Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Renormalizing Two-Neutron Halo Nuclei Without Neutron-Core Interaction

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Hongo–Son EFT for two-neutron halos has exactly two ultraviolet divergences, so a second renormalization condition—one measured radius or a scattering amplitude—is required to predict both radii via a fixed ratio.

desk verdict The main renormalization claim is sound and the paper adds real new results — just be aware that the 'prediction' of the second radius is one input multiplied by a universal ratio, and the theory's regime caveat is acknowledged but not resolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.09503 v2 pith:HATSVRVM submitted 2025-12-10 nucl-th

Daniel Kromm , Matthias Göbel , Hans-Werner Hammer This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords two-neutronhalonucleieffectivefieldtheoryrenormalizationdivergencestructurechargeradiusmatterLandaupolethree-bodyscattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how much can be predicted in a deliberately simplified effective field theory of two-neutron halo nuclei, in which the neutron-core interaction is treated as negligible and only the neutron-neutron and three-body interactions act. The authors show that the trimer self-energy of this theory has two separate ultraviolet divergences, not one, so the standard single renormalization condition (fixing the binding energy) leaves the radii undetermined. They therefore add a second condition: choose either the charge radius, the matter radius, or a three-body scattering amplitude as input. With one radius known, the other is predicted by a fixed ratio that depends only on the two-neutron separation energy, the neutron-neutron scattering length, and the core mass. Applied to six halo nuclei, the scheme reproduces standard halo calculations within a few percent, and it exposes a Landau pole that caps the cutoff at relatively low momenta.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the trimer self-energy integral I_Lambda(E) = integral_{q<Lambda} d^3q/(2pi)^3 [sqrt(E + q^2/(2 mu)) - 1/a]^{-1}, together with its derivative I'_Lambda(E). A high-momentum expansion of this integral is the whole story: I_Lambda diverges quadratically and I'_Lambda logarithmically, while higher derivatives are finite. Observable radii depend on the product of the trimer field-strength renormalization and the coupling squared, Z_h g_0^2, which is exactly the combination controlled by the two divergences. The second renormalization condition fixes g_0 so that Z_h g_0^2 equals K_{c/m}/<r^2_{c/m}>_exp, which makes both radii and the three-body amplitude cutoff-indep

What would settle it

Take the renormalized coupling fixed by the 22C matter radius and compute the E1 strength distribution, then compare with the measured Coulomb dissociation spectrum: if the shape disagrees beyond the few-percent level found for radii, or if the result changes with the cutoff, the exactly-two-divergence assumption is incomplete. Adding the neutron-neutron effective range to the calculation and checking for new divergences would provide a direct test of the divergence count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a divergence count. The one-loop self-energy of the halo field is proportional to an integral I_Lambda(E), and expanding it around any energy gives I_Lambda + I'_Lambda(E - E_tilde) plus convergent terms: the first piece diverges as Lambda^2 and the second as ln(Lambda). These are exactly the two divergences present as Lambda goes to infinity. Since the Lagrangian has two bare parameters, a coupling and a bare three-body energy, both divergences can be absorbed, but only if two renormalization conditions are imposed. The binding-energy pole provides one; a measured radius (or a scattering amplitude) provides the second. Once it is imposed, the other radius follows from <

Load-bearing premise

The entire predictive scheme rests on the claim that the self-energy has exactly two ultraviolet divergences—one quadratic and one logarithmic—so that two renormalization conditions suffice; if a third divergent structure appears at this order, or if the leading-order premise that the neutron-core interaction is negligible fails (as it does for the s-wave nuclei studied here, with virtual-state energies up to 68% of the binding energy), the clean two-input picture breaks down

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single measured radius (charge or matter) becomes sufficient to predict the other radius in any two-neutron halo nucleus that fits the simplified EFT, through the fixed ratio K_m/K_c.
  • Other observables that share the same Z_h g_0^2 dependence, such as the E1 strength distribution, become predictable without estimating the unknown coupling.
  • The Landau pole imposes a hard upper bound on the cutoff; for cases like 22C and 6He this bound sits close to the other scales and must be respected in any calculation.
  • The explicit neutron-neutron-core scattering amplitude is renormalization-group consistent, meaning three-body observables beyond bound-state properties can be computed in the scheme.
  • The comparison shows the scheme is a genuine limit of standard Halo EFT: as the neutron-core scattering length is artificially reduced, full Halo EFT results converge onto the universal curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The surprisingly good radius agreement for nuclei outside the nominal validity range suggests radii may be less sensitive to the neutron-core interaction than the breakdown analysis implies; a next-order calculation including neutron-core effects would show whether this robustness persists.
  • Because the second condition can be any observable with the same coupling dependence, the E1 strength or the nnc cross section could replace the radius as input, providing independent cross-checks of the scheme.
  • A direct test of the two-divergence count is to include the neutron-neutron effective range: if new logarithmic or stronger divergences appear, the scheme would require yet another input.
  • For 22C the Landau pole depends strongly on the uncertain binding energy and matter radius, so an improved measurement of either quantity would sharpen the assessment of the theory's range.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the Hongo-Son (HS) EFT for two-neutron halo nuclei in which the neutron-core interaction is subleading. The authors examine the UV divergence structure of the trimer self-energy and conclude that, in addition to the binding-energy pole condition, a second renormalization condition is needed to determine the product Z_h g_0^2 that controls absolute radii. They propose using one mean-square radius (or a scattering amplitude) as the additional input, with the other radius then obtained from the universal ratio K_m/K_c. The scheme is applied to 11Li, 14Be, 17B, 19B, 22C, and 6He, and compared with standard Halo EFT calculations at physical and rescaled neutron-core scattering lengths. The Landau pole associated with the running coupling is computed, and an explicit expression for the neutron-neutron-core three-body scattering amplitude is derived and checked against unitarity in the bound-dineutron limit.

Significance. If correct, the paper clarifies the predictive content of the HS EFT and provides a minimal renormalization scheme for it. The two-divergence counting is explicit and supported by Appendix A: I_Lambda(E) has E-independent Lambda^2/Lambda terms and an E-linear log Lambda divergence, while higher derivatives are convergent. The derivation of a cutoff-independent three-body scattering amplitude and the unitarity check in Appendix D are concrete technical strengths. The paper also confirms, via Faddeev calculations with rescaled neutron-core scattering lengths, that the HS EFT emerges as a limit of standard Halo EFT, complementing Naidon's analytical work. The main limitation is that the scheme requires an external radius as input; the phenomenological comparison therefore tests the universal ratio rather than absolute radius predictions from B, a_nn, and A alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section V.A / Appendix B, Fig. 3] The HS curves in Fig. 3 are the universal ratio (15), and the 'HS matter radius' used in the relative-deviation analysis is obtained by inserting the standard Halo EFT charge radius into Eq. (23) (as stated in Appendix B). The good agreement at physical neutron-core scattering lengths is therefore a test of the ratio K_m/K_c, not a test of the ability of the renormalized scheme to predict absolute radii from B, a_nn, and A alone. The abstract's statement 'We use the HS scheme to calculate the matter radii ... and compare' should be qualified to make this input choice explicit; otherwise the phenomenological claims are easy to overread as absolute predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table IV] The rows for 6He and 11Li appear to have missing entries in the table as rendered (only five values are shown for the seven columns). Please check that the table compiles and that all scales are listed.
  2. [Eq. (24)] The notation K_{c/m} and <r^2>_{c/m,exp} is compact but potentially ambiguous. Please define it explicitly, e.g., 'K_c and <r^2>_c if the charge radius is used; K_m and <r^2>_m if the matter radius is used.'
  3. [Appendix A] The expansions (A6) and (A7) are stated as results of Mathematica's Integrate and Series routines. Providing a short derivation or the notebook would improve reproducibility; at minimum, the assumptions under which the expansions hold (Im(E)<0, etc.) should be summarized near the displayed equations.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (21)] The phrase 'exactly two divergences for Lambda -> infinity' should be explicitly qualified as 'at leading order, for the one-loop self-energy.' Higher-order operators (e.g., effective-range or derivative three-body interactions) will introduce additional divergent structures at higher orders; the leading-order conclusion is unaffected but the wording is stronger than what is demonstrated.
  5. [Section VI and Appendix E] The notation eE (which resembles the Euler number times E) is confusing. Suggest using a different symbol, such as E_0 or s, for the argument of the scattering amplitude and the expansion point.
  6. [Section II.C] The charge radius defined through Eq. (9) is the point-core distance, not the full charge radius including the core's finite size. This should be stated explicitly in the text, as it is important for comparisons with experiment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the need for a second renormalization condition is derived from explicit cutoff integrals, and the radius-prediction step is a transparent renormalization condition, not a hidden fit.

full rationale

The central renormalization claim is not circular. The paper's conclusion that the HS trimer self-energy has exactly two divergent structures is derived from Eqs. (A6)-(A7), which show I_Lambda(E) ~ Lambda^2 plus E-independent terms and I'_Lambda(B) ~ ln(Lambda), with higher derivatives O(Lambda^{-1}); the Lambda^2 and ln-Lambda pieces are respectively absorbed by B0 and by the field-strength renormalization entering the second condition. This is an explicit calculation, not an imported self-citation. The subsequent relation (23), in which one radius is used as input and the other is obtained via the universal ratio K_m/K_c, is a standard renormalization step: the ratio is an externally derived function of a, B, and A from the HS Lagrangian, and the input and output are distinct observables. The paper explicitly labels the input as input and does not claim the second radius follows from B and a alone. The Halo-EFT comparison in Fig. 3 is an independent numerical benchmark, and the paper's own limiting statements—e.g., that physical s-wave nuclei have E*_nc/B = 6–68% and that the good agreement 'remains to be understood'—are honest caveats about applicability, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [14,20,28]) are used for numerical Faddeev methodology and are not load-bearing for the renormalization argument. No prediction was found that reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper inherits the HS leading-order approximation; its own contribution is the divergence-counting renormalization. The central external input is one radius used as the second renormalization condition. The most fragile axioms are that two counterterms exhaust the UV divergences and that the sharp-cutoff/Mathematica asymptotics are correct. No new degrees of freedom are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • renormalization input radius (<r_c^2>_exp or <r_m^2>_exp) = varies; e.g., sqrt(<r_m^2>) = 3.44(8) fm or 5.4(9) fm for 22C; standard Halo EFT values for other nuclei
    Eq. (22) uses one measured or calculated radius to fix Z_h g_0^2. Without this input only the ratio K_m/K_c is predicted. This is an external renormalization input rather than a fitted Lagrangian constant, but it is required for every absolute-radius statement and for the Landau-pole values.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption At leading order the neutron-core interaction is subleading; the nn interaction and a local dimer-core contact term dominate (HS power counting).
    Inherited from Ref. [17] and used throughout. The paper tests the assumption by rescaling a_nc, but for physical 11Li, 14Be, 17B, and 19B the condition E_nc* >> B is formally violated.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-loop trimer self-energy's UV behavior is fully described by I_Lambda(B) ~ Lambda^2 and I'_Lambda(B) ~ ln Lambda; all higher derivatives and any additional operators are subleading O(Lambda^{-1}).
    This is the load-bearing claim that exactly two counterterms (g0 and B0) are needed. It is derived for the single diagram in Eq. (6) and Appendix A, but not proven against generation of momentum-dependent three-body operators.
  • domain assumption Sharp momentum cutoff plus the Mathematica large-Lambda series expansions give correct finite parts and Landau-pole positions to O(Lambda^{-1}).
    Used for Eqs. (A5)-(A7), Eq. (E6), and all numerical Landau-pole values. No independent implementation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalizing Two-Neutron Halo Nuclei Without Neutron-Core Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HATSVRVM

@misc{pith2026251209503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalizing Two-Neutron Halo Nuclei Without Neutron-Core Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HATSVRVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09503}
}
abstract

We consider the Effective Field Theory (EFT) scheme proposed by Hongo and Son (HS) to describe two-neutron halo nuclei where the neutron-core interaction is subleading. In this EFT, the ratio of the mean-square matter radius and charge radius is universal in so far that it only depends on the two-neutron separation energy of the nucleus and the neutron-neutron scattering length. By investigating the divergence structure of this theory, we find that one further renormalization condition is required to predict both radii separately. Our renormalization scheme uses one of the mean square radii or the scattering amplitude as input. We use the HS scheme to calculate the matter radii of the two-neutron halo nuclei \(^{11}\)Li, \(^{14}\)Be, \(^{17}\)B, \(^{19}\)B, and \(^{22}\)C and compare to the values obtained with standard Halo EFT. In this comparison we use both the physical value of the neutron-core scattering length and rescaled values. We observe good convergence against the HS scheme for the case of a negligible neutron-core interaction. Similar agreement for the radii is also found in the case of the halo nucleus \(^6\)He, where the \(nc\) interaction is in the p-wave. Our renormalization scheme makes the restriction in the ultraviolet cutoff range from the Landau pole explicit. We calculate the position of the Landau pole for various halo nuclei. In all cases the Landau pole restricts the cutoff to rather low values. Finally, we derive an explicit expression for the three-to-three neutron-neutron-core scattering amplitude and discuss its cut structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Self-energy diagram of the trimer field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrams for the charge form factor of the halo nucleus. All external propagators are amputated. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The lines show Hongo and Son’s results for the relation between RMS matter and charge radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Landau pole values for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagram for the scattering amplitude in the center-of-mass frame for neutron-neutron-core scatter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The relative deviations of the matter radii according the standard Halo EFT calculation from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The radii of the different two-neutron halo nuclei obtained in standard Halo EFT are shown as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Tanihata, H

    I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida, N. Yoshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Measurements of Interaction Cross-Sections and Nuclear Radii in the Light p-Shell Region, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2676 (1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    But dividing the radii, we get an expression independent of the factorZ hg2

    Because of this factor, all our radii are not fully expressed so far in terms of low-energy constants. But dividing the radii, we get an expression independent of the factorZ hg2

  3. [3]

    Hence, this ratio poses a universal prediction in the EFT of Hongo & Son [17]

    Thus, we can state a well defined ratio of matter and charge radius [17] ⟨r2 m⟩ ⟨r2c ⟩ = Km Kc ,(15) which besides the mass numberAsolely depends onaandB. Hence, this ratio poses a universal prediction in the EFT of Hongo & Son [17]. III. RENORMALIZA TION AND DIVERGENCE STRUCTURE In order to analyze the predictive power of the Hongo and Son EFT in detail,...

  4. [4]

    Jonson, Light dripline nuclei, Physics Reports389, 1 (2004)

    B. Jonson, Light dripline nuclei, Physics Reports389, 1 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    P. G. Hansen and B. Jonson, The Neutron halo of extremely neutron-rich nuclei, EPL4, 409 (1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    P. G. Hansen, A. S. Jensen, and B. Jonson, Nuclear halos, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.45, 591 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    H. W. Hammer, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips, Effective field theory description of halo nuclei, J. Phys. G 44, 103002 (2017), arXiv:1702.08605 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    A. S. Jensen, K. Riisager, D. V. Fedorov, and E. Garrido, Structure and reactions of quantum halos, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 215 (2004)

    2004

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Riisager, Halos and related structures, Phys

    K. Riisager, Halos and related structures, Phys. ScriptaT152, 014001 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    C. A. Bertulani, H. W. Hammer, and U. Van Kolck, Effective field theory for halo nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A712, 37 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0205063

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Universality in few-body systems with large scattering length, Physics Reports428, 259 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Fahlander and B

    C. Fahlander and B. Jonson, Nobel symposium 152: Physics with radioactive beams, Physica Scripta 2013, 010301 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    H. W. Hammer and D. R. Phillips, Electric properties of the Beryllium-11 system in Halo EFT, Nucl. Phys. A865, 17 (2011), arXiv:1103.1087 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    P. F. Bedaque, H. W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Narrow resonances in effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B569, 159 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0304007

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. L. Canham and H. W. Hammer, Universal properties and structure of halo nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. A 37, 367 (2008), arXiv:0807.3258 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G¨ obel, T

    M. G¨ obel, T. Aumann, C. A. Bertulani, T. Frederico, H.-W. Hammer, and D. R. Phillips, Neutron-neutron scattering length from the He6(p,pα)nn reaction, Phys. Rev. C104, 024001 (2021), arXiv:2103.03224 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    [18, 19])

    (for further discussion of this EFT, see Refs. [18, 19]). The only remaining interactions at lead- ing order are the neutron-neutron interaction and the three-body neutron-neutron-core interaction. One advantage of this variant is that observables can be calculated largely ana...

  10. [18]

    G¨ obel, B

    M. G¨ obel, B. Acharya, H.-W. Hammer, and D. R. Phillips, Final-state interactions and spin structure in E1 breakup of Li11 in halo effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C107, 014617 (2023), arXiv:2207.14281 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Elkamhawy, Z

    W. Elkamhawy, Z. Yang, H.-W. Hammer, and L. Platter,β-delayed proton emission from 11Be in effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B821, 136610 (2021), arXiv:1909.12206 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hongo and D

    M. Hongo and D. T. Son, Universal properties of weakly bound two-neutron halo nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 212501 (2022). 25

    2022

  13. [21]

    Naidon, Universal geometry of two-neutron halos and Borromean Efimov states close to dissociation, SciPost Phys.15, 123 (2023), arXiv:2302.08716 [nucl-th]

    P. Naidon, Universal geometry of two-neutron halos and Borromean Efimov states close to dissociation, SciPost Phys.15, 123 (2023), arXiv:2302.08716 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. B. Costa, M. Hongo, and D. T. Son, Effective field theory for weakly bound two-neutron halo nuclei: Corrections from neutron-neutron effective range, Phys. Rev. C112, 014001 (2025), arXiv:2503.18519 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G¨ obel, H

    M. G¨ obel, H. W. Hammer, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips, Momentum-Space Probability Density of 6He in Halo Effective Field Theory, Few Body Syst.60, 61 (2019), arXiv:1904.07182 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kirchner, M

    T. Kirchner, M. G¨ obel, and H.-W. Hammer, Neutron-neutron distribution of the triton from pionless effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C111, 044002 (2025), arXiv:2410.13789 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G¨ obel,Structure and breakup reactions of neutron halo nuclei, Ph.D

    M. G¨ obel,Structure and breakup reactions of neutron halo nuclei, Ph.D. thesis, Darmstadt, Tech. U. (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2020

  19. [27]

    D. E. Gonzalez Trotteret al., New Measurement of the S-10 Neutron-Neutron Scattering Length Using the Neutron-Proton Scattering Length as a Standard, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3788 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Brodeuret al., First Direct Mass Measurement of the Two-Neutron Halo Nucleus 6He and Improved Mass for the Four-Neutron Halo 8He, Phys

    M. Brodeuret al., First Direct Mass Measurement of the Two-Neutron Halo Nucleus 6He and Improved Mass for the Four-Neutron Halo 8He, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 052504 (2012), arXiv:1107.1684 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. Ji, C. Elster, and D. R. Phillips, 6He nucleus in halo effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C90, 044004 (2014), arXiv:1405.2394 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. A. Arndt, D. D. Long, and L. D. Roper, Nucleon-alpha elastic scattering analyses, Nucl. Phys. A 209, 429 (1973)

    1973

  23. [31]

    G¨ obel, H.-W

    M. G¨ obel, H.-W. Hammer, and D. R. Phillips, in preparation

  24. [32]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Yamaguchi, T. Suzuki, T. Ohtsubo, M. Fukuda, D. Nishimura, M. Takechi, K. Ogata, A. Ozawa, T. Izumikawa, T. Aiba, N. Aoi, H. Baba, Y. Hashizume, K. Inafuku, N. Iwasa, K. Kobayashi, M. Komuro, Y. Kondo, T. Kubo, M. Kurokawa, T. Matsuyama, S. Michimasa, T. Motobaya...

    2010

  25. [33]

    Togano, T

    Y. Togano, T. Nakamura, Y. Kondo, J. Tostevin, A. Saito, J. Gibelin, N. Orr, N. Achouri, T. Au- mann, H. Baba, F. Delaunay, P. Doornenbal, N. Fukuda, J. Hwang, N. Inabe, T. Isobe, D. Kameda, D. Kanno, S. Kim, N. Kobayashi, T. Kobayashi, T. Kubo, S. Leblond, J. Lee, F. Marqu´ e...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Preston and R

    M. Preston and R. Bhaduri,Structure of the Nucleus, The Advanced Book Program (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program, 1975)

    1975

  27. [35]

    From ENSDF database as of June 9, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Tilley, H

    D. Tilley, H. Weller, and G. Hale, Energy levels of light nuclei A = 4, Nuclear Physics A541, 1 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    Tilley, J

    D. Tilley, J. Kelley, J. Godwin, D. Millener, J. Purcell, C. Sheu, and H. Weller, Energy levels of light nuclei A=8,9,10, Nuclear Physics A745, 155 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Kelley, J

    J. Kelley, J. Purcell, and C. Sheu, Energy levels of light nuclei A=12, Nuclear Physics A968, 71 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Stanoiu, M

    M. Stanoiu, M. Belleguic, Z. Dombr´ adi,et al., Observation of bound excited states in15B, The European Physical Journal A22, 5 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Kanungo, Z

    R. Kanungo, Z. Elekes, H. Baba, Z. Dombr´ adi, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, J. Gibelin, ´A. Horv´ ath, Y. Ichikawa, E. Ideguchi, N. Iwasa, H. Iwasaki, S. Kawai, Y. Kondo, T. Motobayashi, M. Notani, T. Ohnishi, A. Ozawa, H. Sakurai, S. Shimoura, E. Takeshita, S. Takeuchi, I. Tanihata, Y. Toga...

    2005

  33. [41]

    Acharya, C

    B. Acharya, C. Ji, and D. Phillips, Implications of a matter-radius measurement for the structure of carbon-22, Physics Letters B723, 196 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Mosby, N

    S. Mosby, N. Badger, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, M. Bennett, J. Brown, G. Christian, P. DeYoung, J. Finck, M. Gardner, J. Hinnefeld, E. Hook, E. Lunderberg, B. Luther, D. Meyer, M. Mosby, G. Peaslee, W. Rogers, J. Smith, J. Snyder, A. Spyrou, M. Strongman, and M. Thoennessen, Search...

    2013

  35. [43]

    Nakamuraet al., Observation of Strong Low-Lying E-1 Strength in the Two-Neutron Halo Nucleus Li-11, Phys

    T. Nakamuraet al., Observation of Strong Low-Lying E-1 Strength in the Two-Neutron Halo Nucleus Li-11, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 252502 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    M. V. Zhukov, B. V. Danilin, D. V. Fedorov, J. M. Bang, I. J. Thompson, and J. S. Vaagen, Bound state properties of Borromean Halo nuclei: He-6 and Li-11, Phys. Rept.231, 151 (1993)

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.