Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A future electron–ion collider can act as a rare-isotope source and gamma-spectroscopy laboratory, not just a probe of quark structure.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:04 UTC pith:YALVQJPS

load-bearing objection Clear generator-level proof of principle for rare-isotope reach at the EIC, but the 'robust, calibrated' proxy and the gamma peaks are single-model outputs with no quantitative error analysis. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17860 v2 pith:YALVQJPS submitted 2026-02-19 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Producing and Studying Rare Isotopes in e+A Collisions at the Electron-Ion Collider

Mark Ddamulira , Abhay Deshpande , Mark C. Harvey , Wenliang Li , Niseem Magdy , Brynna Moran , Pawel Nadel-Turonski , Charles Joseph Naim
show 4 more authors
Stacyann Nelson Isaiah Richardson Barak A. Schmookler Oleg B. Tarasov
This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex
keywords electron-ion collisionsrare isotopesnuclear de-excitationgamma-ray spectroscopyintranuclear cascadenuclear evaporationneutron-rich nucleiMonte Carlo simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that electron–nucleus collisions at a future electron–ion collider can do more than dissect quarks: they can produce a diverse set of excited nuclear remnants and turn that production into a spectroscopy tool. Using a staged simulation of hard scattering, partonic energy loss, intranuclear cascade, and statistical de-excitation, it shows that event-by-event fluctuations populate a broad, target-dependent ensemble of remnants in the neutron–proton plane. Because the excited remnant is invisible, the paper identifies two measurable stand-ins — the largest surviving fragment plus the energy of forward-going evaporated neutrons — that together recover the remnant mass across different targets. It also shows that in the nucleus rest frame, photons below about 8 MeV are dominated by discrete de-excitation gamma rays, so energy, not rapidity, is the practical selection handle. If these claims hold, the collider gains a complementary route to exotic nuclei and their gamma fingerprints that existing fixed-target isotope facilities do not offer.

Core claim

The central claim is that after a hard lepton–nucleus scattering, the intranuclear cascade and statistical decay leave a broad, target-dependent ensemble of excited remnants; the largest final residue A′ plus a scaled forward-neutron energy (E_evaporation/110) forms a calibrated proxy for the unobservable remnant mass A∗ across multiple target species. A second claim is that in the nucleus-rest frame, the photon spectrum below roughly 8 MeV is dominated by de-excitation gamma rays with discrete, line-like structures, whereas hard-scattering and cascade photons dominate at higher energies and overlap in pseudorapidity. The paper shows that varying the target systematically shifts the populate

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a staged Monte Carlo simulation that models a virtual-photon interaction, partonic energy loss in the nuclear medium, hadronic transport, and statistical de-excitation. The load-bearing pieces are: (i) a geometric sampling of the target density profile, which seeds event-by-event fluctuations in nucleon removal; (ii) a formation-time parameter (set to 5 fm/c) that controls how many secondary hadronic collisions deposit energy in the remnant; and (iii) the evaporation/fission stage that converts the unseen prefragment into observable cold residues and discrete gamma rays. The specific identity doing the work is the proxy A′ + E_evaporation/110: because each forward-

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions assume that the simulation's de-excitation stage faithfully reproduces how real nuclei evaporate nucleons and emit gamma rays, yet no comparison to experiment or to an independent de-excitation model is given; the paper explicitly leaves formation-time, energy-loss, and de-excitation uncertainties to future work.

What would settle it

Compare the simulated largest-fragment mass distribution and the sub-8 MeV rest-frame gamma spectrum against dedicated electron-scattering data, or rerun the identical kinematics with an independent cascade-plus-evaporation code. If the A′–A∗ correlation washes out, the evaporation-energy proxy loses calibration, or the discrete low-energy gamma lines turn into a smooth background, the central claims fail.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Sweeping target species at fixed beam energy shifts the populated (N, Z) region, so a single collider configuration can map isotopic reach across the nuclear chart.
  • The combined observable A′ plus scaled evaporation-neutron energy gives a system-independent estimate of the remnant mass, enabling event-by-event constraints on excitation and mass loss.
  • De-excitation gamma rays dominate below about 8 MeV in the nucleus rest frame, making energy selection, not rapidity selection, the practical route to nuclear spectroscopy at the collider.
  • At an assumed luminosity of 10^33 cm^-2 s^-1, 10 million inelastic events correspond to roughly 200 seconds of data taking, so high-statistics isotope-yield surveys are feasible.
  • For heavy systems, binary breakup competes with single-residue evaporation and shifts the largest-fragment distribution, so the fission channel must be included and can be exploited for spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proxy and photon spectra are simulation outputs, a near-term cross-check is to apply the same analysis to existing electron–nucleus fixed-target data; agreement there would build confidence before the collider operates.
  • The target-mass scan suggests a controllable neutron-richness dial: heavier neutron-rich targets at the same kinematics should push remnants toward the neutron drip line, potentially reaching nuclei relevant to the astrophysical r-process.
  • If discrete gamma lines can be tagged by selections on the largest fragment, the collider would offer in-flight spectroscopy of short-lived emitters, using the boost to deliver them to forward detectors — a mode fixed-target isotope facilities cannot easily match.
  • The same lepton-tagged event selection could discriminate between cascade models: precise A′ and gamma correlations would constrain formation-time and energy-loss parameters, tightening predictions for dedicated fragmentation facilities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the BeAGLE event generator to simulate electron-nucleus (e+A) collisions at the EIC, and argues that such collisions populate a broad, target-dependent ensemble of excited nuclear remnants (A*, Z*, N*) and their de-excited products (A', Z', N'). The central claims are: (i) the largest final-state residue A', combined with a forward evaporation-energy estimator E_evaporation/110, provides a 'robust, calibrated proxy' for the unmeasured remnant mass A* (Fig. 4); (ii) target choice systematically scans the (N,Z) plane (Fig. 3); and (iii) in the nucleus-rest frame, low-energy photons below ~8 MeV are dominated by de-excitation gamma rays with discrete spectroscopic structures (Fig. 6). The paper is framed as a proof-of-principle simulation study motivating a lepton-tagged rare-isotope and nuclear-spectroscopy program at the EIC.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper identifies a genuinely novel use of the EIC: correlating lepton-tagged initial conditions with rare-isotope production and de-excitation gamma spectra. The proxy construction, if quantitatively validated, would be a practical way to access remnant mass event-by-event using only far-forward detectors. The paper also benefits from using a widely available generator (BeAGLE) with no tuning, and from explicitly recognizing that future work is needed for detector realism and model validation. However, the significance is currently diminished by the lack of quantitative validation: the central correlation is described only visually, no uncertainties are given, and all physics output rests on a single, unvalidated de-excitation model chain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Fig. 4] The central proxy claim — that A' + (E_evaporation/110) is a 'robust, calibrated' estimator of A* — is supported only by visual inspection. No correlation coefficient, residual width, or per-target offset/slope is reported. Because baryon-number conservation guarantees A* ≈ A' + (evaporated nucleons), some correlation is built in; the added value of the E_evaporation term is that it corrects for evaporated-neutron multiplicity, but this calibration depends on FLUKA's neutron evaporation model and on the assumed 110 GeV per-neutron scale. Please report quantitative metrics (e.g., R², RMS residual, per-target intercepts and slopes) and show the residual distribution. Without this, the strongest claim in the Conclusion is not established.
  2. [I. Simulation Model and Conclusion] All central results — the (N*,Z*) reach of Fig. 3, the proxy correlation of Fig. 4, and the discrete gamma structures of Fig. 6 — are generated by a single chain: BeAGLE/FLUKA with default parameters and τ_f = 5 fm/c. The manuscript itself (Conclusion) defers 'rigorously quantifying uncertainties related to formation time, energy loss, and de-excitation models' and proposes a future comparison with INCL-Liège. Since the de-excitation stage is precisely where FLUKA's modeling of neutron separation energies, level densities, and gamma cascades enters, the current results cannot demonstrate robustness outside this one generator. Please provide at least a sensitivity scan on τ_f and a comparison with an independent de-excitation model or existing data for one reference system (e.g., a fixed-target e+A or spallation measurement).
  3. [Figs. 5 and 6] The photon-spectroscopy claim is presented without any uncertainties — no statistical error bars, no systematic variation, and no detector response. Figure 6's 'discrete structures' are generated from FLUKA's internal nuclear-level data after applying generator-level boosts to the nucleus-rest frame; they are not convolved with a realistic forward calorimeter response or with backgrounds from the inclusive sample. The qualitative statement that de-excitation dominates below ~8 MeV may be correct, but the quantitative separation and the spectroscopic interpretation require estimates of resolution, efficiency, and contamination. Please add error bars and either identify the peaks in terms of specific transitions/nuclei or soften the claim to a generator-level expectation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I. Simulation Model] Typo: 'the exited nuclear remnant' should be 'excited nuclear remnant'.
  2. [Results, Fig. 4 caption] The definition of E_evaporation is not precise: is it the total energy of all neutrons within the ZDC acceptance, or only neutrons from the de-excitation stage? Since the ZDC also sees forward neutrons from other sources, please specify the selection used.
  3. [Results, Fig. 6] The y-axis label '(1/Nevent) dN/dEγ' is clear, but the units (MeV^-1) are not stated. Please add units and clarify whether the spectrum is per inelastic event or per accepted event.
  4. [Appendix, Fig. 8] The Case-2 (fission) distribution is shown only for 238U. Given the paper's emphasis on target dependence, a second lighter system would help, but this is not blocking.
  5. [References] The reference list includes several 'accessed' URLs with no access date consistency (some have empty parentheses). Please harmonize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are generator-level closure tests inside an externally developed simulation chain, with acknowledged validation gaps.

full rationale

The paper's central results are all outputs of the externally developed BeAGLE→FLUKA chain (Ref. [45], whose authors do not overlap with the present paper), used with default parameters. The remnant A*, the largest residue A', and the evaporation-neutron energy E_evaporation are independent generator outputs; the proxy A' + E_evaporation/110 is constructed from a known kinematic scale (110 GeV per nucleon) and then compared with A*, so it is a closure/correlation statement rather than a parameter fitted to data and relabeled as prediction. Baryon conservation plus neutron-dominated evaporation explains why the proxy tracks A*, but the paper does not disguise this as an external prediction. The low-energy gamma dominance and discrete structures are likewise FLUKA outputs transformed to the rest frame, not a renamed empirical result. Self-citations (Refs. [10], [13], [50]) are peripheral background—lepton-tagging motivation, drip-line chart, energy-loss model—and are not load-bearing. The main weakness is explicitly acknowledged in the Conclusion: future work must 'rigorously quantify uncertainties related to formation time, energy loss, and de-excitation models' and compare BeAGLE with INCL-Liège. That is a model-validation concern, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited with a quote and equation identity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing input is the BeAGLE/FLUKA modeling chain itself, plus the hand-set formation time and the proxy scaling. All claims are therefore conditional on the fidelity of that generator and on the assumption that Case-1 dominance holds for the studied systems.

free parameters (2)
  • tau_f (formation time) = 5 fm/c
    Chosen by hand, stated as 'consistent with previous BeAGLE studies'; not varied and not justified by direct data. The Conclusion lists formation-time uncertainty quantification as future work.
  • E_evaporation/110 scaling (proxy construction) = 110 GeV
    Not fitted but assumed: forward ZDC energy is interpreted as neutrons each carrying the nominal beam energy per nucleon. The proxy's calibration is validated only within the same model.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption BeAGLE (PYTHIA6 → PyQM → DPMJet → FLUKA) accurately simulates e+A collisions from hard scattering through intranuclear cascade and statistical de-excitation.
    All central distributions are outputs of this single unvalidated chain; the paper includes no comparison to experimental data or alternative models. See Section I.
  • ad hoc to paper Formation time tau_f = 5 fm/c is an appropriate prescription for when hadrons begin interacting inside the nucleus.
    Set by hand with a citation to prior BeAGLE studies; not varied and no sensitivity check is provided, though the Conclusion calls for future uncertainty quantification.
  • domain assumption Evaporation energy measured in the ZDC is dominated by forward neutrons each carrying the nominal 110 GeV per nucleon beam energy.
    The proxy A' + (E_evaporation/110) assumes this conversion; the paper does not validate the ZDC response or the neutron-energy assumption against data or detector simulation (Results, Fig. 4).
  • domain assumption Case-1 (single heavy residue plus evaporated hadrons) is the representative de-excitation channel for the extraction and gamma spectroscopy of the largest residual nucleus.
    The main correlations and gamma analysis focus on Case-1; Case-2 fission is acknowledged but only given in an appendix, so the central proxy and gamma conclusions are built on a selected subset of events.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10704 in / 8478 out tokens · 86024 ms · 2026-08-02T22:04:50.154403+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Electron--Ion Collider (EIC) offers a unique environment to study kinematically controlled lepton--nucleus ($e{+}A$) reactions, where a primary hard scattering is followed by an intranuclear cascade and the subsequent statistical de-excitation of the nuclear remnant. Utilizing the \soft{BeAGLE} model, we demonstrate that event-by-event fluctuations in nucleon removal and energy deposition populate a diverse ensemble of excited remnants. Furthermore, we show that varying the target mass systematically shifts the distribution of these remnants across the $(N, Z)$ plane. Although this excited prefragment remnant is not directly observable, its properties are shown to be strongly correlated with final-state fragments; specifically, the largest nuclear residue and the intensity of evaporation yield serve as effective experimental proxies for event-level remnant characterization. We also evaluate photon observables essential for nuclear spectroscopy. While various photon sources overlap significantly in pseudorapidity, we find that in the nucleus-rest frame, the low-energy spectrum is dominated by de-excitation $\gamma$ rays and exhibits distinct discrete structures. These findings motivate an EIC research program that correlates rare-isotope production and de-excitation radiation with well-defined initial conditions, providing a collider-based approach to nuclear spectroscopy that is complementary to existing fixed-target facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17860 by Abhay Deshpande, Barak A. Schmookler, Brynna Moran, Charles Joseph Naim, Isaiah Richardson, Mark C. Harvey, Mark Ddamulira, Niseem Magdy, Oleg B. Tarasov, Pawel Nadel-Turonski, Stacyann Nelson, Wenliang Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the main reaction stages in electron–nucleus ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Chart of nuclides in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Event-by-event correlations between the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Event-by-event correlations between the excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Inclusive photon kinematics from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Non-boosted photon–energy spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Event-by-event correlations between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

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

55 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Piller, W

    G. Piller, W. Ratzka, and W. Weise, Z. Phys. A352, 427 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    Arneodo, Phys

    M. Arneodo, Phys. Rept.240, 301 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    Cugnon, Nucl

    J. Cugnon, Nucl. Phys. A387, 191C (1982)

    1982

  6. [6]

    Weisskopf, Phys

    V. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev.52, 295 (1937)

    1937

  7. [7]

    R. J. Charity, Phys. Rev. C82, 014610 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    J. P. Bondorf, A. S. Botvina, A. S. Iljinov, I. N. Mishus- tin, and K. Sneppen, Phys. Rept.257, 133 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    P. A. Adderley et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 084802 (2024), arXiv:2408.16880 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Magdy, Phys

    N. Magdy, Phys. Rev. C113, L011901 (2026), arXiv:2506.07426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    H. L. Crawford, K. Fossez, S. K¨ onig, and A. Spyrou, (2023), 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423- 091501, arXiv:2312.09129 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    NuDat 3: Nuclear struc- ture and decay data,

    National Nuclear Data Center, “NuDat 3: Nuclear struc- ture and decay data,”https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nud at3/, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Neufcourt, Y

    L. Neufcourt, Y. Cao, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, and O. B. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. C101, 044307 (2020), arXiv:2001.05924 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Live chart of nu- clides,

    International Atomic Energy Agency, “Live chart of nu- clides,”https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtm l/VChartHTML.html, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Facility for rare isotope beams (frib) at michigan state university,

    Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, “Facility for rare isotope beams (frib) at michigan state university,”https://fr ib.msu.edu/, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Facility for rare isotope beams (frib) — user facility overview,

    U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Nuclear Physics, “Facility for rare isotope beams (frib) — user facility overview,”https://science.osti.gov/np/Faci lities/User-Facilities/FRIB(2025), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    The facil- ity for rare isotope beams after one year of operation,

    U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics, “The facil- ity for rare isotope beams after one year of operation,” https://www.energy.gov/science/np/articles/facil ity-rare-isotope-beams-after-one-year-operation (2023), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2023

  18. [18]

    What is the RIBF?

    RIKEN Nishina Center, “What is the RIBF?”https:// www.nishina.riken.jp/facility/RIBFabout_e.html, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    The ISOLDE radioactive ion beam fa- cility,

    CERN ISOLDE, “The ISOLDE radioactive ion beam fa- cility,”https://isolde.cern/isolde-radioactive-i on-beam-facility(2025), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Experimental setups at ISOLDE,

    CERN ISOLDE, “Experimental setups at ISOLDE,”ht tps://isolde.cern/experimental-setups, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Accelerators at GANIL–SPIRAL2,

    GANIL–SPIRAL2, “Accelerators at GANIL–SPIRAL2,” https://www.ganil-spiral2.eu/scientists/ganil-s piral-2-facilities/accelerators/, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Superconducting fragment separator (super-FRS),

    F AIR/GSI, “Superconducting fragment separator (super-FRS),”https://fair-center.de/user/experi ments/nustar/super-frs, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    NUSTAR: Nuclear structure, astrophysics and reactions,

    F AIR Center, “NUSTAR: Nuclear structure, astrophysics and reactions,”https://fair-center.de/user/experi ments/nustar, accessed 26 Oct 2025. 8 0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 10-1 BeAGLE 18 × 110 (GeV) τ f = 5 (fm/c) EEvaporation (TeV) A* 101 102 103 104 105 106 0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 10-1 BeAGLE 18 × 110 (GeV) τ f = 5 (fm/c) ...

    2025

  24. [24]

    ARIEL — advanced rare isotope laboratory,

    TRIUMF, “ARIEL — advanced rare isotope laboratory,” https://www.triumf.ca/facilities-experiments/ari el/(), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    TIGRESS: TRIUMF-ISAC gamma-ray es- cape suppressed spectrometer,

    TRIUMF, “TIGRESS: TRIUMF-ISAC gamma-ray es- cape suppressed spectrometer,”https://fiveyearpl an.triumf.ca/teams-tools/tigress-triumf-isac-g amma-ray-suppressed-spectrometer/index.html(), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Californium rare isotope breeder upgrade (CARIBU),

    Argonne National Laboratory, “Californium rare isotope breeder upgrade (CARIBU),”https://www.anl.gov/ph y/californium-rare-isotope-breeder-upgrade-car ibu(), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    nuCARIBU beams,

    Argonne National Laboratory, “nuCARIBU beams,”ht tps://www.anl.gov/atlas/nucaribu-beams(), accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Exotic nuclei and beams (IGISOL),

    University of Jyv¨ askyl¨ a, “Exotic nuclei and beams (IGISOL),”https://www.jyu.fi/en/research- gro ups/exotic- nuclei- and- beams- igisol, accessed 26 Oct 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 252302 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    RHIC and the EIC,

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, “RHIC and the EIC,” https://www.bnl.gov/eic/rhic-eic.php, accessed 26 1e-02 1e+00 1e+02 1e+04 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 BeAGLE e + 238U 18 × 110 (GeV) 10-4 Total Case-1 Case-2 (1/Nevent) dN/dA′ A′ FIG. 8. The scaleddN/dA ′ distribution for the two de- excitation mechanisms Case-1 and Case-2 fore+ 238U at 18× 110 GeV withτ f =...

    2025

  31. [31]

    Alarcon et al

    R. Alarcon et al. (CORE), (2022), arXiv:2209.00496 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    C. A. Bertulani, Y. Kucuk, and F. S. Navarra, Nucl. Phys. A1059, 123093 (2025), arXiv:2408.10157 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Kim et al., (2026), arXiv:2602.04636 [nucl-ex]

    J. Kim et al., (2026), arXiv:2602.04636 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Taieb et al., Nucl

    J. Taieb et al., Nucl. Phys. A724, 413 (2003), arXiv:nucl- ex/0302026

    arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    Bernas et al., Nucl

    M. Bernas et al., Nucl. Phys. A725, 213 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0304003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  36. [36]

    Boudard, J

    A. Boudard, J. Cugnon, S. Leray, and C. Volant, Phys. Rev. C66, 044615 (2002)

    2002

  37. [37]

    Boudard, J

    A. Boudard, J. Cugnon, J.-C. David, S. Leray, and D. Mancusi, Phys. Rev. C87, 014606 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, J. Ranft, and S. Roesler, Z. Phys. C70, 413 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9509039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  39. [39]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, J. Ranft, and S. Roesler, Z. Phys. C71, 75 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9603010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  40. [40]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, (2005), 10.2172/877507

    doi:10.2172/877507 2005

  41. [41]

    Ballarini et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci

    F. Ballarini et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.10, 16 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Kelic, M

    A. Kelic, M. V. Ricciardi, and K.-H. Schmidt (2009) ”Joint ICTP-IAEA Advanced Workshop on Model Codes for Spallation Reactions”, arXiv:0906.4193 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Haak et al., Phys

    K. Haak et al., Phys. Rev. C108, 034608 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    P. N. Ostroumov et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 060101 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Accel.Beams 27, 089901 (2024)]

    2024

  45. [45]

    Chang, E.-C

    W. Chang, E.-C. Aschenauer, M. D. Baker, A. Jentsch, J.-H. Lee, Z. Tu, Z. Yin, and L. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 106, 012007 (2022), arXiv:2204.11998 [physics.comp-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  47. [47]

    thesis, Lyon, IPN (2011)

    Dupr´ e, Rapha¨ el, Ph.D. thesis, Lyon, IPN (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D68, 014008 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  49. [49]

    Roesler, R

    S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft (2000) pp. 1033–1038, arXiv:hep-ph/0012252. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [50]

    Arleo, C.-J

    F. Arleo, C.-J. Na ¨ ım, and S. Platchkov, JHEP01, 129 (2019), arXiv:1810.05120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    T. T. B¨ ohlen, F. Cerutti, M. P. W. Chin, A. Fass` o, A. Ferrari, P. G. Ortega, A. Mairani, P. R. Sala, G. Smirnov, and V. Vlachoudis, Nucl. Data Sheets120, 211 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Battistoni et al., Annals Nucl

    G. Battistoni et al., Annals Nucl. Energy82, 10 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    M. R. Whalley, D. Bourilkov, and R. C. Group (2005) pp. 575–581, arXiv:hep-ph/0508110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl- ex/0701025

    arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    The epic collaboration,

    “The epic collaboration,”https://www.epic-eic.org/