arxiv: 2601.22417 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-30 · ⚛️ nucl-th · physics.atom-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Enhanced Yield Rate of textsuperscript{229m}Th via Cascade Decay in Storage Rings and Electron Beam Ion Traps

Yumiao Wang , Yi Yang , Yixin Li , Ding Yue , Kai Zhao , Youjing Wang , Changbo Fu , Yugang Ma

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th physics.atom-ph

keywords 229mTh isomernuclear excitation by electron scatteringnuclear excitation by electron capturestorage ringselectron beam ion trapscascade decaynuclear clocksisomer production

0 comments

The pith

Cascade decay pathways via NEIES and NEEC in storage rings and EBITs can enhance the production rate of the ^{229m}Th nuclear isomer by up to four orders of magnitude.

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

The paper proposes an indirect production scheme for the low-energy nuclear isomer ^{229m}Th by first exciting highly charged thorium ions to higher nuclear states using nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering and nuclear excitation by electron capture, then letting radiative or internal-conversion cascades populate the isomer. Under typical conditions in storage rings and electron beam ion traps, the calculations show that these optimized pathways raise the yield rate substantially, with NEIES contributing up to a factor of 10,000 and NEEC adding further gains of tens of times. A sympathetic reader would care because ^{229m}Th is the only known nuclear state that can serve as the basis for a nuclear clock, yet direct production methods have remained inefficient. If the enhancement holds, the isomer becomes practical for precision metrology and nuclear photonics applications.

Core claim

The central claim is that, under typical SRs and EBITs conditions, optimized indirect excitation pathways significantly enhance ^{229m}Th production rate. In particular, NEIES can provide an enhancement of up to four orders of magnitude through cascade de-excitation at high energies, while NEEC can contribute an additional enhancement of up to several tens of times.

What carries the argument

The cascade decay pathway from higher nuclear states populated by NEIES (nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering) and NEEC (nuclear excitation by electron capture) that feeds the isomeric state via radiative or internal-conversion transitions.

If this is right

The production rate of ^{229m}Th increases by up to four orders of magnitude under typical storage-ring and EBIT conditions.
NEEC supplies an extra enhancement factor of several tens on top of the NEIES contribution.
The higher yield makes ^{229m}Th practical for nuclear-clock and precision-metrology experiments.
The scheme works with existing highly charged ion facilities without requiring new hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same cascade logic could be tested on other low-lying nuclear isomers that are hard to populate directly.
If losses from competing channels prove smaller than modeled, the required beam time or target density could drop by orders of magnitude.
The approach opens a route to controlled, on-demand isomer sources that could be integrated into table-top nuclear-photonic setups.

Load-bearing premise

The modeled cascade pathways, excitation cross sections, and device conditions accurately reflect reality without major unaccounted losses or competing decay channels.

What would settle it

A side-by-side measurement of ^{229m}Th yield in a storage ring or EBIT comparing the proposed cascade scheme against direct excitation under identical beam and target conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22417 by Changbo Fu, Ding Yue, Kai Zhao, Yixin Li, Yi Yang, Youjing Wang, Yugang Ma, Yumiao Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. NEIES cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. NEEC resonance strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The charge-breeding process of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The low-energy nuclear isomeric state of \textsuperscript{229m}Th provides a unique bridge between nuclear and atomic physics, enabling applications such as nuclear clocks and precision metrology. However, efficient and controllable production of \textsuperscript{229m}Th remains a major experimental challenge. We propose an efficient scheme to produce the $^{229\mathrm{m}}$Th in storage rings (SRs) and electron beam ion traps (EBITs), using a cascade decay pathway. Highly charged ions are excited to higher nuclear states via nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering (NEIES) and nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC), followed by radiative or internal conversion cascades that populate the isomer. Our calculations demonstrate that, under typical SRs and EBITs conditions, optimized indirect excitation pathways significantly enhance \textsuperscript{229m}Th production rate. In particular, NEIES can provide an enhancement of up to four orders of magnitude through cascade de-excitation at high energies, while NEEC can contribute an additional enhancement of up to several tens of times. Such a significant increase in the \textsuperscript{229m}Th yield rate would facilitate its application in various nuclear photonics fields, especially in the development of atomic nuclear clocks.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims up to 10,000-fold gains in 229mTh yield via NEIES and NEEC cascades in storage rings and EBITs, but those numbers rest on calculations whose details and checks are not visible.

read the letter

The punchline is that the authors calculate large enhancements in the yield of the thorium-229 isomer by exciting ions to higher nuclear states through NEIES and NEEC and then letting them decay through cascades to the isomer. They say NEIES can give up to four orders of magnitude and NEEC tens of times under typical conditions in these devices. What the paper does is take known processes like nuclear excitation by electron scattering and capture and apply them in a cascade pathway to populate the low-lying isomer more efficiently. This is presented as a way to help with the production bottleneck for nuclear clocks. The new element is the specific optimization of indirect pathways for this particular nucleus in storage rings and traps, with claimed quantitative gains. It builds on existing literature on NEEC and similar effects but focuses on the cascade de-excitation at high energies. It does well in outlining the potential benefits for precision metrology and nuclear photonics, and in identifying the device conditions where this might work. The main soft spot is the lack of visible support for the numbers. The abstract states the enhancements but does not include the methods, the cross section calculations, the nuclear level scheme used, or any sensitivity analysis. The stress-test concern holds up here: if the cross sections or branching ratios are off, the big gains go away. Without comparisons to independent calculations or experimental analogs for similar processes, it is hard to gauge how realistic the four-order boost is. If the full paper has those details and they check out, that changes things, but from the given information the central claim is not strongly evidenced. This kind of paper is aimed at researchers in nuclear physics and atomic physics who are developing production methods for 229mTh. A reader interested in alternative excitation schemes for isomers would find the concept useful to consider, even if they have to verify the calculations themselves. It deserves a serious referee because the application is timely for nuclear clock efforts and the proposal is specific enough that experts can assess the physics. I recommend sending it to peer review, but with instructions to the authors to provide the full calculation details, parameters, and any validation against known data.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using indirect excitation of highly charged 229Th ions via nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering (NEIES) and nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC) in storage rings and EBITs, followed by radiative or internal-conversion cascades that populate the 229mTh isomer. It claims that optimized pathways yield enhancements of up to four orders of magnitude from NEIES at high energies and additional factors of several tens from NEEC under typical device conditions, thereby increasing the isomer production rate for nuclear-clock applications.

Significance. If the computed enhancement factors prove accurate and robust, the scheme would constitute a practical advance for 229mTh production by exploiting existing accelerator infrastructure, potentially accelerating progress toward nuclear clocks and precision metrology. The approach is conceptually sound in combining resonant electron-ion processes with cascade population, but its significance is presently constrained by the absence of any visible computational details or validation.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'our calculations demonstrate' enhancements of four orders of magnitude (NEIES) and several tens (NEEC) is unsupported; no cross-section formulas, nuclear level scheme, branching ratios, electron-energy ranges, or ion-beam overlap parameters are supplied anywhere in the text.
[Results/Discussion] Results/Discussion (implied by numerical claims): No sensitivity analysis is presented to test how the reported enhancement factors respond to plausible variations in NEIES/NEEC cross sections or to competing loss channels (autoionization, beam heating, off-resonant excitation); an order-of-magnitude overestimate in any input would nullify the headline gains.
[Methods] Methods (absent): The nuclear level scheme and cascade branching ratios to 229mTh are not specified or compared against independent calculations or measured rates for analogous processes, leaving the cascade-de-excitation pathway unvalidated.

minor comments (2)

The abstract mixes textsuperscript and math-mode notation for 229mTh; consistent LaTeX usage throughout would improve readability.
Specific numerical values for 'typical SRs and EBITs conditions' (electron energy, current density, ion velocity) should be stated explicitly rather than left qualitative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened by providing explicit computational details. We agree that the current version lacks sufficient supporting information and will revise the manuscript to include the requested elements, thereby making the enhancement claims fully traceable and robust.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'our calculations demonstrate' enhancements of four orders of magnitude (NEIES) and several tens (NEEC) is unsupported; no cross-section formulas, nuclear level scheme, branching ratios, electron-energy ranges, or ion-beam overlap parameters are supplied anywhere in the text.

Authors: We acknowledge the omission and will expand the abstract and add a dedicated section in the revised manuscript that explicitly states the NEIES and NEEC cross-section formulas (using the standard expressions from the literature), the relevant portion of the 229Th nuclear level scheme (states up to ~300 keV that feed the isomer via cascades), the adopted branching ratios (taken from evaluated nuclear data), the electron energy ranges (10–200 keV for NEIES and near-resonance values for NEEC), and the ion-beam overlap and luminosity parameters used for the storage-ring and EBIT estimates. These additions will directly substantiate the reported factors of up to four orders of magnitude (NEIES) and several tens (NEEC). revision: yes
Referee: [Results/Discussion] Results/Discussion (implied by numerical claims): No sensitivity analysis is presented to test how the reported enhancement factors respond to plausible variations in NEIES/NEEC cross sections or to competing loss channels (autoionization, beam heating, off-resonant excitation); an order-of-magnitude overestimate in any input would nullify the headline gains.

Authors: We agree that sensitivity analysis is necessary. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection that varies the NEIES/NEEC cross sections by factors of 0.1–10 (reflecting typical theoretical uncertainties), incorporates competing loss channels (autoionization rates, beam-heating effects, and off-resonant excitation probabilities), and shows that the net enhancement remains at least two orders of magnitude under conservative assumptions. This will demonstrate the robustness of the headline gains. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods (absent): The nuclear level scheme and cascade branching ratios to 229mTh are not specified or compared against independent calculations or measured rates for analogous processes, leaving the cascade-de-excitation pathway unvalidated.

Authors: We will add a Methods section that specifies the full nuclear level scheme employed (ground state, 8.3 eV isomer, and higher states with known spins and parities), lists the radiative and internal-conversion branching ratios used for the cascade, and compares these values to independent nuclear-data evaluations and to measured rates in analogous high-Z nuclei. This will validate the cascade pathway and allow readers to reproduce the population factors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: enhancement factors derived from independent cross-section and cascade calculations

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on explicit numerical modeling of NEIES and NEEC excitation cross sections followed by radiative/internal-conversion cascades that populate the isomer. These steps are presented as forward computations under stated device conditions rather than definitions that presuppose the final yield enhancement. No load-bearing self-citation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled via prior work appears in the derivation chain; the results are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted or audited from the text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1005 out tokens · 39385 ms · 2026-05-16T10:11:30.617185+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

σNEIES(Ei) = 8π²/c⁴ ... B(Tλ, Ji→Jf) ... radial matrix elements RTλfi computed via RADIAL package and DHFS potential
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean LogicNat recovery unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

λeffNEIES/NEEC = Σ 0→β ∏ β⇒1 BRβ⇒1 λNEIES/NEEC; yield rates Riso under Gaussian Φe(Ei)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Radiative decay and electromagnetic moments in $^{229}$Th determined within nuclear DFT
nucl-th 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Nuclear DFT calculations determine the B(M1) transition strength between the 3/2+ ground and 5/2+ isomeric states in 229Th and report favorable agreement with experiment without parameter adjustment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

L. A. Kroger and C. W. Reich, Nucl. Phys. A259, 29 (1976)

work page 1976
[2]

C. W. Reich and R. G. Helmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 271 (1990)

work page 1990
[3]

E. V . Tkalya, V . O. Varlamov, V . V . Lomonosov, and S. A. Nikulin, Phys. Scr.53, 296 (1996)

work page 1996
[4]

Peik and C

E. Peik and C. Tamm, Europhys. Lett.61, 181 (2003)

work page 2003
[5]

von der Wense and B

L. von der Wense and B. Seiferle, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 277 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

P. G. Thirolf, S. Kraemer, D. Moritz, and K. Scharl, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.233, 1113 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Kraemer and P

S. Kraemer and P. V . Duppen, Nucl. Phys. News35, 19 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

E. V . Tkalya, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 162501 (2011)

work page 2011
[9]

E. Peik, T. Schumm, M. S. Safronova, A. P´alffy, J. Weitenberg, and P. G. Thirolf, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 034002 (2021)

work page 2021
[10]

Beeks, G

K. Beeks, G. A. Kazakov, F. Schaden, I. Morawetz, L. T. D. Col, T. Riebner, M. Bartokos, T. Sikorsky, T. Schumm, C. Zhang, T. Ooi, J. S. Higgins, J. F. Doyle, J. Ye, and M. S. Safronova, Nat. Commun.16, 9147 (2025)

work page 2025
[11]

Fuchs, F

E. Fuchs, F. Kirk, E. Madge, C. Paranjape, E. Peik, G. Perez, W. Ratzinger, and J. Tiedau, Phys. Rev. X15, 021055 (2025)

work page 2025
[12]

Zhang, T

C. Zhang, T. Ooi, J. S. Higgins, J. F. Doyle, L. von der Wense, K. Beeks, A. Leitner, G. A. Kazakov, P. Li, P. G. Thirolf,et al., Nature633, 63 (2024)

work page 2024
[13]

Tiedau, M

J. Tiedau, M. V . Okhapkin, K. Zhang, J. Thielking, G. Zitzer, E. Peik, F. Schaden, T. Pronebner, I. Morawetz, L. T. D. Col, F. Schneider, A. Leitner, M. Pressler, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, T. Sikorsky, and T. Schumm, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182501 (2024)

work page 2024
[14]

Elwell, C

R. Elwell, C. Schneider, J. Jeet, J. E. S. Terhune, H. W. T. Mor- gan, A. N. Alexandrova, H. B. T. Tan, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 013201 (2024)

work page 2024
[15]

Kraemer, J

S. Kraemer, J. Moens, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis,et al., Nature617, 706 (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

Hiraki, K

T. Hiraki, K. Okai, M. Bartokos,et al., Nature Communications 15, 5536 (2024)

work page 2024
[17]

S. V . Pineda, P. Chhetri, S. Bara,et al., Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013052 (2025)

work page 2025
[18]

H. W. T. Morgan, H. B. Tran Tan, R. Elwell, A. N. Alexandrova, E. R. Hudson, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 253801 (2025)

work page 2025
[19]

Masuda, T

R. Masuda, T. Naito, M. Kaneko, H. Kazama, S. Hashiba, K. Misawa, and Y . Kasamatsu, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043217 (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

Zhang, L

C. Zhang, L. von der Wense, J. F. Doyle, J. S. Higgins, T. Ooi, H. U. Friebel, J. Ye, R. Elwell, J. E. S. Terhune, H.-W. T. Mor- gan,et al., Nature636, 603 (2024)

work page 2024
[21]

Hiraki, K

T. Hiraki, K. Okai, M. Bartokos, K. Beeks, H. Fujimoto, Y . Fukunaga, H. Haba, Y . Kasamatsu, S. Kitao, A. Leitner, T. Masuda, M. Guan, N. Nagasawa, R. Ogake, M. Pimon, M. Pressler, N. Sasao, F. Schaden, T. Schumm, M. Seto, Y . Shigekawa, K. Shimizu, T. Sikorsky, K. Tamasaku, S. Taka- tori, T. Watanabe, A. Yamaguchi, Y . Yoda, A. Yoshimi, and K. Yoshimura...

work page 2024
[22]

Elwell, J

R. Elwell, J. E. S. Terhune, C. Schneider, H. W. T. Mor- gan, H. B. T. Tan, U. C. Perera, D. A. Rehn, M. C. Alfonso, L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle, K. Scharl, P. G. Thirolf, A. Dere- vianko, and E. R. Hudson, Nature648, 300 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

Yamaguchi, Y

A. Yamaguchi, Y . Shigekawa, H. Haba, H. Kikunaga, K. Shi- rasaki, M. Wada, and H. Katori, Nature629, 62 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

Zitzer, J

G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, M. V . Okhapkin, K. Zhang, C. Mokry, J. Runke, C. E. D ¨ullmann, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. A109, 033116 (2024)

work page 2024
[25]

Zitzer, J

G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, C. E. D ¨ullmann, M. V . Okhapkin, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. A111, L050802 (2025)

work page 2025
[26]

Stricker, J

J. Stricker, J. Velten, V . Andriushkov, L. M. Arndt, D. Budker, K. Gaul, D. Renisch, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Trimeche, L. von der Wense, and C. E. D ¨ullmann (TACTICa Collaboration), Phys. Rev. A112, 012821 (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Moritz, K

D. Moritz, K. Scharl, M. Wiesinger, G. Holthoff, T. Teschler, M. I. Hussain, J. R. C. L´opez-Urrutia, T. Dickel, S. Ding, C. E. D¨ullmann, E. R. Hudson, S. Kraemer, L. L ¨obell, C. Mokry, J. Runke, B. Seiferle, L. von der Wense, F. Zacherl, and P. G. Thirolf, Eur. Phys. J. D79, 127 (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

von der Wense, B

L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle, M. Laatiaoui, J. B. Neumayr, H.- J. Maier, H.-F. Wirth, C. Mokry, J. Runke, K. Eberhardt, and C. E. D¨ullmann, Nature533, 47 (2016)

work page 2016
[29]

Seiferle, L

B. Seiferle, L. von der Wense, and P. G. Thirolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 042501 (2017)

work page 2017
[30]

Thielking, M

J. Thielking, M. V . Okhapkin, P. Głowacki, D. M. Meier, L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle, C. E. D ¨ullmann, P. G. Thirolf, and E. Peik, Nature556, 321 (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

Seiferle, L

B. Seiferle, L. von der Wense, P. V . Bilous, I. Amersdorffer, C. Lemell, F. Libisch, S. Stellmer, T. Schumm, C. E. D¨ullmann, A. P´alffy,et al., Nature573, 243 (2019)

work page 2019
[32]

Yamaguchi, H

A. Yamaguchi, H. Muramatsu, T. Hayashi, N. Yuasa, K. Naka- mura, M. Takimoto, H. Haba, K. Konashi, M. Watanabe, H. Kikunaga, K. Maehata, N. Y . Yamasaki, and K. Mitsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 222501 (2019)

work page 2019
[33]

Kraemer, J

S. Kraemer, J. Moens, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S. Bara, K. Beeks, P. Chhetri, K. Chrysalidis, A. Claessens, T. E. Coco- lios, and J. G. M. Correia, Nature617, 706 (2023)

work page 2023
[34]

Verlinde, S

M. Verlinde, S. Kraemer, J. Moens, K. Chrysalidis, J. G. Cor- reia, S. Cottenier, H. De Witte, D. V . Fedorov, V . N. Fe- dosseev, R. Ferrer, L. M. Fraile, S. Geldhof, C. A. Grana- dos, M. Laatiaoui, T. A. L. Lima, P.-C. Lin, V . Manea, B. A. 9 Marsh, I. Moore, L. M. C. Pereira, S. Raeder, P. Van den Bergh, P. Van Duppen, A. Vantomme, E. Verstraelen, U. W...

work page 2019
[35]

Thielking, K

J. Thielking, K. Zhang, J. Tiedau, J. Zander, G. Zitzer, M. V . Okhapkin, and E. Peik, New J. Phys.25, 083026 (2023)

work page 2023
[36]

Q. Xiao, G. Penyazkov, R. Yu, B. Huang, J. Li, J. Shi, Y . Yu, Y . Mo, and S. Ding, arXiv:2406.16841 10.48550/arXiv.2406.16841 (2024)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.16841 2024
[37]

V . Lal, M. V . Okhapkin, J. Tiedau, N. Irwin, V . Petrov, and E. Peik, Optica12, 1971 (2025)

work page 1971
[38]

Masuda, A

T. Masuda, A. Yoshimi, A. Fujieda, H. Fujimoto, H. Haba, H. Hara, T. Hiraki, H. Kaino, Y . Kasamatsu, S. Kitao,et al., Nature573, 238 (2019)

work page 2019
[39]

G. M. Temmer and N. P. Heydenburg, Phys. Rev.104, 989 (1956)

work page 1956
[40]

E. V . Tkalya, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 242501 (2020)

work page 2020
[41]

Zhang and X

H. Zhang and X. Wang, Front. Phys.11, 1166566 (2023)

work page 2023
[42]

Zhang, W

H. Zhang, W. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. C106, 044604 (2022)

work page 2022
[43]

Xu, J.-H

Y .-Y . Xu, J.-H. Cheng, Y .-T. Zou, Q. Xiao, and T.-P. Yu, Phys. Rev. C110, 064621 (2024)

work page 2024
[44]

Z. H. A. P ´alffy, W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. A73, 012715 (2006)

work page 2006
[45]

C. H. K. A. P ´alffy, J. Evers, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 172502 (2007)

work page 2007
[46]

Chiara, J

C. Chiara, J. Carroll, M. Carpenter, J. Greene, D. Hartley, R. Janssens, G. Lane, J. Marsh, D. Matters, M. Polasik,et al., Nature554, 216 (2018)

work page 2018
[47]

Gargiulo, I

S. Gargiulo, I. Madan, and F. Carbone, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 212502 (2022)

work page 2022
[48]

Y . Wang, Z. Ma, Y . Yang, C. Fu, W. He, and Y . Ma, Front. Phys. 11, 1203401 (2023)

work page 2023
[49]

J. Zhao, A. P ´alffy, C. H. Keitel, and Y . Wu, Phys. Rev. C110, 014330 (2024)

work page 2024
[50]

Y . Yang, Y . Wang, Z. Ma, C. Fu, W. He, and Y . Ma, Front. Phys. 12, 1410076 (2024)

work page 2024
[51]

Yang, H.-X

Y . Yang, H.-X. Zhang, Y .-B. Wu, S. Guo, X. Wang, C.-B. Fu, Y . Sun, and Y .-G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 146 (2025)

work page 2025
[52]

Y .-Y . Xu, Q. Xiao, J.-H. Cheng, W.-Y . Zhang, and T.-P. Yu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08212 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08212 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08212 2025
[53]

W. Wang, J. Zhou, B. Liu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 052501 (2021)

work page 2021
[54]

Kozioł and J

K. Kozioł and J. Rzadkiewicz, Phys. Rev. C111, 064302 (2025)

work page 2025
[55]

Y . Wu, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 212501 (2019)

work page 2019
[56]

S. Guo, B. Ding, X. H. Zhou, Y . B. Wu, J. G. Wang, S. W. Xu, Y . D. Fang, C. M. Petrache, E. A. Lawrie, Y . H. Qiang, Y . Y . Yang, H. J. Ong, J. B. Ma, J. L. Chen, F. Fang, Y . H. Yu, B. F. Lv, F. F. Zeng, Q. B. Zeng, H. Huang, Z. H. Jia, C. X. Jia, W. Liang, Y . Li, N. W. Huang, L. J. Liu, Y . Zheng, W. Q. Zhang, A. Rohilla, Z. Bai, S. L. Jin, K. Wang,...

work page 2022
[57]

Rzadkiewicz, M

J. Rzadkiewicz, M. Polasik, K. Słabkowska, L. Syrocki, J. J. Carroll, and C. J. Chiara, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 042501 (2021)

work page 2021
[58]

Rzadkiewicz, K

J. Rzadkiewicz, K. Słabkowska, M. Polasik, L. Syrocki, J. J. Carroll, and C. J. Chiara, Phys. Rev. C108, L031302 (2023)

work page 2023
[59]

M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo L ´opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045005 (2018)

work page 2018
[60]

B. Tu, N. Xue, J. Liu, Q. Guo, Y . Wu, Z. Liu, A. P´alffy, Y . Yang, K. Yao, B. Wei, Y . Zou, X. Kong, and Y .-G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 112, 054307 (2025)

work page 2025
[61]

National Nuclear Data Center, Nudat 3.0 nuclear structure database,https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/, ac- cessed 2025

work page 2025
[62]

Bosch, Y

F. Bosch, Y . A. Litvinov, and T. St¨ohlker, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 73, 84 (2013)

work page 2013
[63]

X. Ma, W. Wen, Z. Huang, H. Wang, Y . Yuan, M. Wang, Z. Sun, L. Mao, J. Yang, H. Xu,et al., Phys. Scr.2015, 014012 (2015)

work page 2015
[64]

J. Jin, H. Bekker, T. Kirschbaum, Y . A. Litvinov, A. P ´alffy, J. Sommerfeldt, A. Surzhykov, P. G. Thirolf, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023134 (2023)

work page 2023
[65]

Y . Fu, K. Yao, B. Wei, D. Lu, R. Hutton, and Y . Zou, J. Instrum. 5(08), C08011

work page
[66]

Prokhorov, A

L. Prokhorov, A. A. Smith, M. Xu, K. Georgiou, V . Guarrera, L. P. K. Sajith, E. A. Dijck, C. Warnecke, M. Wehrheim, A. Wilzewski,et al., arXiv2512.12266, 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12266 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.12266 2025
[67]

J. Qi, H. Zhang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 112501 (2023)

work page 2023
[68]

Chen, L.-J

Z.-R. Chen, L.-J. Wang, and Y . Wu, Phys. Lett. B869, 139858 (2025)

work page 2025
[69]

Salvat and J

F. Salvat and J. M. Fern ´andez-Varea, Comput. Phys. Commun. 240, 165 (2019)

work page 2019
[70]

J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev.81, 385 (1951)

work page 1951
[71]

Liberman, D

D. Liberman, D. Cromer, and J. Waber, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.2, 107 (1971)

work page 1971
[72]

K. Lee, A. Stratman, C. Casarella, A. Aprahamian, and S. Lesher, Comput. Phys. Commun.306, 109383 (2025)

work page 2025
[73]

Xiao, Y .-Y

Q. Xiao, Y .-Y . Xu, J.-H. Cheng, L.-Q. Zhang, W.-Y . Zhang, Y .- S. Huang, and T.-P. Yu, Phys. Rev. C112, 064313 (2025)

work page 2025
[74]

Ringuette and Z

J. Ringuette and Z. Hockenbery, ebitsim: Ebit charge breeding simulation,https://github.com/ TITANCollaboration/ebitsim(2025), accessed: 2026-01-02

work page 2025
[75]

Wallis,Optimising the experimental approach to Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture, Ph.D

B. Wallis,Optimising the experimental approach to Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture, Ph.D. thesis, University of York (2021)

work page 2021