with the photon beam tuned to individual resolved resonances rather than integrated humps, so the contributing level density can be counted directly; if the true number of contributing levels is far below the assumed $10^3$ per MeV, the deduced $\nu = 1.93$ would collapse toward the Porter-Thomas value. Alternatively, the method applied to a spherical even-even nucleus with a low $2^+_1$ energy should give $R \approx 1/3$ if the statistical model holds there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the energy region 5 to 7 MeV just below the neutron separation threshold of $^{150}\mathrm{Nd}$, the ensemble of photoexcited $1^-$ states decays to the $2^+_1$ and ground states with an average branching ratio $R_{\rm exp} = 0.490(16)$, whereas the Porter-Thomas hypothesis predicts about $1/3$. Relating $R_{\rm exp}$ to the internal fluctuation ratio $s$ of $\chi^2$-distributed partial widths through $s = \nu/(\nu+2)$ gives $\nu = 1.93(12)$. A Monte-Carlo statistical-model simulation with the Dicebox code, which explicitly implements Porter-Thomas fluctuations, returns $R_{\rm sim} \approx 0.31$, confirming the derivation. The authors conclude that the excess branching is caused by nonstatistical gamma decay, with a contribution between $9.4(10)\%$ and $94(10)\%$ depending on whether the nonstatistical states carry $K = 0$ or $K = 1$ quantum numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The measured average branching ratio equals the ensemble-mean internal fluctuation ratio $s$ only if the 5 to 7 MeV region contains enough $1^-$ levels, on the order of $10^3$ per MeV, that the excitation strength is spread uniformly across the photon beam profile; the authors state this assumption fails below about 5 MeV, and a much smaller effective number of sampled levels would bias the inferred $\nu$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Statistical-model reaction codes that assume Porter-Thomas widths will misestimate gamma-decay rates in the quasicontinuum of deformed nuclei.
  • Photon strength function extractions using the ratio or shape method must divide out the internal fluctuation ratio $s$, otherwise the inferred strengths are biased.
  • The new method works for any stable isotope, offering a systematic probe of width fluctuations and $K$-quantum-number conservation below neutron thresholds.
  • The constant branching ratio from 5 to 7 MeV gives no evidence for a splitting of the pygmy dipole resonance into $K$ components in $^{150}\mathrm{Nd}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the deviation stems from conserved $K$ quantum numbers, then measurements on spherical nuclei should recover the Porter-Thomas value $s \approx 1/3$, providing a clean test of the interpretation.
  • The $9.4(10)\%$ to $94(10)\%$ nonstatistical contribution is a model-dependent bracket, not a unique determination; angular distribution data at more detector positions could in principle separate $K=0$ from $K=1$ components.
  • Extending the measurement toward the neutron separation threshold would map where, if anywhere, the statistical regime begins in this nucleus.
  • Since $\nu$ is inferred through the $\chi^2$ model, an independent determination of the full distribution of resolved partial widths would verify the deviation without that assumption.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new nuclear resonance fluorescence (NRF) method for probing fluctuations of partial gamma-decay widths below the neutron separation threshold. Using quasimonochromatic, linearly polarized photon beams at HIγS in a high-resolution mode, the authors measure the average branching ratio of 1− states in 150Nd decaying to the 2+1 state versus the 0+1 ground state over the excitation-energy range from 5 to 7 MeV. They observe a constant value R_exp = 0.490(16). Assuming partial widths that are χ2-distributed with ν degrees of freedom, they map this ratio through an internal fluctuation ratio s = ν/(ν+2) to ν = 1.93(12), rejecting the Porter-Thomas distribution (ν = 1) at 7 standard deviations. They validate the mapping with a Dicebox simulation that yields R_sim ≈ 0.31, consistent with s = 1/3 for Porter-Thomas statistics. The deviation is interpreted as evidence for nonstatistical gamma decay, with estimated nonstatistical contributions between 9.4(10)% and 94(10)% depending on the assumed K-quantum number of the decaying states.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first experimental determination of partial-width fluctuations below the neutron separation threshold in a deformed nucleus, a region previously inaccessible to such studies. The claim is significant for RMT-based statistical nuclear models and for the widespread assumption of Porter-Thomas fluctuations in Hauser-Feshbach calculations. The paper's strengths include a new observable that is robust to photon-strength-function assumptions (a steep PSF would only increase the extracted ν), explicit validation of the formalism with an independent Monte Carlo cascade code, and open data availability. The interpretation in terms of K-quantum-number survival is appropriately framed as one possible explanation, and the paper clearly identifies the assumption of high level fragmentation as a limitation below 5 MeV.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion] The central mapping ⟨R_exp⟩ ≈ s in Eq. (6) and the resulting ν = 1.93(12) from Eq. (5) assume that the ratio of sums in Eq. (4) has converged to its ensemble mean. The manuscript states that a convergence analysis is in the Supplemental Material but does not report its quantitative outcome in the main text or include a finite-N systematic in the quoted uncertainty of 0.016. With a beam energy spread below 130 keV and a quoted 1− level density of about 10^3/MeV, the effective number of excited states is N ~ 100, for which the finite-N bias of the ratio estimator for Porter-Thomas widths is of order 2/N ~ 0.02, comparable to the quoted total uncertainty. If the true level density is a factor of two to three lower (still plausible for the back-shifted Fermi gas), the bias would rise to 0.04–0.07, a substantial fraction of the observed excess of 0.157 over s = 1/3. The authors should report the convergence curves, state the finite-N bias for the experimental N and beam profile, and include this effect either as a correction or as a systematic uncertainty in the quoted ν and significance.
  2. [Discussion] The statement that the statistical-model simulation results are 'not sensitive to the PSF and NLD model parameters' is stronger than what the visible analysis demonstrates. The Dicebox simulation uses the same back-shifted Fermi gas parameters from Ref. [76] to generate the level scheme, so it cannot by itself validate the NLD; it only shows that for the assumed NLD the extraction yields s ≈ 1/3. Because the finite-N bias depends directly on the actual number of levels excited in the beam window, a sensitivity scan over NLD parameters (for example, varying the level density by a factor of two to three) is needed to support the claim that the mapping is robust. Without such a scan, the quoted ν should carry an additional systematic uncertainty reflecting the NLD uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Summary] The phrase 'degree of freedom of ν = 1.93(12)' should read 'degrees of freedom' for consistency with standard terminology for χ2 distributions.
  2. [Discussion] The notation '⟨⟨R_exp⟩⟩' in the paragraph on the K = 0 decomposition is inconsistent with the single-angle-bracket notation used elsewhere; this appears to be a typographical error.
  3. [Footnote 71] The footnote states that the total uncertainty of 0.016 is the sum of a statistical component of 0.006 and a systematic component of 0.010; linear addition rather than quadrature is unusual and should be justified or clarified.
  4. [Fig. 2 and accompanying text] The description of the 1+ data points (open diamonds with 1σ uncertainties versus filled triangles as 2σ upper limits) would benefit from a brief explanation of how the upper limits were derived from the same fit decomposition, to aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a hypothesis test against an external Porter-Thomas prediction, with independent Monte Carlo validation.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a hypothesis test against an external prediction (s=1/3 for Porter-Thomas, nu=1). The measured average branching ratio R_exp is a raw spectroscopic observable extracted from the NRF data; Eq. (5), s=nu/(nu+2), is a mathematical mapping derived in the Supplemental Material from the chi-squared model for partial widths, not a parameter fitted to the same data. The Dicebox simulation, while using model NLDs, serves as a Monte Carlo check of the extraction pipeline and the approximation R_exp ≈ s; the paper explicitly argues the simulated branching ratio is insensitive to NLD and PSF model parameters because of the low 2+1 energy. The 9.4%-94% nonstatistical decomposition is an algebraic reparameterization of the measured excess using Alaga-rule branching ratios and the identity C_stat+C_K0+C_K1=1; it is presented as possible scenarios, not as an independent prediction. Citations to prior group work (e.g., [54,55], [67], [83]) provide methodological context and comparative data; the central claim does not rest on any unverified self-citation. Finite-N convergence of s is addressed by a convergence analysis in the Supplemental Material, and any residual finite-N bias would be a systematic uncertainty, not a circularity. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

No free parameters are fitted to the target branching ratio; the model inputs for the validation simulation are taken from prior literature and do not influence the central inference. The central derivation rests on the statistical-model assumptions listed, which are tested rather than fitted.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Partial transition widths follow chi-squared distributions, with a single degree of freedom nu characterizing the ensemble, yielding s = nu/(nu+2) for the internal fluctuation ratio.
    Used to derive Eq. (5) from Eqs. (3)-(4) in the Discussion; this is the statistical-model hypothesis being tested, not an independently established fact for this nucleus.
  • domain assumption The Brink-Axel hypothesis holds: the E1 photon strength function f(E_gamma) depends only on the gamma-ray energy, so the ratio f(E_gamma2)/f(E_gamma0) is within 3% of unity for the 130 keV spacing.
    Invoked after Eq. (6); a violation in the steep direction would lower the ratio, making s and nu even larger, so the conclusion is robust against this assumption.
  • standard math Total transition widths can be approximated by Gaussian random variables, justified when more than three partial widths contribute to each total width.
    Used to reach Eq. (3); the adequacy is supported by the Dicebox simulation reproducing s=1/3 under Porter-Thomas.
  • domain assumption High and roughly uniform level density in the analyzed 5-7 MeV region, so that the measured branching ratio is an ensemble average rather than dominated by a few states.
    Stated in the Experiment section ('It was assumed that the fragmentation of states...'); this is the load-bearing premise for the method and is violated below 5 MeV as the authors acknowledge.
  • domain assumption Input NLD and PSF parameters for the Dicebox validation simulation (back-shifted Fermi gas with E1=-0.516 MeV and a=16.275 MeV^-1; Lorentzian IVGDR and modified Lorentzian M1) are representative.
    Used for the Dicebox simulation; the text argues results are insensitive to reasonable variations because of the low 2+1 energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deviations from the Porter-Thomas Distribution due to Nonstatistical $\gamma$ Decay below the $^{150}$Nd Neutron Separation Threshold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTUCBPCU

@misc{pith2026250119185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deviations from the Porter-Thomas Distribution due to Nonstatistical $\gamma$ Decay below the $^150$Nd Neutron Separation Threshold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTUCBPCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19185}
}
abstract

We introduce a new method for the study of fluctuations of partial transition widths based on nuclear resonance fluorescence experiments with quasimonochromatic linearly polarized photon beams below particle separation thresholds. It is based on the average branching of decays of $J=1$ states of an even-even nucleus to the $2^+_1$ state in comparison to the ground state. Between 5 and 7 MeV, a constant average branching ratio for $\gamma$ decays from $1^-$ states of 0.490(16) is observed for the nuclide $^{150}$Nd. Assuming $\chi^2$-distributed partial transition widths, this average branching ratio is related to a degree of freedom of $\nu = 1.93(12)$, rejecting the validity of the Porter-Thomas distribution, requiring $\nu=1$. The observed deviation can be explained by nonstatistical effects in the $\gamma$-decay behavior with contributions in the range of 9.4(10)% up to 94(10)%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Detector response correction and decomposition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average branching ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    von Egidy and D

    T. von Egidy and D. Bucurescu, Phys. Rev. C80, 054310 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    H. A. Weidenm¨ uller and G. E. Mitchell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 539 (2009)

    2009

  3. [2]

    T. Guhr, A. M¨ uller-Groeling, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rep. 299, 189 (1998)

    1998

  4. [3]

    G. E. Mitchell, A. Richter, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2845 (2010)

    2010

  5. [4]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Nature Physics 14, 595 (2018)

    2018

  6. [5]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, Nat. Phys. 15, 159 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    V. B. Bulchandani, S. L. Sondhi, and J. T. Chalker, J. Stat. Phys 191, 55 (2024)

    2024

  8. [7]

    P. W. Claeys and G. De Tomasi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 050405 (2025)

    2025

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    E. P. Wigner, Ann. of Math. 62, 548 (1955)

    1955

  2. [9]

    F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. 3, 140 (1962)

    1962

  3. [10]

    F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. 3, 157 (1962)

    1962

  4. [11]

    F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. 3, 166 (1962)

    1962

  5. [12]

    It refers to Refs

    See Supplemental Material at https://link.aps.org/supplemental/ 10.1103/n6zw-zhz2 for tabulated experimental data presented in this article. It refers to Refs. [13–16]

    doi

  6. [13]

    Goriely, P

    S. Goriely, P. Dimitriou, M. Wiedeking, T. Belgya, R. Firestone, J. Kopecky, M. Krti ˇcka, V. Plujko, R. Schwengner, S. Siem, H. Utsunomiya, S. Hilaire, S. P´eru, Y. S. Cho, D. M. Filipescu, N. Iwamoto, T. Kawano, V. Varlamov, and R. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 172 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    G. A. Bartholomew, E. D. Earle, A. J. Ferguson, J. W. Knowles, and M. A. Lone, Gamma-ray strength functions, in Advances in Nuclear Physics, Vol. 7, edited by M. Baranger and E. Vogt (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, New York, NY, USA, 1973) Chap. 4, pp. 229–324

    1973

  8. [15]

    Alaga, K

    G. Alaga, K. Alder, A. Bohr, and B. R. Mottelson, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 29 (1955)

    1955

  9. [16]

    Guttormsen et al., Phys

    M. Guttormsen et al., Phys. Lett. B 816, 136206 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    C. E. Porter and R. G. Thomas, Phys. Rev. 104, 483 (1956)

    1956

  11. [18]

    M. S. Smith, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 10, 10.3389/fs- pas.2023.1243615 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Rochman, A

    D. Rochman, A. Koning, S. Goriely, and S. Hilaire, Nucl3 Phys. A 1053, 122951 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Alhassan, H

    E. Alhassan, H. Sj¨ostrand, P. Helgesson, M.¨Osterlund, S. Pomp, A. Koning, and D. Rochman, Ann. Nucl. Energy96, 158 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    Salvatores and G

    M. Salvatores and G. Palmiotti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 144 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    Kolos et al., Phys

    K. Kolos et al., Phys. Rev. Res.4, 021001 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Hauser and H

    W. Hauser and H. Feshbach, Phys. Rev. 87, 366 (1952)

    1952

  17. [24]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    R. U. Haq, A. Pandey, and O. Bohigas, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1086 (1982)

    1982

  19. [26]

    A. A. Adams, G. E. Mitchell, and J. F. Shriner, Jr, Phys. Lett. B 422, 13 (1998)

    1998

  20. [27]

    J. F. Shriner, C. A. Grossmann, and G. E. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054305 (2000)

    2000

  21. [28]

    P. E. Koehler, Y. M. Gledenov, T. Rauscher, and C. Fr ¨ohlich, Phys. Rev. C69, 015803 (2004)

    2004

  22. [29]

    P. E. Koehler, J. L. Ullmann, T. A. Bredeweg, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Reifarth, R. S. Rundberg, D. J. Vieira, and J. M. Wouters, Phys. Rev. C76, 025804 (2007)

    2007

  23. [30]

    P. E. Koehler, F. Be ˇcv´aˇr, M. Krti ˇcka, J. A. Harvey, and K. H. Guber, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 072502 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 232501 (2010)

    2010

  25. [32]

    P. E. Koehler, Phys. Rev. C84, 034312 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    G. L. Celardo, N. Auerbach, F. M. Izrailev, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042501 (2011)

    2011

  27. [34]

    P. E. Koehler, R. Reifarth, J. L. Ullmann, T. A. Bredeweg, J. M. O’Donnell, R. S. Rundberg, D. J. Vieira, and J. M. Wouters, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 142502 (2012)

    2012

  28. [35]

    Volya, H

    A. Volya, H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, and V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 052501 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    Bogomolny, Phys

    E. Bogomolny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022501 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    Hagino and G

    K. Hagino and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. E104, L052104 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    Rekstad, T

    J. Rekstad, T. S. Tveter, and M. Guttormsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2122 (1990)

    1990

  32. [39]

    P. G. Hansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2235 (1991)

    1991

  33. [40]

    B. R. Barrett, R. F. Casten, J. N. Ginocchio, T. Seligman, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. C45, R1417 (1992)

    1992

  34. [41]

    R. K. Sheline, L. Bergholt, M. Guttormsen, J. Rekstad, and T. S. Tveter, Phys. Rev. C51, 3078 (1995)

    1995

  35. [42]

    Huseby, T

    I. Huseby, T. S. Tveter, L. Bergholt, M. Guttormsen, E. Melby, J. Rekstad, S. Siem, and R. K. Sheline, Phys. Rev. C 55, 1805 7 (1997)

    1997

  36. [43]

    Kawano, R

    T. Kawano, R. Capote, S. Hilaire, and P. Chau Huu-Tai, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014612 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Herman, R

    M. Herman, R. Capote, B. Carlson, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y, M. Sin, A. Trkov, H. Wienke, and V. Zerkin, Nucl. Data Sheets 108, 2655 (2007)

    2007

  38. [45]

    Savran, T

    D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 210 (2013)

    2013

  39. [46]

    Bracco, E

    A. Bracco, E. Lanza, and A. Tamii, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 360 (2019)

    2019

  40. [47]

    Lanza, L

    E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr ´es, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104006 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    F. R. Metzger, Prog. Nucl. Phys. 7, 54 (1959)

    1959

  42. [49]

    Zilges, D

    A. Zilges, D. Balabanski, J. Isaak, and N. Pietralla, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. , 103903 (2022)

    2022

  43. [50]

    H. R. Weller, M. W. Ahmed, H. Gao, W. Tornow, Y. K. Wu, M. Gai, and R. Miskimen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.62, 257 (2009)

    2009

  44. [51]

    L ¨oher et al., Nucl

    B. L ¨oher et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A723, 136 (2013)

    2013

  45. [52]

    Kr¨ ucken, B

    R. Kr¨ ucken, B. Albanna, C. Bialik, R. F. Casten, J. R. Cooper, A. Dewald, N. V. Zamfir, C. J. Barton, C. W. Beausang, M. A. Caprio, A. A. Hecht, T. Klug, J. R. Novak, N. Pietralla, and P. von Brentano, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 232501 (2002)

    2002

  46. [53]

    C. Sun, J. Li, G. Rusev, A. P. Tonchev, and Y. K. Wu, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12, 062801 (2009)

    2009

  47. [54]

    Isaak, D

    J. Isaak, D. Savran, B. L ¨oher, T. Beck, M. Bhike, U. Gayer, Krishichayan, N. Pietralla, M. Scheck, W. Tornow, V. Werner, A. Zilges, and M. Zweidinger, Physics Letters B788, 225 (2019)

    2019

  48. [55]

    Isaak, D

    J. Isaak, D. Savran, B. L ¨oher, T. Beck, U. Friman-Gayer, Krishichayan, N. Pietralla, V. Y. Ponomarev, M. Scheck, W. Tornow, V. Werner, A. Zilges, and M. Zweidinger, Phys. Rev. C 103, 044317 (2021)

    2021

  49. [56]

    K. S. Krane, R. M. Steffen, and R. M. Wheeler, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 11, 351 (1973)

    1973

  50. [57]

    R. M. Steffen and K. Alder, in The Electromagnetic Interaction in Nuclear Spectroscopy , edited by W. D. Hamilton (North- Holland, Amsterdam, NL, 1975) Chap. 12, pp. 505–582

    1975

  51. [58]

    Pietralla, H

    N. Pietralla, H. R. Weller, V. N. Litvinenko, M. W. Ahmed, and A. P. Tonchev, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A483, 556 (2002)

    2002

  52. [59]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  53. [60]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  54. [61]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res. Sect. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  55. [62]

    Leicht, M

    R. Leicht, M. Hammen, K. Schelhaas, and B. Ziegler, Nucl. Phys. A 362, 111 (1981)

    1981

  56. [63]

    Rullhusen, U

    P. Rullhusen, U. Zurm¨ uhl, W. M¨ uckenheim, F. Smend, M. Schu- macher, and H. B¨orner, Nucl. Phys. A 382, 79 (1982)

    1982

  57. [64]

    P. F. Bortignon, A. Bracco, and R. A. Broglia, Giant Reso- nances: Nuclear Structure at Finite Temperature, 1st ed., Con- temporary concepts in physics, Vol. 10 (Harwood Academic Publishers, Reading, UK, 1998)

    1998

  58. [65]

    M. N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude,Giant resonances : Fun- damental high-frequency modes of nuclear excitation , 1st ed., Oxford studies in nuclear physics, Vol. 24 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 2001)

    2001

  59. [66]

    Kahane, R

    S. Kahane, R. Moreh, and O. Shahal, Phys. Rev. C 28, 1519 (1983)

    1983

  60. [67]

    Kleemann et al., Phys

    J. Kleemann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022503 (2025)

    2025

  61. [68]

    P. Kane, L. Kissel, R. Pratt, and S. Roy, Phys. Rep. 140, 75 (1986)

    1986

  62. [69]

    C. M. Davisson, Interaction of𝛾-radiation with matter, edited by K. Siegbahn, Alpha- Beta- and Gamma-ray Spectroscopy, Vol. 1 (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1965) Chap. II

    1965

  63. [70]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X.-L. Meng, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2011)

    2011

  64. [71]

    The total uncertainty of 0 .016 is the sum of these two components

    In a frequentist approach, the uncertainty of ⟨𝑅−exp⟩ com- prises a ”statistical” component of 0.006 and an additional ”sys- tematic” component of 0.010, which accounts for the observed scatter. The total uncertainty of 0 .016 is the sum of these two components

  65. [72]

    Be ˇcv´aˇr, Nucl

    F. Be ˇcv´aˇr, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 417, 434 (1998)

    1998

  66. [73]

    Axel, Phys

    P. Axel, Phys. Rev. 126, 671 (1962)

    1962

  67. [74]

    D. M. Brink, Phd thesis, Oxford University (1955)

    1955

  68. [75]

    Basu and A

    S. Basu and A. A. Sonzogni, Nucl. Data Sheets114, 435 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    Carlos, H

    P. Carlos, H. Beil, R. Bergere, A. Lepretre, and A. Veyssiere, Nucl. Phys. A 172, 437 (1971)

    1971

  70. [78]

    Goriely and V

    S. Goriely and V. Plujko, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014303 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    H. Pitz, R. Heil, U. Kneissl, S. Lindenstruth, U. Seemann, R. Stock, C. Wesselborg, A. Zilges, P. von Brentano, S. Hoblit, and A. Nathan, Nucl. Phys. A 509, 587 (1990)

    1990

  72. [80]

    Savran, S

    D. Savran, S. M¨ uller, A. Zilges, M. Babilon, M. W. Ahmed, J. H. Kelley, A. Tonchev, W. Tornow, H. R. Weller, N. Pietralla, J. Li, I. V. Pinayev, and Y. K. Wu, Phys. Rev. C71, 034304 (2005)

    2005

  73. [81]

    C. T. Angell, S. L. Hammond, H. J. Karwowski, J. H. Kelley, M. Krtiˇcka, E. Kwan, A. Makinaga, and G. Rusev, Phys. Rev. C 86, 051302 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Isaak, D

    J. Isaak, D. Savran, M. Krti ˇcka, M. Ahmed, J. Beller, E. Fiori, J. Glorius, J. Kelley, B. L ¨oher, N. Pietralla, C. Romig, G. Ru- sev, M. Scheck, L. Schnorrenberger, J. Silva, K. Sonnabend, A. Tonchev, W. Tornow, H. Weller, and M. Zweidinger, Physics Letters B 727, 361 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    Papst et al., Phys

    O. Papst et al., Phys. Rev. C102, 034323 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Sieja, Eur

    K. Sieja, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 147 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Wiedeking et al., Phys

    M. Wiedeking et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 162503 (2012)

    2012

  78. [86]

    Wiedeking, M

    M. Wiedeking, M. Guttormsen, A. C. Larsen, F. Zeiser, A. G ¨orgen, S. N. Liddick, D. M¨ ucher, S. Siem, and A. Spy- rou, Phys. Rev. C104, 014311 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Donaldson et al., Phys

    L. Donaldson et al., Phys. Lett. B 776, 133 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Danos, Nucl

    M. Danos, Nucl. Physics 5, 23 (1958)

    1958

  81. [89]

    Okamoto, Phys

    K. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. 110, 143 (1958)

    1958

  82. [90]

    Papst, Dataset for photo response of150Nd, TUdatalib, Tech- nische Universit¨at Darmstadt (2024), https://doi.org/10.48328/ tudatalib-1468

    O. Papst, Dataset for photo response of150Nd, TUdatalib, Tech- nische Universit¨at Darmstadt (2024), https://doi.org/10.48328/ tudatalib-1468

    2024

  83. [91]

    O. Papst, Exploration of Nuclear-Structure Effects on Averaged Decay Quantities in the Quasicontinuum , Dissertation, Tech- nische Universit¨at Darmstadt (2024), https://doi.org/10.26083/ tuprints-00011437

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.