pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20535 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-28 · ⚛️ nucl-th

De-excitation effects on entanglement in multi-nucleon transfer reactions

Y. C. Yang , D. D. Zhang , D. Vretenar , B. Li , T. Nik\v{s}i\'c , P. W. Zhao , J. Meng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords multi-nucleon transferde-excitationquantum entanglementmutual informationTDCDFTGEMINI++nuclear reactions40Ca+208Pb
0
0 comments X

The pith

De-excitation significantly degrades initial quantum entanglement between fragments in multi-nucleon transfer reactions.

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

The paper applies a hybrid model combining time-dependent covariant density functional theory with a statistical de-excitation code to the calcium-lead collision system. It shows that de-excitation must be included to bring calculated cross sections into agreement with measured data. Mutual information between the projectile-like and target-like fragments drops sharply once de-excitation is allowed, indicating that the process destroys most of the quantum correlations generated in the initial collision stage. The work therefore identifies de-excitation as a concrete physical mechanism that converts an entangled initial state into largely uncorrelated final products.

Core claim

In the 40Ca + 208Pb reaction the de-excitation process modeled by GEMINI++ significantly reduces the mutual information between the projectile-like and target-like fragments, thereby degrading the initial quantum entanglement produced by the collision dynamics. The same statistical decay is required to reproduce experimental cross sections, and Shannon entropy analysis shows that new transfer channels open abruptly once a threshold energy is reached.

What carries the argument

The hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI approach, in which TDCDFT supplies the initial entangled state after the collision and GEMINI++ applies statistical de-excitation to the excited fragments.

If this is right

  • Cross sections only match experiment when the hybrid model includes de-excitation.
  • Shannon entropy jumps at a threshold energy mark the sudden opening of additional transfer channels.
  • Mutual information between fragments falls markedly once statistical decay is allowed.
  • The approach supplies a direct link from the initial collision state to observable final-state correlations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar hybrid calculations could test whether entanglement loss scales with excitation energy in other heavy-ion systems.
  • Reactions at lower energies or with less neutron-rich partners might preserve more of the initial correlation if de-excitation is suppressed.
  • The same framework could be used to explore whether spin or isospin correlations survive de-excitation in addition to particle-number entanglement.
  • Direct measurement of fragment-pair correlations in a single exit channel would provide an experimental test independent of cross-section fitting.

Load-bearing premise

The mutual information extracted from the TDCDFT stage represents genuine physical entanglement and the GEMINI++ statistical treatment does not add spurious decorrelation.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures fragment correlations or mutual information in a selected exit channel and finds values equal to the TDCDFT prediction without any reduction after de-excitation would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20535 by B. Li, D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, J. Meng, P. W. Zhao, T. Nik\v{s}i\'c, Y. C. Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study quantifies the impact of nuclear de-excitation on correlations in multi-nucleon transfer (MNT) reactions. To bridge the gap between initial collision dynamics and final experimental observables, we introduce a hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI approach, integrating time-dependent covariant density functional theory (TDCDFT) with the statistical de-excitation model GEMINI++. Applied to the $^{40}$Ca + $^{208}$Pb reaction, our method demonstrates that the de-excitation is essential for reconciling theoretical cross sections with experimental data. Analysis of the cross-section Shannon entropy reveals that new reaction channels open abruptly at a specific energy threshold. By employing mutual information, we show that the de-excitation process significantly degrades the initial quantum entanglement between the projectile-like and the target-like fragments, revealing a key mechanism through which fundamental quantum correlations are lost.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI++ framework to study multi-nucleon transfer in the 40Ca + 208Pb reaction. It computes initial fragment correlations from time-dependent covariant density functional theory, then applies the statistical de-excitation code GEMINI++ to generate final-state ensembles. The central claims are that de-excitation is required to match experimental cross sections, that cross-section Shannon entropy shows abrupt opening of new channels, and that mutual information between projectile-like and target-like fragments drops substantially after de-excitation, indicating loss of quantum entanglement.

Significance. If the methodological link between the TDCDFT density operator and the GEMINI++ ensemble is shown to be valid, the work supplies a concrete route from microscopic dynamics to observable final states while quantifying how statistical decay affects quantum correlations. The application of mutual information to nuclear reaction fragments is a fresh diagnostic that could influence future studies of entanglement in heavy-ion collisions.

major comments (1)
  1. [hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI method and mutual-information analysis] The post-GEMINI mutual information is extracted from a classical Monte-Carlo ensemble of decay channels sampled via Hauser-Feshbach/Weisskopf-Ewing widths. Because GEMINI++ does not propagate the off-diagonal elements of the initial TDCDFT reduced density matrix, the reported drop in I(A:B) cannot yet be attributed unambiguously to physical de-excitation rather than to the classical sampling procedure itself. A demonstration that the final joint probability distribution is obtained by a quantum channel applied to the TDCDFT state (or an equivalent validation) is required before the entanglement-degradation claim can be accepted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The central concern regarding the hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI framework and the interpretation of the post-de-excitation mutual information is addressed below. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the methodological assumptions and limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI method and mutual-information analysis] The post-GEMINI mutual information is extracted from a classical Monte-Carlo ensemble of decay channels sampled via Hauser-Feshbach/Weisskopf-Ewing widths. Because GEMINI++ does not propagate the off-diagonal elements of the initial TDCDFT reduced density matrix, the reported drop in I(A:B) cannot yet be attributed unambiguously to physical de-excitation rather than to the classical sampling procedure itself. A demonstration that the final joint probability distribution is obtained by a quantum channel applied to the TDCDFT state (or an equivalent validation) is required before the entanglement-degradation claim can be accepted.

    Authors: We agree that GEMINI++ implements a classical statistical decay model based on Hauser-Feshbach and Weisskopf-Ewing widths and therefore does not evolve the off-diagonal coherences of the initial TDCDFT reduced density matrix. The initial joint probability distribution P(A,B) is nevertheless obtained directly from the TDCDFT one-body density matrix at the end of the dynamical stage, thereby incorporating the quantum correlations present among primary fragments. Subsequent de-excitation is treated statistically because the fragments are formed with excitation energies well above the particle-emission thresholds, where rapid decoherence is expected on physical grounds. The observed reduction in mutual information therefore reflects the dilution of these initial correlations by the opening of numerous decay channels, a feature independently confirmed by the abrupt rise in cross-section Shannon entropy at the same energy threshold. A complete quantum-channel description of the de-excitation stage would require a microscopic treatment of the continuum that is presently intractable for the system sizes considered. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised manuscript (Section IV) that explicitly states the classical nature of GEMINI++, discusses the regime of validity of the hybrid approach, and qualifies the mutual-information drop as a measure of correlation loss under statistical decay rather than a strict entanglement measure after a unitary quantum channel. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes initial entanglement via mutual information directly from the TDCDFT two-fragment density matrix after the collision, then applies the independent GEMINI++ statistical decay code to generate an ensemble of final states and recomputes the same mutual information on that ensemble. No equation, parameter, or result is shown to be defined in terms of the target quantity or reduced to a fit by construction. The hybrid TDCDFT+GEMINI workflow is a forward simulation chain using an external Monte-Carlo de-excitation model; the drop in mutual information is presented as an output of that chain rather than an input. No self-citation is load-bearing for the central claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of TDCDFT for initial dynamics, the applicability of GEMINI++ for de-excitation, and the interpretation of mutual information as a faithful entanglement measure; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption TDCDFT provides a reliable description of the initial collision dynamics and entanglement
    Invoked to generate the starting state before de-excitation
  • domain assumption GEMINI++ accurately models the statistical de-excitation without artifacts affecting correlations
    Used to connect theory to final observables

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1230 out tokens · 22628 ms · 2026-05-16T10:07:20.998808+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 122701 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Y. X. Watanabe, Y. H. Kim, S. C. Jeong, Y. Hirayama, N. Imai, H. Ishiyama, H. S. Jung, H. Miyatake, S. Choi, J. S. Song, E. Clement, G. de France, A. Navin, M. Rejmund, C. Schmitt, G. Pollarolo, L. Corradi, E. Fioretto, D. Montanari, M. Niikura, D. Suzuki, H. Nishibata, and J. Takatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 172503 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Niwase, Y

    T. Niwase, Y. X. Watanabe, Y. Hirayama, M. Mukai, P. Schury, A. N. Andreyev, T. Hashimoto, S. Iimura, H. Ishiyama, Y. Ito, S. C. Jeong, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, H. Miy- atake, K. Morimoto, J.-Y. Moon, M. Oyaizu, M. Rosenbusch, A. Taniguchi, and M. Wada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 132502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    V. I. Zagrebaev, Y. T. Oganessian, M. G. Itkis, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 73, 031602 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 34, 2265 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034610 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    V. I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044618 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Rotaru, D

    A. Rotaru, D. Amanbayev, D. L. Balabanski, D. Benyamin, P. Constantin, T. Dickel, L. Gröf, I. Mardor, I. Miskun, D. Nichita, W. R. Plaß, C. Scheidenberger, A. Spătaru, and A. State, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 512, 83 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    W. X. Huang, Y. L. Tian, Y. S. Wang, J. Y. Wang, Z. G. Gan, Z. Liu, J. Yang, X. W. Ma, and X. H. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. Rev. 34, 409 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Gales, Prog

    S. Gales, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 22 (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Mijatović, Front

    T. Mijatović, Front. Phys. 10 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Corradi, S

    L. Corradi, S. Szilner, G. Pollarolo, D. Montanari, E. Fioretto, A. Stefanini, J. Valiente-Dobón, E. Farnea, C. Michelagnoli, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, C. Ur, T. Mijatović, D. Jelavić Malenica, N. Soić, and F. Haas, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 317, 743 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Winther, Nucl

    A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. A 572, 191 (1994)

    work page 1994

  14. [14]

    Winther, Nucl

    A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. A 594, 203 (1995)

    work page 1995

  15. [15]

    P. W. Wen, C. J. Lin, C. Li, L. Zhu, F. Zhang, F. S. Zhang, H. M. Jia, F. Yang, N. R. Ma, L. J. Sun, D. X. Wang, F. P. Zhong, H. H. Sun, L. Yang, and X. X. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034606 (2019) . 20

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Feng, Phys

    Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. C 95, 024615 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Niu, P.-H

    F. Niu, P.-H. Chen, Y.-F. Guo, C.-W. Ma, and Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. C 96, 064622 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    L. Zhu, J. Su, and P.-W. Wen, Phys. Rev. C 95, 044608 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    X. J. Bao, S. Q. Guo, J. Qing Li, and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 785, 221 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Zhu, P.-W

    L. Zhu, P.-W. Wen, C.-J. Lin, X.-J. Bao, J. Su, C. Li, and C.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044614 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    S. Q. Guo, X. J. Bao, H. F. Zhang, J. Q. Li, and N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054616 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    P.-H. Chen, C. Geng, X.-H. Zeng, and Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Zhang, J.-J

    Y.-H. Zhang, J.-J. Li, N. Tang, X.-R. Zhang, Z. Liu, and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 107, 024604 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Feng, Phys

    Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. C 108, L051601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Z. Liao, L. Zhu, J. Su, and C. Li, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014614 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Z. Liao, L. Zhu, Z. Gao, J. Su, and C. Li, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022021 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    T. L. Zhao, X. J. Bao, and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    T. L. Zhao, S. H. Zhu, H. F. Zhang, and X. J. Bao, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064609 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Zhang and F.-S

    G. Zhang and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    V. I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034608 (2013)

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    A. V. Karpov and V. V. Saiko, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024618 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    V. V. Saiko and A. V. Karpov, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014613 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    K. Zhao, Z. Li, N. Wang, Y. Zhang, Q. Li, Y. Wang, and X. Wu, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024613 (2015)

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    C. Li, F. Zhang, J. Li, L. Zhu, J. Tian, N. Wang, and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014618 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Yao and N

    H. Yao and N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014607 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    C. Li, X. Xu, J. Li, G. Zhang, B. Li, C. A. T. Sokhna, Z. Ge, F. Zhang, P. Wen, and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 024602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    K. Zhao, Z. Liu, F. Zhang, and N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 815, 136101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    K. Zhao, Z. Liu, F. S. Zhang, N. Wang, and J. Z. Duan, Phys. Rev. C 106, L011602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    C. Li, T. Li, X.-R. Zhang, J. Tian, N. Wang, C. Guo, and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044615 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    P. Feng, K. Zhao, Z. Liu, N. Wang, F.-S. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 111, 024603 21 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Simenel, Phys

    C. Simenel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 192701 (2010)

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014614 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064614 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054616 (2016)

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Sekizawa, Phys

    K. Sekizawa, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014615 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Sekizawa, Phys

    K. Sekizawa, Phys. Rev. C 96, 041601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Wu and L

    Z. Wu and L. Guo, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014612 (2019)

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Jiang and N

    X. Jiang and N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 101, 014604 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Z. Wu, L. Guo, Z. Liu, and G. Peng, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136886 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024614 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    D. D. Zhang, B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024316 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 869, 139828 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    S. E. Ocal, O. Yilmaz, M. Arik, S. Ayik, and A. S. Umar, Phys. Rev. C 111, 054613 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Z. Gao, K. Sekizawa, and L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 112, 014602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Corradi, A

    L. Corradi, A. M. Stefanini, C. J. Lin, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. Pollarolo, and A. Winther, Phys. Rev. C 59, 261 (1999)

    work page 1999

  56. [56]

    Mijatović, S

    T. Mijatović, S. Szilner, L. Corradi, D. Montanari, G. Pollarolo, E. Fioretto, A. Gadea, A. Goasduff, D. J. a. c. Malenica, N. Mărginean, M. Milin, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, N. Soić, A. M. Stefanini, C. A. Ur, and J. J. Valiente-Dobón, Phys. Rev. C 94, 064616 (2016)

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    A. Vogt, B. Birkenbach, P. Reiter, L. Corradi, T. Mijatović, D. Montanari, S. Szilner, D. Baz- zacco, M. Bowry, A. Bracco, B. Bruyneel, F. C. L. Crespi, G. de Angelis, P. Désesquelles, J. Eberth, E. Farnea, E. Fioretto, A. Gadea, K. Geibel, A. Gengelbach, A. Giaz, A. Görgen, A. Gottardo, J. Grebosz, H. Hess, P. R. John, J. Jolie, D. S. Judson, A. Jungclau...

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    Szilner, C

    S. Szilner, C. A. Ur, L. Corradi, N. Mărginean, G. Pollarolo, A. M. Stefanini, S. Beghini, B. R. Behera, E. Fioretto, A. Gadea, B. Guiot, A. Latina, P. Mason, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, M. Trotta, G. d. Angelis, F. D. Vedova, E. Farnea, F. Haas, S. Lenzi, S. Lunardi, R. Mărginean, R. Menegazzo, D. R. Napoli, M. Nespolo, I. V. Pokrovsky, F. Recchia, M....

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    P. R. John, V. Modamio, J. J. Valiente-Dobón, D. Mengoni, S. Lunardi, T. R. Rodríguez, D. Bazzacco, A. Gadea, C. Wheldon, T. Alexander, G. de Angelis, N. Ashwood, M. Barr, G. Benzoni, B. Birkenbach, P. G. Bizzeti, A. M. Bizzeti-Sona, S. Bottoni, M. Bowry, A. Bracco, F. Browne, M. Bunce, F. Camera, B. Cederwall, L. Corradi, F. C. L. Crespi, P. Désesquelles...

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    P. R. John, J. J. Valiente-Dobón, D. Mengoni, V. Modamio, S. Lunardi, D. Bazzacco, A. Gadea, C. Wheldon, T. R. Rodríguez, T. Alexander, G. de Angelis, N. Ashwood, M. Barr, G. Benzoni, B. Birkenbach, P. G. Bizzeti, A. M. Bizzeti-Sona, S. Bottoni, M. Bowry, A. Bracco, F. Browne, M. Bunce, F. Camera, L. Corradi, F. C. L. Crespi, B. Melon, E. Farnea, E. Fiore...

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    J. V. Kratz, M. Schädel, and H. W. Gäggeler, Phys. Rev. C 88, 054615 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    E. M. Kozulin, E. Vardaci, G. N. Knyazheva, A. A. Bogachev, S. N. Dmitriev, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, A. G. Knyazev, T. A. Loktev, K. V. Novikov, E. A. Razinkov, O. V. Rudakov, S. V. Smirnov, W. Trzaska, and V. I. Zagrebaev, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044611 (2012) . 23

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    E. M. Kozulin, G. N. Knyazheva, K. V. Novikov, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, S. N. Dmitriev, Y. T. Oganessian, A. A. Bogachev, N. I. Kozulina, I. Harca, W. H. Trzaska, and T. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. C 94, 054613 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    Galtarossa, L

    F. Galtarossa, L. Corradi, S. Szilner, E. Fioretto, G. Pollarolo, T. Mijatović, D. Montanari, D. Ackermann, D. Bourgin, S. Courtin, G. Fruet, A. Goasduff, J. Grebosz, F. Haas, D. Jelavi ć Malenica, S. C. Jeong, H. M. Jia, P. R. John, D. Mengoni, M. Milin, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlas- sara, N. Skukan, N. Soić, A. M. Stefanini, E. Strano, V. Tokić, C. A. Ur, ...

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Stefanini, L

    A. Stefanini, L. Corradi, G. Maron, A. Pisent, M. Trotta, A. Vinodkumar, S. Beghini, G. Mon- tagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. Segato, A. De Rosa, G. Inglima, D. Pierroutsakou, M. Romoli, M. Sandoli, G. Pollarolo, and A. Latina, Nucl. Phys. A 701, 217 (2002) , 5th International Conference on Radioactive Nuclear Beams

    work page 2002

  66. [66]

    Montanari, E

    D. Montanari, E. Farnea, S. Leoni, G. Pollarolo, L. Corradi, G. Benzoni, A. Gadea, E. Fioretto, A. Latina, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, A. M. Stefanini, and S. Szilner, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 4 (2011)

    work page 2011

  67. [67]

    Rejmund, B

    M. Rejmund, B. Lecornu, A. Navin, C. Schmitt, S. Damoy, O. Delaune, J. Enguerrand, G. Fre- mont, P. Gangnant, L. Gaudefroy, B. Jacquot, J. Pancin, S. Pullanhiotan, and C. Spitaels, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 646, 184 (2011)

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    Beliuskina, S

    O. Beliuskina, S. Heinz, V. Zagrebaev, V. Comas, C. Heinz, S. Hofmann, R. Knöbel, M. Stahl, D. Ackermann, F. P. Heßberger, B. Kindler, B. Lommel, J. Maurer, and R. Mann, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 161 (2014)

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, D. D. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034611 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    R. J. Charity, in Joint ICTP-IAEA Advanced Workshop on Model Codes for Spallation Reac- tions, Report INDC(NDC)-0530 (IAEA, Vienna, 2008) p. 139, the GEMINI++ code can be downloaded from https://bitbucket.org/arekfu/gemini

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    Z. Ren, P. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135194 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Z. X. Ren, J. Zhao, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044313 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, L011301 (2022) . 24

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Z. X. Ren, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, P. W. Zhao, J. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 172501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, Z. X. Ren, T. Nikšić, J. Zhao, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014303 (2023)

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    B. Li, P. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138877 (2024)

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikšić, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Runge and E

    E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984)

    work page 1984

  80. [80]

    van Leeuwen, Phys

    R. van Leeuwen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3863 (1999)

    work page 1999

Showing first 80 references.