Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 54 references

Measurement of radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon nuclear capture and validation of Monte Carlo simulation model

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 By measuring radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon capture on aluminum, silicon, cobalt, and tantalum, this paper finds the PHITS-based dataset used for sample radioactivity estimation is generally conservative, but must…

desk verdict Solid activation measurements and a genuinely useful PHITS validation; the normalization dependence and data overlap need clarifying but don't undermine the main conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08301 v2 pith:7BDENE63 submitted 2025-06-10 nucl-ex

Y. Yamaguchi , M. Niikura , R. Mizuno , M. Tampo , M. Harada , N. Kawamura , I. Umegaki , S. Takeshita
show 1 more author
K. Haga
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex
keywords negativemuonnuclearcaptureradionuclideproductionprobabilityactivationexperimentPHITSsampleradioactivityisomermultipleneutronemission
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

To keep sample-activation estimates honest at high-intensity muon facilities, this paper measures how often negative muons captured by a nucleus end up in specific radioactive isotopes, using targets of aluminum, natural silicon, cobalt, and natural tantalum. The measured probabilities are compared channel by channel with the Monte Carlo dataset that the facility's radioactivity-estimation program relies on. The comparison shows the dataset generally overestimates production, which is the safe direction for radiation-safety estimates, but it fails in three identifiable ways: isomer states are mispredicted, multiple-neutron-emission channels are badly underestimated at high excitation energies, and proton-emitting channels show almost no Coulomb-barrier suppression, producing a twenty-fold overestimate on tantalum. The measurements also settle an old disagreement over the 24Na production probability on aluminum, agreeing with the lower of the two earlier values. If these findings hold, the radioactivity code can be corrected in targeted ways rather than replaced.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-capture production probability $P$, obtained from activation counting with $P = N_\gamma / (I_\gamma \varepsilon_\gamma \varepsilon_{\mathrm{LT}} P_{\mathrm{cap}} P_d N_\mu)$, where $P_{\mathrm{cap}}$ is the nuclear capture probability deduced from the total capture rate and $N_\mu$ is the number of stopped muons. The absolute scale of every reported probability is fixed by calibrating the muon counter against the known $^{27}$Mg production probability $P = 9.9(5)\%$ from the companion measurement, via the conversion factor $f_\mu$ of Eq. (8). On the calculation side, the validated dataset is produced by a Monte Carlo chain in which the excitation energy imparted to the capturing nucleus is sampled from the Singer distribution with the Amado momentum distribution, the nucleon system evolves with the JQMD quantum molecular dynamics model, particle evaporation is described by the GEM model, and gamma-ray deexcitation including isomers is handled by EBITEM. The comparison is quantified as C/E ratios for each channel, and the paper isolates the failing physics by examining the threshold-energy dependence of multiple-neutron-emission probabilities and the Coulomb-barrier dependence of proton-emission probabilities.

What would settle it

Count the stopped muons in the same irradiation independently by detecting muonic X-rays, as earlier activation experiments did, and recompute all probabilities and C/E ratios; if the muonic-X-ray count disagrees with the 27Mg-calibrated count by more than the quoted uncertainties, the absolute scale is biased and the 'safe side' conclusion for channels with C/E ratios near unity would need re-examination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the PHITS-based dataset of radionuclide production probabilities from negative muon nuclear capture is, for the four tested targets, generally on the safe side for radioactivity estimation—most calculated probabilities exceed the measured ones by less than a factor of two—but that the dataset needs correction in three cases: isomer production (for example, 177mHf and 180mHf are overestimated by more than a factor of two, and 58mMn is not produced at all in the calculation), radionuclide production by multiple neutron emission (175Hf from high-threshold channels is underestimated by a factor of fifty, and 173Hf is missing entirely from the calculation), and radionuclide production by particle emissions involving a proton (178mLu is overestimated by a factor of twenty on tantalum, while 24Na on aluminum is underestimated by a factor of 1.6). The paper attributes the isomer problems to incomplete level-structure data in the gamma-deexcitation model, the multi-neutron problems to the too-sharp high-energy tail of the excitation-energy distribution, and the proton problems to the preequilibrium emission model, which yields calculated proton-emission probabilities that are almost independent of the Coulomb barrier. The measured 24Na probability of 1.93% agrees with the earlier activation value of 2.1% and resolves the conflict with the higher 3.5% value.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute scale of all measured probabilities rests on a single reference: the companion paper's 9.9% production probability for 27Mg from muon capture on aluminum, which is used to convert the muon-counter charge into the number of stopped muons; a bias in that reference would shift every reported probability and every calculated-to-experimental ratio together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the four tested targets, the existing Monte Carlo dataset used in sample radioactivity estimation gives conservative (overestimated) activities in most channels, so no wholesale replacement is needed before use.
  • The 24Na production probability on aluminum is about 1.9%, resolving a previous discrepancy between two earlier activation measurements and supporting the lower of the two values.
  • The three documented failure modes—isomer production, multiple-neutron emission at high threshold energy, and proton-involving channels—require targeted corrections to the gamma-deexcitation model, the excitation-energy distribution, and the preequilibrium proton-emission model, respectively.
  • Additional activation measurements on other targets, especially those probing high threshold energies and isomer channels, are needed to turn the identified corrections into an updated dataset.
  • The method of plotting production probabilities per threshold-energy gap can be applied to future data to map where the calculated excitation distribution departs from reality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 27Mg reference value is ever revised, the scale of all probabilities reported here would shift, but the largest discrepancies (factors of 20 and 50) would likely survive, so the qualitative correction cases are robust to that systematic.
  • The Coulomb-barrier independence of the calculated proton-emission probabilities implies the preequilibrium model is missing a surface or barrier-suppression effect; a direct test would be to measure proton-emitting channels on intermediate-mass targets where evaporation and preequilibrium contributions are comparable.
  • Because the validation now covers light through heavy nuclei, the same activation approach could be applied to the actual sample materials used in muon spin rotation experiments, such as magnesium and titanium, to validate the radioactivity estimates for those routine irradiations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports activation measurements of radionuclide production probabilities per negative-muon nuclear capture on 27Al, natSi, 59Co, and natTa targets, combining in-beam gamma-ray counting (half-lives from about 1 s to about 1 h) with off-line counting (half-lives up to about 70 d). The measured probabilities are compared with a PHITS-based dataset (JAEA-Data/Code 2024-008) that has been incorporated into the SARE-MLF sample-radioactivity estimation program. The central claims are: (i) the dataset is "generally on the safe side" for radioactivity estimation, overestimating most measured channels by less than a factor of two; and (ii) three classes of channels need correction—isomer production (177mHf and 180mHf overestimated; 58mMn absent from the calculation), production by multiple-neutron emission at high excitation energy (175Hf underestimated by roughly a factor of 40; 173Hf absent), and proton-involving channels of the (mu-,nu_mu p2n) type (178mLu overestimated by about a factor of 20; 24Na underestimated by a factor of 1.6). The paper also reports consistency with previous activation experiments and interprets the long-standing 24Na conflict on 27Al as resolved in favor of the lower value of Heisinger et al.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide a useful expansion of a sparse experimental database, especially for high-Z targets, and the paper's mechanism-level analysis is a genuine strength. Each of the three identified deficiencies is traced to a specific model component (EBITEM level-structure data for isomers; the Singer excitation-energy distribution's high-energy tail for multiple-neutron emission; JQMD preequilibrium proton emission for the (mu-,nu_mu p2n) channels), and the Coulomb-barrier and threshold-energy analyses in Figs. 11-13 yield concrete, falsifiable predictions, such as the MEC-modified excitation distribution and the V-dependence of the p2n production probability. The 24Na measurement provides independent support for Heisinger et al. over Heusser et al. The experimental uncertainties are presented with statistical and systematic components separated, and the three correction cases (i)-(iii) are robust to the normalization issue because they rest on factors of 2-50.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 (Eq. (8)); §5; Abstract] The absolute scale of every measured probability in Table 2 is fixed by the conversion factor f_mu in Eq. (8), calibrated against P(27Mg)=9.9(5)% taken from the companion paper by the same collaboration (Ref. [41]); no independent determination of N_mu (e.g., by muonic X-ray counting, as used by Heisinger et al.) is reported. Because the calibration reference and the validated dataset (Ref. [12]) are both products of the same group, the 27Mg entry provides no independent anchor, and a bias in the reference value propagates coherently to all reported probabilities and all C/E ratios. This scale sensitivity is numerically relevant for the central claim: with C/E = 1.04 for 23Ne, 1.00 for 25Na, 1.21 for 59Fe, and 1.25 for 56Mn, a 5% (1-sigma) downward shift of the 27Mg reference moves the first two channels below unity, and a 10% (2-sigma) shift creates further exceptions to the "generally on the safe side" statement. The three proposed corrections, being based on factors of 2-50, survive such shifts. The paper should either add an independent N_mu determination or explicitly qualify the headline claim as holding modulo the common 5% reference scale and identify which channels would change classification under a +/-1-sigma scale shift; the text should also state that the f_mu uncertainty is 100% correlated across all rows of Table 2.
  2. [Table 2, Fig. 8, §5] The 27Mg row on the 27Al target is not an independent experimental validation point. The measured value P(27Mg)=9.90(12)(79)% is the calibration input for N_mu via Eq. (8), so the displayed C/E = 1.60 merely compares the PHITS calculation with the assumed reference value from Ref. [41]. Including this point in the Section 5 statements that the calculations "follow the general trend" (and showing it without distinction in Fig. 8) overstates the number of independent model-data comparisons. The row should be explicitly labelled as the calibration anchor and either removed from the validation comparisons or clearly marked as non-independent.
  3. [Table 2 (natSi rows); §4-5] The natSi results are never compared with the PHITS dataset: the PHITS column in Table 2 is empty for all six natSi nuclides, and the C/E comparisons in Figs. 8-10 cover only 27Al, 59Co, and natTa. Since the natSi target was selected in part as a practical MLF sample element and includes the largest measured channel (28Al at 22.3(2)(18)%), the absence of a PHITS comparison leaves the validation claim, and the practical usefulness of the dataset for silicon sample estimation, unquantified for this target. The authors should add the calculated values and C/E ratios for the natSi channels or justify the omission in the text.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1, §5 (Refs. [12], [41])] The validated dataset (Ref. [12], JAEA-Data/Code 2024-008) was produced by two of the present authors; the text should state this explicitly so that "validation of the dataset" is not misread as an independent model assessment.
  2. [§5] The text quotes "a factor of twenty" for 178mLu (Table 2 gives 0.675(8)/0.030(4)(4) ≈ 22.5) and "a factor of fifty" for 175Hf (1.3(1)(2)/0.0313(8) ≈ 40); the quoted ratios should match the table values.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The convention for off-scale C/E values is described only for large values ("plotted at C/E = 2 by multiplying the factor in the parenthesis"); the treatment of the strongly underestimated 175Hf point (C/E ≈ 0.024) should be specified in the caption as well.
  4. [§3, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) uses a fixed dead time Td = 0.5 ms with no stated uncertainty or rate dependence; since this correction affects all in-beam results (including the short-lived 26Na, 30Al, and 177mHf channels), a sentence on its estimated uncertainty, or on why it is negligible, should be added to the systematic-error budget.
  5. [§5, §6] The statement that the present experiment "resolved the conflict" for 24Na on 27Al is stronger than the evidence warrants: the new result is consistent with Heisinger et al. and inconsistent with Heusser et al., but the explanation offered for Heusser's discrepancy is interpretive; "supports the lower value" would be more precise.
  6. [§5, Fig. 11] The statement that Fig. 11(a) shows probabilities "per threshold energy gap" would benefit from one sentence describing the binning procedure (threshold energies from AME2020 and the definition of the gaps) to make the comparison reproducible.
  7. [§4, Table 2] The natSi data offer an internal cross-check opportunity, since 24Na and 27Mg are each measured on more than one target; a brief comment on whether these cross-target values are mutually consistent would strengthen confidence in the common normalization.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 27Mg 'present' probability is the calibration input from Eq. (8), so the C/E comparison for that row is forced by construction; however the three main correction findings are robust and the remaining measurements are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (8) and surrounding text; Table 2, 27Mg row and footnote h; Section 5, Fig. 8 C/E comparison.]
    "The conversion factor was deduced based on Eq. (1) for the 843.8-keVγ-ray from 27Mg production in the 27Al target using the known probabilityP = 9.9(5)% [41]."

    The conversion factor f_mu in Eq. (8) is set so that Eq. (1) reproduces the reference value P(27Mg)=9.9(5)% from Ref. [41]. The 'Present' value in Table 2 for 27Mg, 9.90(12)(79)% with footnote h 'Reference probability for Nmu calibration', is therefore the calibration input itself, not an independent measurement. The subsequent PHITS comparison for 27Mg (PHITS 15.85% vs 'measured' 9.90%, C/E about 1.60) is forced by construction and cannot serve as validation evidence. All other measured probabilities inherit the same normalization from f_mu, so the absolute scale of the 'generally safe side' statement depends on a companion-paper value from the same collaboration; the three large-discrepancy corrections, based on factors of 2-50, remain robust to this common-scale issue.

full rationale

The analysis found one genuine reduction-by-construction point: the 27Mg 'present' production probability in Table 2 is not an independent measurement but the calibration input used in Eq. (8) to set N_mu, and the subsequent PHITS/experiment comparison for 27Mg is therefore forced. This is a real but localized circularity. It does not collapse the paper's central conclusions: the three correction cases (isomer production, multi-neutron channels, proton-involving channels) rely on discrepancies of factors of 2-50 that would survive any realistic shift of the 5% reference uncertainty, and the remaining measured points are not defined in terms of the PHITS dataset. The normalization is taken from a companion paper by the same collaboration, but the paper cross-checks scale-sensitive channels against independent measurements by Wyttenbach et al. and Heisinger et al., and the PHITS dataset itself (JAEA-Data/Code 2024-008) is an independent calculation, not fitted to these data. No other circular steps were identified; the model-physics discussion (Singer distribution, JQMD, GEM, EBITEM) is testable against the measured trends rather than presupposing them. The score of 4 reflects the presence of a self-calibration step that is not load-bearing for the main correction findings.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard nuclear-data inputs (ENSDF intensities, capture rates from Suzuki et al., AME2020 masses) and on the PHITS model chain (Singer distribution, JQMD, GEM, EBITEM). The only free parameter introduced in this paper is the muon-count normalization f_mu, fixed using a reference value from the authors' own companion paper. No new particles, forces, or other entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • f_mu (muon-count conversion factor) = constrained to reproduce P(27Mg)=9.9(5)%
    Eq. (8) normalizes the integrated scintillator charge to the absolute number of stopped muons using the 27Mg production probability from the companion measurement [41]. All absolute production probabilities scale with this factor.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ENSDF gamma-ray intensities used in Eq. (1) are correct.
    I_gamma values from ENSDF Refs [24-38] are used to convert gamma-ray counts to production probabilities; some uncertainties are missing and were estimated.
  • domain assumption The total nuclear capture rates from Suzuki et al. [40] are correct.
    P_cap in Eq. (4) is derived from these literature values; a bias would scale all reported probabilities.
  • domain assumption The Singer excitation distribution and the JQMD/GEM/EBITEM models used in PHITS are a valid representation of the muon-capture deexcitation process.
    The PHITS dataset [12], which the paper validates, is based on these models; the comparison assumes the dataset is the output of the default PHITS calculation.
  • domain assumption The peak fitting with a Gaussian plus background in the energy spectra is unbiased.
    Section 3, the number of detected gamma rays N_gamma is obtained by fitting; unresolved peaks or background misassignment could bias yields.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon nuclear capture and validation of Monte Carlo simulation model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BDENE63

@misc{pith2026250608301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon nuclear capture and validation of Monte Carlo simulation model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BDENE63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08301}
}
abstract

As part of the development of a sample radioactivity calculation program, we have measured radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon nuclear capture to update experimental data and to validate a calculation dataset obtained by a Monte Carlo simulation code. The probabilities have been obtained by an activation experiment on $^{27}$Al, $^\mathrm{nat}$Si, $^{59}$Co, and $^\mathrm{nat}$Ta targets. The obtained probabilities expand the validation scope to the radionuclide production processes outside of the existing data coverage. By comparing the resultant probabilities with the calculated dataset, it has been revealed that the dataset is generally on the {\color{black}safe} side in radioactivity estimation and needs to be corrected in the following three cases: (i) isomer production; (ii) radionuclide production by the multiple neutron emission; (iii) radionuclide production by particle emissions involving a proton. The present probabilities and the new findings on the correction provide valuable clues to improvements of the simulation models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plan view of experimental setup at D2 area. Incident negative muons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block diagram of electronics for in-beam measurement. Modules of the electronics and the GMX detector are shared for D-line experiments. The MLF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Energy spectra for natSi target. (a) In-beam spectrum; (b) off-line spectrum. Peaks of β- or isomeric-decay γ-rays are marked with closed sym￾bols [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy spectra for 59Co target. (a) In-beam spectrum; (b) off-line spectrum. Peaks of β- or isomeric-decay γ-rays are marked with closed sym￾bols. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy spectra for natTa target. (a) In-beam spectrum; (b–1) off-line spectrum in the first ten minutes; (b–2) off-line spectrum over the entire mea￾surement time. Peaks of β- or isomeric-decay γ-rays are marked with closed symbols. surement, Pd = R tstop tstart nitotλ…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radionuclide production probabilities and calculation/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radionuclide production probabilities and C/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radionuclide production probabilities on main reaction (µ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Calculated isotope production probabilities on (µ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Measurement of production branching ratio after muon nuclear capture reaction of Al and Si isotopes

    R. Mizuno, M. Niikura, T. Y . Saito, T. Matsuzaki, S. Abe, H. Fukuda, M. Hashimoto, A. Hillier, K. Ishida, N. Kawamura, S. Kawase, T. Kawata, K. Kitafuji, F. Minato, M. Oishi, A. Sato, K. Shimomura, P. Strasser, S. Takeshita, D. Tomono, Y . Watanabe, Measurement of pro- duction branching ratio after muon nuclear capture reaction of Al and Si isotopes, arX...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [12]

    Ikeda, J-parc status update, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 600 (1) (2009) 1–4

    Y . Ikeda, J-parc status update, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 600 (1) (2009) 1–4

    work page 2009

  3. [1]

    Sakaki, Y

    Y . Sakaki, Y . Namito, T. Sanami, H. Iwase, H. Hirayama, Imple- mentation of muon pair production in phits and verification by com- paring with the muon shielding experiment at slac, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 977 (2020) 164323. doi:https://doi.org/10....

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Grillenberger, C

    J. Grillenberger, C. Baumgarten, M. Seidel, The High Inten- sity Proton Accelerator Facility, SciPost Phys. Proc. (2021) 002doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.5.002

    doi:10.21468/scipostphysproc.5.002 2021

  5. [3]

    , Tokyo (Japan), The joint project for high-intensity proton accelerators, Tech

    Japan Atomic Energy Research Inst. , Tokyo (Japan), The joint project for high-intensity proton accelerators, Tech. rep., Japan Atomic Energy Research Instution, Japan (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    Umegaki, Y

    I. Umegaki, Y . Higuchi, Y . Kondo, K. Ninomiya, S. Takeshita, M. Tampo, H. Nakano, H. Oka, J. Sugiyama, M. K. Kubo, Y . Miyake, Nondestruc- tive high-sensitivity detections of metallic lithium deposited on a battery anode using muonic x-rays, Analytical Chemistry 92 (12) (2020) 8194– 8200

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    Biswas, L

    S. Biswas, L. Gerchow, H. Luetkens, T. Prokscha, A. Antognini, N. Berger, T. E. Cocolios, R. Dressler, P. Indelicato, K. Jungmann, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, A. Papa, R. Pohl, M. Pospelov, E. Rapisarda, P. Re- iter, N. Ritjoho, S. Roccia, N. Severijns, A. Skawran, S. M. V ogiatzi, F. Wauters, L. Willmann, A. Amato, Characterization of a continuous muon source f...

    2022

  8. [6]

    Nakamura, M

    T. Nakamura, M. Matsumoto, K. Amano, Y . Enokido, M. E. Zolen- sky, T. Mikouchi, H. Genda, S. Tanaka, M. Y . Zolotov, K. Kuro- sawa, S. Wakita, R. Hyodo, H. Nagano, D. Nakashima, Y . Takahashi, Y . Fujioka, M. Kikuiri, E. Kagawa, M. Matsuoka, A. J. Brearley, A. Tsuchiyama, M. Uesugi, J. Matsuno, Y . Kimura, M. Sato, R. E. Milliken, E. Tatsumi, S. Sugita, ...

    work page 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Sugiyama, I

    J. Sugiyama, I. Umegaki, H. Nozaki, W. Higemoto, K. Hamada, S. Takeshita, A. Koda, K. Shimomura, K. Ninomiya, M. K. Kubo, Nu- clear magnetic field in solids detected with negative-muon spin rotation and relaxation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 087202

    2018

  2. [8]

    Sugiyama, O

    J. Sugiyama, O. K. Forslund, E. Nocerino, N. Matsubara, K. Papadopou- los, Y . Sassa, S. P. Cottrell, A. D. Hillier, K. Ishida, M. Månsson, J. H. Brewer, Lithium di ffusion in LiMnPo 4 detected with µ±SR, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 033161

    2020

  3. [9]

    Umegaki, K

    I. Umegaki, K. Ohishi, T. Nakano, S. Nishimura, S. Takeshita, A. Koda, K. Ninomiya, M. K. Kubo, J. Sugiyama, Negative muon spin rotation and relaxation study on battery anode material, spinel li4ti5o12, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 126 (25) (2022) 10506–10514

    2022

  4. [10]

    Higemoto, R

    W. Higemoto, R. Kadono, N. Kawamura, A. Koda, K. Kojima, S. Makimura, S. Matoba, Y . Miyake, K. Shimomura, P. Strasser, Mate- rials and life science experimental facility at the japan proton accelerator research complex IV: The muon facility, Quantum Beam Sci. 1 (1) (2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    doi:10.3390/qubs1010011

    doi

  6. [13]

    Yamaguchi, M

    Y . Yamaguchi, M. Harada, K. Haga, Dataset of nuclide production from nuclear capture reaction of negative muon based on monte carlo simula- tion, JAEA-Data/Code 2024-008 (2024) 1–91

    2024

  7. [14]

    T. Sato, Y . Iwamoto, S. Hashimoto, T. Ogawa, T. Furuta, S.-I. Abe, T. Kai, Y . Matsuya, N. Matsuda, Y . Hirata, T. Sekikawa, L. Yao, P.-E. Tsai, H. N. Ratliff, H. Iwase, Y . Sakaki, K. Sugihara, N. Shigyo, L. Sihver, K. Niita, Recent improvements of the particle and heavy ion...

    2024

  8. [15]

    S. Abe, T. Sato, Implementation of muon interaction mod- els in PHITS, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 54 (1) (2017) 101–110. doi:10.1080/00223131.2016.1210043

    2017

  9. [16]

    Backenstoss, S

    G. Backenstoss, S. Charalambus, H. Daniel, W. D. Hamilton, U. Lynen, C. V on Der Malsburg, G. Poelz, H. P. Povel, Nuclear γ-rays following muon capture, Nucl. Phys. A 162 (3) (1971) 541–551. doi:10.1016/0375- 9474(71)90253-3

    1971 doi

  10. [17]

    D. F. Measday, T. J. Stocki, γ rays from muon capture in natural ca, fe, and ni, Phys. Rev. C. 73 (4) (2006) 045501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.045501

    2006 doi

  11. [18]

    D. F. Measday, T. J. Stocki, H. Tam, γ rays from muon cap- ture in I, au, and bi, Phys. Rev. C. 75 (4) (2007) 045501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.045501

    2007 doi

  12. [19]

    D. F. Measday, T. J. Stocki, B. A. Moftah, H. Tam, γ rays from muon capture in 27Al and natural si, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 035504

    2007

  13. [20]

    Heisinger, D

    B. Heisinger, D. Lal, A. J. T. Jull, P. Kubik, S. Ivy-Ochs, K. Knie, E. Nolte, Production of selected cosmogenic radionuclides by muons: 2. capture of negative muons, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 200 (3) (2002) 357–

    2002

  14. [21]

    Wyttenbach, P

    A. Wyttenbach, P. Baertschi, S. Bajo, J. Hadermann, K. Junker, S. Kat- coff, E. A. Hermes, H. S. Pruys, Probabilities of muon induced nuclear re- actions involving charged particle emission, Nucl. Phys. A 294 (3) (1978) 278–292. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(78)90218-X

    1978 doi

  15. [22]

    Heusser, T

    G. Heusser, T. Kirsten, Radioisotope production rates by muon cap- ture, Nucl. Phys. A 195 (2) (1972) 369–378. doi:10.1016 /0375- 9474(72)91065-2

    1972

  16. [23]

    Niikura, T

    M. Niikura, T. Y . Saito, T. Matsuzaki, K. Ishida, A. Hillier, Measurement of the production branching ratios following nuclear muon capture for palladium isotopes using the in-beam activation method, Phys. Rev. C. 109 (1) (2024) 014328. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014328

    2024 doi

  17. [24]

    Meija, T

    J. Meija, T. B. Coplen, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. De Bi `evre, M. Gr ¨oning, N. E. Holden, J. Irrgeher, R. D. Loss, T. Walczyk, T. Pro- haska, Isotopic compositions of the elements 2013 (IUPAC technical re- port), Pure Appl. Chem. 88 (3) (2016) 293–306. doi:10.1515 /pac-2015- 0503

    2016

  18. [25]

    M. S. Basunia, A. Chakraborty, Nuclear data sheets for a =24, Nuclear Data Sheets 186 (2022) 3–262

    2022

  19. [26]

    Shamsuzzoha Basunia, A

    M. Shamsuzzoha Basunia, A. Chakraborty, Nuclear data sheets for a =23, Nuclear Data Sheets 171 (2021) 1–252

    2021

  20. [27]

    Basunia, A

    M. Basunia, A. Hurst, Nuclear data sheets for a = 26, Nuclear Data Sheets 134 (2016) 1–148

    2016

  21. [28]

    Firestone, Nuclear data sheets for a = 25, Nuclear Data Sheets 110 (8) (2009) 1691–1744

    R. Firestone, Nuclear data sheets for a = 25, Nuclear Data Sheets 110 (8) (2009) 1691–1744

    2009

  22. [29]

    Junde, H

    H. Junde, H. Su, Y . Dong, Nuclear data sheets for a = 56, Nuclear Data Sheets 112 (6) (2011) 1513–1645

    2011

  23. [30]

    Shamsuzzoha Basunia, Nuclear data sheets for a = 27, Nuclear Data Sheets 112 (8) (2011) 1875–1948

    M. Shamsuzzoha Basunia, Nuclear data sheets for a = 27, Nuclear Data Sheets 112 (8) (2011) 1875–1948

    2011

  24. [31]

    C. D. Nesaraja, S. D. Geraedts, B. Singh, Nuclear data sheets for a = 58, Nuclear Data Sheets 111 (4) (2010) 897–1092

    2010

  25. [32]

    Bhat, Nuclear data sheets for a = 57, Nuclear Data Sheets 85 (3) (1998) 415–536

    M. Bhat, Nuclear data sheets for a = 57, Nuclear Data Sheets 85 (3) (1998) 415–536

    1998

  26. [33]

    Shirley, Nuclear data sheets for a = 173, Nuclear Data Sheets 75 (2) (1995) 377–488

    V . Shirley, Nuclear data sheets for a = 173, Nuclear Data Sheets 75 (2) (1995) 377–488

    1995

  27. [34]

    M. S. Basunia, Nuclear data sheets for a =59, Nuclear Data Sheets 151 (2018) 1–333

    2018

  28. [35]

    Achterberg, O

    E. Achterberg, O. Capurro, G. Marti, Nuclear data sheets for a = 178, Nuclear Data Sheets 110 (7) (2009) 1473–1688

    2009

  29. [36]

    M. S. Basunia, Nuclear data sheets for a = 175, Nuclear Data Sheets 102 (4) (2004) 719–900

    2004

  30. [37]

    McCutchan, Nuclear data sheets for a = 180, Nuclear Data Sheets 126 (2015) 151–372

    E. McCutchan, Nuclear data sheets for a = 180, Nuclear Data Sheets 126 (2015) 151–372

    2015

  31. [38]

    C. M. Baglin, Nuclear data sheets for a = 179, Nuclear Data Sheets 110 (2) (2009) 265–506

    2009

  32. [39]

    Navas, C

    S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, J. J. Hern ´andez-Rey, C. Lourenc ¸o, A. Masoni, M. Mikhasenko, R. E. Mitchell, C. Patrig- nani, C. Schwanda, S. Spanier, G. Venanzoni, C. Z. Yuan, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, B. C. Allanach, J. Alvarez-Mu ˜niz, M. Antonelli, E. C. As- ch...

    2024

  33. [40]

    Wu, Nuclear data sheets for a = 181, Nuclear Data Sheets 106 (3) (2005) 367–600

    S.-C. Wu, Nuclear data sheets for a = 181, Nuclear Data Sheets 106 (3) (2005) 367–600

    2005

  34. [42]

    Suzuki, D

    T. Suzuki, D. F. Measday, J. P. Roalsvig, Total nuclear capture rates for negative muons, Phys. Rev. C. 35 (6) (1987) 2212–2224. doi:10.1103/physrevc.35.2212

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    Singer, Neutron emission following muon capture in heavy nuclei, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 23 (4) (1962) 669–689

    P. Singer, Neutron emission following muon capture in heavy nuclei, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 23 (4) (1962) 669–689. doi:10.1007/BF02732735

    1962 doi

  36. [44]

    Beetz, F

    R. Beetz, F. W. N. de Boer, J. K. Panman, J. Konijn, P. Pavlopoulos, G. Tibell, K. Zioutas, I. Bergstr ¨om, K. Fransson, L. Tauscher, P. Bl ¨um, R. Guigas, H. Koch, H. Poth, L. M. Simons, High spin states and neutron multiplicities after pion capture in181ta and209bi, Zeitschr...

    1978

  37. [45]

    Niita, S

    K. Niita, S. Chiba, T. Maruyama, H. Takada, T. Fukahori, Y . Nakahara, A. Iwamoto, Analysis of the (N,xN ′ ) reactions by quantum molecular dynamics plus statistical decay model, Phys. Rev. C. 52 (5) (1995) 2620–

    1995

  38. [46]

    R. D. Amado, Momentum distributions in the nucleus, Phys. Rev. C. 14 (3) (1976) 1264–1270. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.14.1264

    1976 doi

  39. [47]

    Ogawa, S

    T. Ogawa, S. Hashimoto, T. Sato, K. Niita, Development of gamma de-excitation model for prediction of prompt gamma-rays and iso- mer production based on energy-dependent level structure treat- ment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 325 (2014) 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2014.02.007

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). tables, graphs and references*, Chin. Phys. C 45 (3) (2021) 030003. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Furihata, K

    S. Furihata, K. Niita, S. Meigo, Y . Ikeda, F. Maekawa, The GEM code A simulation program for the evaporation and the fission process of an excited nucleus, JAERI-Data/Code 2001-015 (2001) 1–98

    2001

  42. [50]

    Minato, T

    F. Minato, T. Naito, O. Iwamoto, Nuclear many-body e ffects on particle emission following muon capture on 28Si and 40Ca, Phys. Rev. C. 107 (5) (2023) 054314. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054314

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Y . G. Budyashov, V . G. Zinov, A. D. Konin, A. I. Mukhin, A. M. Cha- trchyan, Charged Particles from the Capture of Negative Muons by the Nuclei 28Si, 32S, 40Ca, and 64Cu, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 33 (1971) 11–15. 13

    1971

  44. [52]

    Lifshitz, P

    M. Lifshitz, P. Singer, Meson-exchange currents and energetic particle emission fromµ− capture, Nuclear Physics A 476 (4) (1988) 684–700

    1988

  45. [369]

    doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00641-6

    doi

  46. [2635]

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.52.2620

    doi

Pith tools

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