Heavy Ion Double Charge Exchange Reactions as Probes for Two-Body Transition Densities

Danilo Gambacurta; Horst Lenske; Jessica I.Bellone; Maria Colonna

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Heavy Ion Double Charge Exchange Reactions as Probes for Two-Body Transition Densities

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collisions can expose the two-body nuclear densities behind double-beta decay.

desk verdict A genuinely new s-channel recoupling of the DCE amplitude, but the 'probe-independent' 2BTD claim needs a cutoff-stability check and an explanation of the 35% t-channel discrepancy before it is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24753 v1 pith:OL2LSC5G submitted 2025-05-30 nucl-th

Jessica I.Bellone , Maria Colonna , Danilo Gambacurta , Horst Lenske This is my paper

classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.-n21.60.Jz21.10.Dr

keywords heavyionreactiontheorydoublechargeexchangereactionsnuclearexcitationstwo-bodytransitiondensitiesbetadecays-channelformalismQRPA

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

Colliding heavy ions can switch two units of charge on both nuclei in a single grazing reaction, and this paper argues that such double charge exchange (DCE) collisions give direct experimental access to two-body transition densities — the same nuclear-structure quantities that control double-$\beta$ decay. The authors recast the second-order reaction amplitude into an s-channel form whose mathematical structure mimics a one-step charge exchange, cleanly separating probe-independent two-body densities of each nucleus from the reaction-dependent distortion and interaction factors. Applied to $^{18}\mathrm{O}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Se}\to{}^{18}\mathrm{Ne}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ at $T_{\mathrm{lab}}=270$ MeV, with structure input from a quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA) calculation, the scheme reproduces the standard t-channel cross section at forward angles after one overall rescaling and extracts Fermi-like and Gamow-Teller-like components of the two-body densities. If the factorization holds, collisional DCE experiments become a terrestrial probe of the matrix elements that neutrinoless double-$\beta$-decay searches for $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ and other candidates need.

What carries the argument

The engine is the s-channel recoupling of the second-order distorted-wave amplitude. A rotation in spin–angular-momentum space converts the t-channel polarization tensor — products of one-body single-charge-exchange form factors of the projectile and target at each interaction step — into products of two-body DCE form factors of each nucleus; then the 'average approximation' replaces the intermediate propagator by its pole-dominated logarithmic value $L^{(+)}_{\gamma}(\omega_\alpha)$ and performs the integral over the momentum-difference variable $v=p_1-p_2$ with a cutoff $\bar{v}\approx 2.1$–$2.2$ fm$^{-1}$, calibrated so the $q=0$ form factor saturates about 95% of the transition strength. What emerges is the two-body transition density $\rho^{J_AJ_BI_A}_{LS}(q)$, defined through $F^{\mathrm{(BCA)}}_{SM}(q)=(2\pi)^3 V_v^{-1}\int d^3r\, e^{iq\cdot r}\,[F^{\mathrm{(BC)}}_{S_2}(r)\otimes F^{\mathrm{(CA)}}_{S_1}(r)]_{SM}$, and this object carries the spectroscopic content of the whole amplitude. The recast matrix element then looks like a one-step SCE amplitude, with the 2BTD as the factor that connects the measured cross section to the nuclear structure of double-$\beta$-decay candidates.

What would settle it

Measure the $^{18}\mathrm{O}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Se}\to{}^{18}\mathrm{Ne}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ DCE angular distribution at $T_{\mathrm{lab}}=270$ MeV beyond $\theta_{\mathrm{CM}}\approx 5^\circ$, where the s- and t-channel predictions run out of phase, and recompute the two-body transition densities with the cutoff $\bar{v}$ varied over roughly 1.5–3 fm$^{-1}$; the central claim fails if no single normalization reconciles the two schemes across the full angular range and if the extracted densities shift appreciably with $\bar{v}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entire double sequential charge exchange (DSCE) transition matrix element can be rewritten, in the s-channel interaction form, as an expression structurally identical to a single-step charge-exchange amplitude: $M^{(2)}_{\beta\alpha} \simeq L^{(+)}_{\gamma}(\omega_\alpha)\sum_{S_1,S_2}\sum_{S,M}(-1)^{S_1+S_2+S-M}\sum_{c,C}\int d^3q\, F^{\mathrm{(BCA)}}_{SM}(q)\,F^{\mathrm{(bca)}}_{S-M}(q)\,\tilde{V}^{\mathrm{DSCE}}_{S_1S_2}(q)\,D_{\alpha\beta}(q)$, with an effective four-body form factor built from the product of a target and a projectile two-body DCE form factor. Because the distortion amplitude $D_{\alpha\beta}(q)$ and the effective rank-2 isotensor vertex $\tilde{V}^{\mathrm{DSCE}}_{S_1S_2}(q)$ multiply the two-body form factors from outside, the two-body transition densities $\rho^{J_AJ_BI_A}_{LS}(q)$ appear as probe-independent spectroscopic quantities, cleanly separated from the reaction mechanism. Applied to $^{18}\mathrm{O}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Se}\to{}^{18}\mathrm{Ne}+{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$ at $T_{\mathrm{lab}}=270$ MeV with three effective interactions of increasing spin–isospin coupling, the s-channel 'average approximation' cross section follows the t-channel result up to about $5^\circ$ after a single rescaling by 0.655, and the extracted densities are dominated by Fermi-like and Gamow-Teller-like components while rank-2 tensor contributions average to negligible size.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the extracted two-body densities are insensitive to the 'average approximation' cutoff $\bar{v}$, fixed at 2.1 fm$^{-1}$ (projectile) and 2.2 fm$^{-1}$ (target) by requiring the $q=0$ form factor to saturate about 95% of the transition strength, and that the single 0.655 rescaling that aligns the s-channel cross section with the t-channel at zero angle reflects calibration rather than a missing physical effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Collisional DCE reactions become a spectroscopic tool for the two-body transition densities that enter double-beta-decay matrix elements, so a measured cross section can be mapped onto the structure of candidates such as $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$.
The same two-body transition densities govern both the sequential (DSCE) and the Majorana (MDCE) mechanisms, so a single measured density constrains two physically distinct reaction paths.
Because the 2BTD are separated from the distortion and vertex factors, densities extracted from DCE data are transferable and can be compared directly with double-beta-decay theory and with other reactions.
Rank-2 spin-tensor contributions to the 2BTD vanish after the momentum-difference average, so Fermi ($L=S=0$) and Gamow-Teller ($L=S=1$) components dominate the DCE response.
The factorization is expected to be more accurate for mass-asymmetric systems, which favours extracting 2BTD from DCE reactions with a light projectile on a heavy target such as $^{76}\mathrm{Ge}$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the factorization survives against data, DCE cross sections could in principle be inverted to obtain an empirical two-body transition density for double-beta-decay candidates — a quantity no existing measurement provides directly; the paper stops short of claiming an inversion procedure.
The cross section's sensitivity to the spin–isospin coupling of the effective interaction suggests that precise DCE data could pin down the isovector part of the interaction in a regime where single charge exchange leaves it underdetermined — a testable consequence of the paper's framework.
The single 0.655 rescaling needed at zero angle may itself encode the off-shell behaviour of intermediate states; comparing systems of different projectile–target mass asymmetry could tell whether the residual s–t discrepancy is calibration noise or a physical signal.
A natural cross-check would be to use the extracted 2BTD to predict other DCE transitions between different states of the same nuclei, or to compare their momentum-transfer dependence with two-neutrino double-beta-decay form factors.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the paper gives a genuinely new s-channel factorization of the heavy-ion DCE amplitude and a serious microscopic calculation, but the central claim that DCE reactions provide direct access to probe-independent two-body transition densities is conditional: the 2BTD are defined with a calibrated cutoff, and the s-channel cross section only matches the t-channel after an ad hoc 0.655 rescaling and only at forward angles.

What is new: Eq. (8) is not in the earlier t-channel papers. It recouples the polarization tensor so the DCE transition matrix element factors into two-body DCE form factors, one for each nucleus, times a vertex functional and distortion factor. That is a real formal step. The illustrative calculation for 18O+76Se uses QRPA with three Skyrme forces, includes multipoles up to 7±, and checks sum-rule saturation. The authors are also candid: they show the s- and t-channel curves side by side, state the 35% discrepancy, and say the cutoff uncertainty can be controlled by t-channel results at q≈0.

The soft spots are real, though not fatal. The '2BTD' in Eq. (7) is defined through the average approximation cutoff v̄=2.1/2.2 fm^-1, chosen so the q=0 form factor saturates at about 95%. Nothing in the derivation shows the extracted ρ(q) is independent of that choice. And Fig. 4 is the problem: before rescaling, the s-channel cross section is 35% larger than the t-channel at forward angles; after scaling to θ=0, agreement holds only up to q≈1 fm^-1, and beyond that the two calculations run out of phase. That is exactly the q-region where the 2BTD carry the most structure information. So the 'probe-independent' status of the densities is currently calibrated against the t-channel scheme, not demonstrated. The derivation is not circular—the 2BTD are computed microscopically, not extracted from the reaction—but the mapping from observable to density is not yet predictive. I also could not check the supplemental derivations, since they are not released; no experimental data are compared.

Who is this for: nuclear reaction theorists working on DCE and NUMEN, and double-beta-decay people interested in two-body spin-isospin densities. They should read it as a promising formalism with an important open calibration question, not as a finished extraction.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee can ask for a v̄-stability study and an explanation of the 35%/phase discrepancy; those are fixable. The formal result deserves to be in the literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theoretical formalism for heavy-ion double charge exchange (DCE) reactions mediated by second-order nucleon-nucleon interactions. Starting from the second-order distorted-wave amplitude, the authors recouple the polarization tensor from the standard t-channel representation into an s-channel form, obtaining Eq. (8), in which the DSCE transition matrix element factorizes into an effective four-body transition form factor built from two-body DCE form factors, an effective isotensor interaction, and a distortion amplitude. Two-body transition densities (2BTD) are introduced through an 'average approximation' with a finite momentum cutoff. The formalism is applied to 18O + 76Se -> 18Ne + 76Ge at 270 MeV, with QRPA input from three Skyrme forces, and s-channel cross sections are compared with t-channel results. The central claim is that DCE reactions give direct access to probe-independent two-body transition densities relevant for double-beta-decay matrix elements.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would open a genuinely new spectroscopic window: heavy-ion DCE reactions would provide experimental access to two-body spin-isospin transition densities that are difficult to probe by other means and are directly connected to double-beta-decay physics. The formal recoupling leading to Eq. (8) is a nontrivial and elegant step, and the numerical implementation is careful in several respects: three Skyrme interactions are compared, multipole sums are shown to saturate, and Ikeda-type sum rules are checked to better than 1%. The derivation is not circular: the 2BTD are computed microscopically from QRPA rather than extracted from the reaction. However, the probe-independent status of the extracted densities is not yet demonstrated. The 2BTD depend on the calibrated cutoff \bar v used in the 'average approximation', and the s-channel cross section must be rescaled by an empirical factor 0.655 to match the t-channel at forward angles, with the two calculations running out of phase at larger momentum transfer. These issues affect the central claim, so the paper requires substantial additional analysis before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (7) and the definition of the 'average approximation'] The two-body transition density rho_DCE(q) defined in Eq. (7) depends on the finite integration volume Vv through the prefactor (2*pi)^3/Vv and through the restriction of the d^3v integral to a sphere of radius \bar v. The cutoff is fixed only by requiring that the q=0 form factor saturates the transition strength at about 95%, giving \bar v = 2.1 fm^-1 for the projectile and 2.2 fm^-1 for the target. The paper does not show that the q-dependence of rho_DCE(q) is stable under changes of \bar v, despite the fact that Eq. (8) claims to separate a probe-independent spectroscopic quantity from reaction dynamics. Because the very definition of the 2BTD is tied to this calibrated cutoff, this is a load-bearing gap. Please provide a \bar v-stability analysis, for example by varying \bar v by +/-10-20% and displaying the resulting changes in rho_DCE(q) and in the s-channel cross section.
[Fig. 4 and the comparison of s- and t-channel results] The s-channel cross section overestimates the t-channel result by about 35% at forward angles, and the two calculations run out of phase beyond approximately theta=5 degrees, corresponding to momentum transfers above about 1 fm^-1. The scaling of the s-channel curve by 0.655 is an empirical renormalization, not a prediction of the formalism, and the phase disagreement is largest in the momentum region where the 2BTD carry most of their structural information. The statement that cutoff uncertainties can be controlled by referencing t-channel results at q approximately 0 calibrates the s-channel at a single point; it does not explain the 35% normalization or the phase mismatch. Moreover, the authors note that similar discrepancies are observed for other Skyrme forces, indicating a systematic effect. Please either derive the normalization and phase behavior from the approximations made in the s-channel reduction, or demonstrate quantitatively that these discrepancies do not propagate into the extracted 2BTD.
[Normalization of L(+)gamma before Fig. 4] The channel-independent normalization |L(+)_gamma(omega_alpha)| approximately 1/300 MeV^-1 is introduced in order to reproduce, within the t-channel scheme, the full distorted-wave results. Since L(+)_gamma appears as an overall multiplicative factor in the s-channel amplitude, Eq. (8), this is a calibration of the mapping from reaction observables to 2BTD rather than a quantity computed from the mean-energy approximation. The paper should show that L(+)_gamma can be determined without fitting to the t-channel results, or at least demonstrate that the extracted 2BTD are insensitive to its value over a reasonable range. Without this, the predictive content of the s-channel factorization is weakened.

minor comments (6)

[Eqs. (6)-(7)] The notation is confusing because v is first defined as the integration variable (p1 - p2), while the same symbol v is used for the cutoff radius in Vv = 4*pi*v^3/3. Please use distinct symbols, for example u for the integration variable and \bar v for the cutoff radius.
[Text after Eq. (10)] There is a typo in 'stregths', which should be 'strengths'.
[Illustrative results section] The text says 'ISI and IFI' where IFI is presumably a typo for FSI (final-state interaction).
[Fig. 4] The upper axis of Fig. 4 is labeled 'q [fm^-1]' while the text refers to the momentum transfer k_alpha_beta; please make the notation consistent.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption uses '18Negs' without defining the notation; please write '18Ne ground state'.
[Fig. 2] The color-scale panels in Fig. 2 appear to use a diverging color map, but no color bar or numerical scale is provided, so the reader cannot read quantitative values; please add one. The panels should also be labeled with the corresponding (L, S, S1, S2) values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 2BTD are computed microscopically rather than fitted to the reaction, and the acknowledged calibrations do not reduce the central claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eq. (8), is a reformulation of the second-order distorted-wave amplitude after angular-momentum recoupling and a finite-volume momentum average; it is an identity given the definitions in Eqs. (4)–(7), not a fit. The 2BTD are computed from QRPA with Skyrme forces, not extracted from DCE data. The cutoff v̄ is calibrated by requiring F(q=0) saturates at ~95%, but the paper explicitly labels this as an 'average approximation' and states that cutoff uncertainties can be checked against t-channel results; this is a model calibration, not a prediction. Similarly, the |L| ≈ 1/300 MeV^-1 normalization and the 0.655 scaling used in Fig. 4 are acknowledged adjustments to compare s- and t-channel schemes, and the paper does not present the s-channel cross section as an independent prediction. The mean-energy approximation is cited to the authors' prior work [27,28,31], but the paper also points to a supplemental derivation; while self-citations are numerous, the load-bearing formalism is displayed in the paper's own equations. No specific step reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated; the two-body operators and effective isotensor interactions are formed from existing isovector NN T-matrix elements.

free parameters (3)

cutoff radius v̄ in average approximation = 2.1 fm^-1 (projectile), 2.2 fm^-1 (target)
Chosen so that F(BCA)SM(q=0) saturates the transition strength at about 95%; defines the integrated volume V_v and hence the 2BTD.
overall normalization |L(+)γ(ωα)| = ≈ 1/300 MeV^-1
Adjusted to reproduce full distorted-wave t-channel results, as stated in the DSCE cross section section.
s-channel rescaling factor = 0.655
Applied to the s-channel angular distribution to match the t-channel at θ=0; not derived from first principles.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The intermediate-state propagator can be averaged over an energy interval around the pole and replaced by a kγ-independent logarithmic function L(+)γ (mean-energy approximation).
Invoked before Eq. (2); details deferred to Supplemental Section I. Required for factorization.
domain assumption The DCE reaction is dominated by the sequential single charge exchange (DSCE) mechanism driven by second-order NN T-matrix with π/ρ exchange; competing Majorana DCE is neglected.
The whole formalism assumes DSCE; MDCE is mentioned only in the conclusions as competing but not included.
domain assumption QRPA SCE-TMEs from the final nuclei to intermediate states approximate the second-step transitions, neglecting non-orthogonality problems.
Explicitly stated in the text: 'as widely practiced in DBD studies... neglect the known non-orthogonality problems [50].'
domain assumption Intermediate states up to 50 MeV excitation and multipolarities up to Jπ=7± exhaust the SCE response; Ikeda sum rules satisfied within 1%.
Given in text; if incomplete, 2BTD are truncated.
domain assumption Skyrme-QRPA with SAMI, SKX, SLy4 forces provides reliable ground and excited states and covers model spread via G0' parameter.
Used for all structure input; three forces probe sensitivity but no external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy Ion Double Charge Exchange Reactions as Probes for Two-Body Transition Densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OL2LSC5G

@misc{pith2026250524753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy Ion Double Charge Exchange Reactions as Probes for Two-Body Transition Densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OL2LSC5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24753}
}

abstract

Collisional heavy ion double charge exchange (DCE) reactions, induced by second order nucleon-nucleon interactions, are shown to provide access to the two-body transition densities of the complementary DCE transitions in the interacting nuclei. Corresponding two-body operators are introduced, treating the second order distorted wave reaction amplitude in the s-channel interaction form. The theoretical results are applied to the reaction $^{18}O+{}^{76}Se\to {} ^{18}Ne+{}^{76}Ge$ at $T_{lab}=270$~MeV, being $^{76}Ge$ a candidate for neutrino--less double beta decay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24753 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** ), whereas contributions mostly associated with the rank-2 tensor components peak at higher momentum (|p1|, |p2| ≥ 0.5 fm−1 ) 1 . However, because of the compensation between positive and negative contributions when averaging over the momentum difference v, see for instance the positive and negative peaks appearing along the q = 0 (p2 = −p1) axis, 2BTD associated with rank-2 tensor transitions turn out to be neglig… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Comparison between the DSCE angular distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: 2-body transition densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Kramp et al

J. Kramp et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 474, 412 (1987)

work page 1987
[2]

C. Walz, H. Scheit, N. Pietralla, et al. , Nature 526, 406409 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

S¨ oderstr¨ om, L

P.A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, L. Capponi,E. A¸ ciks¨ ozet al. , Nat. Commun. 11, 3242 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

Engel and J

J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 046301 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

F. T. Avignone, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008)

2008
[6]

Ejiri, J

H. Ejiri, J. Suhonen, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rep. 797, 1 (2019)

2019
[7]

Tomoda, Rept

T. Tomoda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 54, 53 (1991)

work page 1991
[8]

T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Lett. B719, 174-178 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 51 references

[9]

Kotila and F

J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C 103, no.4, 044302 (2021)

2021
[10]

Nit ¸escu, S

O. Nit ¸escu, S. Ghinescu, S. Stoica and F. ˇSimkovic, Uni- verse 10, no.2, 98 (2024)

2024
[11]

Siciliano, M.D

E.R. Siciliano, M.D. Cooper, M.B. Johnson, M.J. Leitch , Phys. Rev. C 34, 267 (1986)

1986
[12]

Siciliano, M.B

E.R. Siciliano, M.B. Johnson, H. Saraﬁan, Annals Phys. 203, 1-75 (1990)

1990
[13]

M. B. Johnson and C. L. Morris, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 165-208 (1993)

1993
[14]

Gilman, H.T

R.A. Gilman, H.T. Fortune, M.B. Johnson, E.R. Sicil- iano, H. Toki, A. Wirzba, B.A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 34, 1895-1899 (1986)

1986
[15]

Auerbach, W.R

N. Auerbach, W.R. Gibbs, E. Piasetzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1076-1079 (1987)

1987
[16]

Auerbach, W.R

N. Auerbach, W.R. Gibbs, J.N. Ginocchio, W.B. Kauf- mann, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1277-1296 (1988)

1988
[17]

Auerbach, Annals Phys

N. Auerbach, Annals Phys. 197, 376-395 (1990)

1990
[18]

Auerbach, Symposium on Twenty Years of Meson Factory Physics, 47-58 (1996)

N. Auerbach, Symposium on Twenty Years of Meson Factory Physics, 47-58 (1996)

1996
[19]

Haxton, Symposium on Twenty Years of Meson Factory Physics, 289-297 (1997)

W.C. Haxton, Symposium on Twenty Years of Meson Factory Physics, 289-297 (1997)

1997
[20]

Blomgren et al

J. Blomgren et al. , Phys. Lett. B 362, 34-38 (1995)

1995
[21]

Naulin, C

F. Naulin, C. D´ etraz, M. Roy-St´ ephan, M. Bernas, J. de Boer, D. Guillemaud, M. Langevin, F. Pougheon, and P. Roussel, Phys. Rev. C 25, 1074-1075 (1982)

1982
[22]

D. M. Drake, J. D. Moses, J. C. Peng, N. Stein, and J. W. Sunier. Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1765-1769 (1980)

1980
[23]

D.R. Bes, O. Drag´ un, and E.E. Maqueda. Nuclear Physics A 405(2), 313-347 (1983)

1983
[24]

C. H. Dasso and A. Vitturi. Phys. Rev. C 34, 743-745 (1986)

1986
[25]

Ejiri, Universe 8(9), 457 (2022)

H. Ejiri, Universe 8(9), 457 (2022)

2022
[26]

Cappuzzello et al

F. Cappuzzello et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 128, 103999 (2023)

2023
[27]

Lenske, J

H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, and D. Gambacurta. Universe, 7(4), 98 (2021)

2021
[28]

Lenske, J

H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, D. Gambacurta, and J.-A. Lay. Universe, 10, 93 (2024)

2024
[29]

Lenske, F

H. Lenske, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, and M. Colonna. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 109, 103716 (2019)

2019
[30]

See Supplemental material at [url] for more details
[31]

Lenske, J

H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, and J.A. Lay. Phys. Rev., C 98, 044620 (2018)

2018
[32]

Bellone, S

J. Bellone, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, J.A. Lay, and H. Lenske, Phys. Lett. B, 807, 135528 (2020)

2020
[33]

Barea, J

J. Barea, J. Kotila, F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034304 (2015)

2015
[34]

Roca-Maza, H

X. Roca-Maza, H. Sagawa, and G. Col´ o, Phys. Rev. C 101, 014320 (2020)

2020
[35]

V. dos S. Ferreira, A. R. Samana, F. Krmpoti´ c, and M. Chiapparini, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044314 (2020)

2020
[36]

Kauppinen and J

E. Kauppinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 106, 064315 (2022)

2022
[37]

Shimizu, J

N. Shimizu, J. Men´ endez, and K. Yako, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 142502 (2018)

2018
[38]

Santopinto, H

E. Santopinto, H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, R. I. Maga˜ na Vsevolodovna, and J. Ferretti (NUMEN Collaboration) Phys. Rev. C 98, 061601(R) (2018)

2018
[39]

Ejiri, L

H. Ejiri, L. Jokiniemi and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 105, L022501 (2022)

2022
[40]

Wang, P.W

Y.K. Wang, P.W. Zhao, J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138796 (2024)

2024
[41]

Cappuzzello et al

F. Cappuzzello et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36(30), 2130018 (2021)

2021
[42]

Cavallaro et al

M. Cavallaro et al. ,. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 8, 659815 (2021)

2021
[43]

Col` o and X

G. Col` o and X. Roca-Maza. (nucl-th arXiv:2102.06562, 2021)

2021 arXiv
[44]

Roca-Maza, G

X. Roca-Maza, G. Col` o, and H. Sagawa. Phys. Rev. C 86, 031306(R) (2012)

2012
[45]

Brown, Phys

B.A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 58, 220 (1998)

1998
[46]

Chabanat, J

E. Chabanat, J. Meyer, P. Bonche, R. Schaeﬀer, and P. Haensel. Nucl. Phys. A 627, 710-746 (1997)

1997
[47]

I. S. Towner Phys. Rep. 155, 263 (1987)

1987
[48]

Bender, J

M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, J. Engel and W. Nazarewicz Phys. Rev. C 65, 054322 (2002)

2002
[49]

M. N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude, Giant Resonances: Fundamental High-Frequency Modes of Nuclear Excita- tion, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001)

2001
[50]

Pacearescu, V

L. Pacearescu, V. Rodin, F. Simkovic and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C 68, 064310 (2003) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 75, 059902 (2007)]

2003
[51]

Lenske, J

H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, and D. Gambacurta. Universe 10(5), 202 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kramp et al

J. Kramp et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 474, 412 (1987)

work page 1987

[2] [2]

C. Walz, H. Scheit, N. Pietralla, et al. , Nature 526, 406409 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

S¨ oderstr¨ om, L

P.A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, L. Capponi,E. A¸ ciks¨ ozet al. , Nat. Commun. 11, 3242 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Engel and J

J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 046301 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

F. T. Avignone, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008)

2008

[6] [6]

Ejiri, J

H. Ejiri, J. Suhonen, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rep. 797, 1 (2019)

2019

[7] [7]

Tomoda, Rept

T. Tomoda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 54, 53 (1991)

work page 1991

[8] [8]

T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Lett. B719, 174-178 (2013)

work page 2013