Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Non-mesonic decay of the $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$ via $pd\rightarrow(^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$-$\eta)_{bound}\rightarrow$ $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He} 2\gamma (6\gamma$) reaction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper models the non-mesonic decay of the $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ bound state, computing the relative momentum distribution of the $^{3}\mathrm{He}$-$\eta$ pair and the in-medium branching ratios for $\eta\to 2\gamma$ and…

desk verdict Useful kinematic template for the WASA search, but its central branching ratios are unconstrained products of assumed optical-potential parameters and the FSI factor is asserted, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03429 v2 pith:7Z6N4BUB submitted 2019-08-09 nucl-ex

M. Skurzok , S. Hirenzaki , S. Kinutani , H. Konishi , P. Moskal , O. Rundel This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords mesicnucleinon-mesonicdecayopticalpotentialMonteCarlosimulationseta-mesichelium-3etatotwogammathreeneutralpionsKlein-Gordonequation
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 presents a theoretical model for how a hypothetical $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ nucleus could decay without the $\eta$ being absorbed: the bound $\eta$ decays while still moving inside the nucleus, into two photons or into three neutral pions that then decay to six photons. The authors solve the Klein-Gordon equation with an assumed optical potential between the $\eta$ and the $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ nucleus, obtaining the bound-state wavefunction, the relative $^{3}\mathrm{He}$-$\eta$ momentum distribution, and in-medium branching ratios for the two decay channels. These outputs replace the previous practice of assuming the decaying particle's momentum distribution is the same as the nucleon distribution in the nucleus. The model supplies the kinematic and efficiency template needed to interpret the search for $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ in $pd\to{}^{3}\mathrm{He}2\gamma$ and $pd\to{}^{3}\mathrm{He}6\gamma$ reactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the solution of the Klein-Gordon equation for the $\eta$-$^{3}\mathrm{He}$ bound state, with the optical potential $U_{\mathrm{opt}}(r)=(V_{0}+iW_{0})\rho(r)/\rho_{0}$ encoding the strong interaction between the meson and the nucleus. The complex energy $E_{\mathrm{KG}}$ gives the binding energy and the nuclear absorption width $\Gamma_{\mathrm{abs}}=-2\,\mathrm{Im}(E_{\mathrm{KG}})$, while the Fourier transform of the coordinate-space wavefunction yields the relative momentum-space wavefunction and hence the momentum distribution $|R(p)|^{2}p^{2}$. In-medium branching ratios follow from $\mathrm{BR}^{*}=\Gamma_{\eta\to X}/(\Gamma_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\eta}+\Gamma_{\mathrm{abs}})$, using vacuum partial widths. This machinery converts the assumed potential parameters into the experimentally usable kinematic distributions and decay probabilities.

What would settle it

Measure the $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ recoil momentum spectrum in $pd\to{}^{3}\mathrm{He}2\gamma$ events near the $\eta$ threshold. If the non-mesonic decay mechanism operates, the spectrum should track the narrow $|R(p)|^{2}p^{2}$ distribution computed from the Klein-Gordon wavefunction, not the broader nucleon Fermi distribution; observing a broad nucleon-like spectrum, or no bound-state signal at the predicted binding energies of roughly 4--13~MeV, would falsify the model. Alternatively, extracting the in-medium branching ratio from the $2\gamma$ to $6\gamma$ yield ratio and finding it outside the predicted $2\times10^{-5}$ to $7\times10^{-4}$ range would rule out the assumed potential strengths.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-mesonic decay of the $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ bound state can be modeled by treating the $\eta$ as a particle bound in an optical potential $U_{\mathrm{opt}}(r)=(V_{0}+iW_{0})\rho(r)/\rho_{0}$, with its Fermi momentum obtained from the Fourier transform of the Klein-Gordon wavefunction. For four assumed parameter sets $(V_{0},W_{0})=(-75,-20),(-90,-20),(-75,-1),(-90,-1)$~MeV, the calculation yields binding energies between about 4 and 13~MeV, absorption widths between about 0.8 and 21~MeV, and in-medium branching ratios from about $2\times10^{-5}$ to $7\times10^{-4}$ for both $\eta\to2\gamma$ and $\eta\to3\pi^{0}$. The resulting momentum distribution is generally narrower than the nucleon Fermi distribution in $^{3}\mathrm{He}$, so it changes how simulated events populate the detector. The paper also finds that pion final-state interactions reduce the $3\pi^{0}$ signal by half, and that the geometrical acceptance of the detector is about 60% for the $2\gamma$ channel and 40% for the $6\gamma$ channel. These numbers are offered as the inputs that Monte Carlo simulations of the search reactions need to interpret the experimental data.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation depends on assuming the force between the eta and the helium-3 nucleus has one of four particular strengths, with the weakly absorbing value taken from a different nucleus; no data or uncertainty constrains that force, and every predicted number changes if the true force differs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monte Carlo simulations of the $pd\to{}^{3}\mathrm{He}2\gamma$ and $pd\to{}^{3}\mathrm{He}6\gamma$ searches can now use a bound-$\eta$ momentum distribution derived from the wavefunction instead of the nucleon Fermi distribution, changing the expected $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ recoil spectrum and the detector efficiency.
  • The in-medium branching ratios are suppressed by factors of hundreds to tens of thousands relative to vacuum because the nuclear absorption width dominates the total width, so the non-mesonic channels are rare and observed signals would require sizeable production cross sections.
  • Pion final-state interactions halve the $6\gamma$ signal strength, so analyses of that channel must include the correction when estimating yields.
  • Measuring the binding energy and width from the excitation function, together with the observed $2\gamma$/$6\gamma$ yield ratio, would discriminate among the four assumed optical potential parameter sets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate consequence the authors do not spell out: a null result in the $2\gamma$/$6\gamma$ search cannot by itself exclude an $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ state, because the predicted branching ratios are so small; the same data would need to be reinterpreted with the production cross-section and acceptance folded in.
  • The same Klein-Gordon machinery could be applied to the $\eta$-mesic $^{4}\mathrm{He}$ non-mesonic decay channels, using the density and potential parameters already constrained in the deuteron-deuteron experiments, giving comparable in-medium branching ratios and momentum distributions testable with existing data.
  • Because the predicted $^{3}\mathrm{He}$-$\eta$ momentum distribution is much narrower than the nucleon Fermi distribution for the deeper potentials, the measured $^{3}\mathrm{He}$ recoil momentum spectrum in the $2\gamma$ channel could distinguish $V_{0}=-75$~MeV from $V_{0}=-90$~MeV even with modest statistics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theoretical model for the non-mesonic decay of an η-mesic 3He bound state produced in pd collisions. The authors solve the Klein-Gordon equation with an optical potential U_opt(r) = (V0 + iW0) ρ(r)/ρ0 for four parameter sets, obtaining binding energies, absorption widths, the relative 3He-η momentum distribution, and in-medium branching ratios BR* for η→2γ and η→3π0. They then describe a Monte Carlo framework, using these distributions to estimate WASA-at-COSY detection acceptances for pd→3He2γ and pd→3He6γ. The stated goal is to provide crucial inputs for experimental data interpretation in the search for η-mesic 3He.

Significance. If the computed momentum distributions and in-medium branching ratios were robust, the paper would fill a genuine gap: previous simulations assumed the N* momentum distribution equals the nucleon distribution, while the present model derives the bound η momentum from a quantum mechanical wavefunction. The paper also extends the study of η-mesic decays to the non-mesonic channels, for which the WASA-at-COSY measurement exists. However, the deliverable is a scan over four unconstrained optical-potential parameter sets with no data constraint and no uncertainty quantification; the resulting branching ratios vary by a factor of about 27. The central quantitative claims are therefore only as reliable as the assumed (V0,W0), and the paper does not provide the reader with a preferred set or a procedure to discriminate among them. The manuscript is transparent about the parameter dependence, but it does not currently support the abstract's assertion that these are 'crucial' inputs without qualification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, FSI statement] All quantitative results (binding energy, absorption width, momentum distribution, branching ratios) are obtained by solving Eq. (1) with four hand-picked (V0,W0) sets, no experimental input constrains these parameters for the 3He-η system, and the weakly absorptive value W0=-1 MeV is imported from the 4He-η analysis of Ref. [7]. The resulting BR* values span 2.5e-5 to 6.8e-4 for η→2γ and 2.1e-5 to 5.6e-4 for η→3π0, i.e. a factor of about 27. The abstract presents these as 'crucial' for Monte Carlo simulations and data interpretation without stating which parameter set is preferred or attaching any uncertainty. Since the experimental search itself aims to test the existence and properties of the η-3He bound state, using any one of these unconstrained numbers as a simulation template does not yield robust efficiency estimates or reliable interpretation of a null or positive signal. The authors should either constrain the potential from existing data (e.g. threshold scattering, dd/ pd reactions), or clearly frame the results as an illustrative sensitivity study with explicit caveats and uncertainties.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4) and Table 1] The sentence 'We found that the FSI reduces the strength of the signal to half' is a load-bearing correction to the branching ratios, but no derivation, model, or reference is given. This factor directly multiplies the predicted signal in the Monte Carlo efficiency estimate, so its origin and uncertainty must be documented. If it is a qualitative estimate, that should be stated explicitly; if it is based on a calculation, the calculation should be presented or cited.
  3. [General] Equation (4) uses the in-vacuum partial widths Γ_η→2γ and Γ_η→3π0 in the numerator and only modifies the denominator by adding Γ_abs. Labeling the result as an 'in-medium branching ratio' is misleading if the decay widths themselves are modified in the nuclear medium (e.g. through in-medium η properties or N*(1535) dynamics). The authors should either justify that the in-medium modification of the partial widths is negligible for these channels, or include the modification in the calculation. As written, BR* is a vacuum-branching fraction suppressed by absorption, not a fully in-medium branching ratio.
  4. [General] The manuscript contains no uncertainty estimates, either statistical or systematic, for any of the reported numbers (binding energies, widths, momentum distributions, branching ratios, acceptances). Given that the primary input parameters are unconstrained, the absence of a sensitivity analysis leaves the central deliverable, the Monte Carlo template, without a documented range of validity. At minimum the authors should provide a quantitative statement of how the acceptance and efficiency estimates depend on the parameter set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The notation '-(75,20) MeV' is ambiguous; it should be written as (V0,W0)=(-75,-20) MeV to avoid confusion between the sign of the real and imaginary parts.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (3)] The normalization condition ∫|R(p)|²p²dp=1 is stated, but the figure caption for Fig. 2 does not explicitly state whether the plotted quantity is |R(p)|²p² or |R(p)|²; the text says |R(p)|²p², which is consistent, but the y-axis label '|R(p)|²p² [MeV⁻¹]' is unconventional and should be clarified.
  3. [Section 2.2] The acceptance values (60% and 40%) are quoted without specifying the excess energy Q, the optical-potential parameter set, or the analysis cuts used in the Monte Carlo; these details are needed for reproducibility.
  4. [References] Ref. [17] (A. Fix et al., Phys. Lett. B 772, 663 (2017)) and Ref. [7] (M. Skurzok et al., Phys. Lett. B 772, 663 (2018)) appear to refer to the same volume and page; please verify the citations and ensure they are correctly distinguished.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's results are explicit outputs of a stated Klein-Gordon model with clearly assumed optical-potential parameters, not reductions of the conclusions to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper reports binding energies, absorption widths, relative 3He-eta momentum distributions, and in-medium branching ratios obtained by solving the Klein-Gordon equation, Eq. (1), with the optical potential of Eq. (2). The potential parameters (V0,W0) are explicitly listed in Table 1 as assumed inputs, and the paper does not fit them to the target 3He-eta observables. The branching ratios in Eq. (4) are computed from the independently calculated absorption width Gamma_abs and the known vacuum eta widths; this is a forward model calculation, not a circular definition, because Gamma_abs is not defined or fitted in terms of the in-medium branching ratio. The W0 = -1 MeV choice is imported from Ref. [7], a prior experimental analysis by overlapping authors of the 4He-eta system, but it is used as a physical parameter input for an alternative scenario, not as a self-citation invoked to forbid alternatives or to prove the 3He-eta result. The paper honestly shows four parameter sets and notes that the branching ratios vary by an order of magnitude. This is model-parameter sensitivity and lack of direct empirical constraint, which are legitimate scientific limitations, but they are not circularity: no equation in the chain reduces to its own output, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The Monte Carlo efficiency estimates are also applications of the model, not retrospective justifications of the model's inputs. Under the provided circularity criteria, the derivation chain is self-contained and transparent, so a non-finding is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are not fit to data. They follow from the assumed optical potential parameters (V0,W0) in Table 1, the vacuum eta decay widths from PDG, and the 3He density from Refs. [62,63,64]. The FSI half-reduction factor is an additional stated but unexplained input. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • 3He-eta optical potential real part V0 = -75 MeV and -90 MeV
    Chosen in Table 1; controls binding energy and wavefunction, hence all outputs.
  • 3He-eta optical potential imaginary part W0 = -20 MeV and -1 MeV
    Chosen in Table 1; W0=-1 MeV imported from 4He-eta analysis in Ref. [7], W0=-20 MeV labeled strongly absorptive; directly sets Gamma_abs and BR*.
  • FSI reduction factor = 0.5
    Stated in Section 2.1 without derivation: 'FSI reduces the strength of the signal to half'.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The eta-3He bound state is described by the Klein-Gordon equation with a complex optical potential (Eq. (1)).
    The Klein-Gordon equation is the standard framework for meson-nucleus bound states in this literature, but it is a modeling choice, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The optical potential has the form U_opt(r) = (V0 + i W0) rho(r)/rho0 (Eq. (2)).
    This is a standard t-rho form, but the values of V0 and W0 are assumed, not derived or fit to 3He-eta data.
  • domain assumption The bound eta decays with vacuum partial widths; in-medium branching ratio is BR* = Gamma_decay/(Gamma_tot_eta + Gamma_abs) (Eq. (4)).
    The paper does not model any medium modification of the eta decay width itself; the formula only adds absorption width to the denominator.
  • domain assumption The 3He density distribution rho(r) is taken from Refs. [62,63,64], including a private communication with E. Hiyama.
    The density is an external input; its uncertainty is not discussed, and it enters the optical potential and the nucleon momentum distribution.
  • domain assumption The 3He nucleus acts as a spectator; the eta decays isotropically in its rest frame with momentum drawn from the bound-state wavefunction.
    This is the proposed decay mechanism (Fig. 1), not tested against data in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-mesonic decay of the $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$ via $pd\rightarrow(^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$-$\eta)_{bound}\rightarrow$ $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He} 2\gamma (6\gamma$) reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7Z6N4BUB

@misc{pith2026190803429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-mesonic decay of the $\eta$-mesic $^3\hspace-0.03cm\mboxHe$ via $pd\rightarrow(^3\hspace-0.03cm\mboxHe$-$\eta)_bound\rightarrow$ $^3\hspace-0.03cm\mboxHe 2\gamma (6\gamma$) reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7Z6N4BUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03429}
}
abstract

In this article a theoretical model for the $\eta$-mesic $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$ non-mesonic decay channels is presented. We present the resultant relative momentum distribution of bound $^{3}\hspace{-0.03cm}\mbox{He}$-$\eta$ as well as in-medium branching ratios of $\eta\rightarrow 2\gamma$ and $\eta\rightarrow 3\pi^0$, which are crucial for the Monte Carlo simulations of measured processes and thus for the experimental data interpretation. As an example we also apply the model for the estimation of the detection efficiency of the WASA-at-COSY detector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the 3He-η mesic nucleus production and decay in pd → 3He2γ reaction. the η meson via strong interaction. The bound η meson is orbiting inside the nucleus until it decays into 2γ or 3π 0 , wheres 3π 0 decay almost immediately to 6γ. The 3He nucleus plays the role of a spectator in the decay processes. It is assumed, that the η meson is moving with Fermi momentum inside mesic nucleus before decaying into 2γ … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fermi momentum distribution of the η meson in 3He-η bound system estimated for (V0, W0)=−(75,20) MeV (thick solid line), (V0, W0)=−(75,1) MeV (thick dotted line), (V0, W0)=−(90,20) MeV (thin solid line), and (V0, W0)=−(90,1) MeV (thin dotted line). The distributions are normalized to be 1 in the whole momentum range. We show in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fermi momentum distribution of a nucleon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Skurzok et al

    M. Skurzok et al. , Phys. Lett. B 772, 663 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Danysz and J

    M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, Phil. Mag. 44, 348 (1953)

    work page 1953

  3. [2]

    Choi et al., Phys

    S.-K. Choi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 142001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Aaij, et al., arXiv:1507.03414 (2015)

    R. Aaij, et al., arXiv:1507.03414 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Adlarson, et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson, et al., Phys. Lett. B743, 325 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Adlarson, et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 202301 (2014). 9

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Adlarson, et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 242302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Adlarson et al

    P. Adlarson et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 959, 102-115 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Adlarson et al

    P. Adlarson et al. , Phys. Rev. C 87, 035204 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Y. K. Tanaka et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 202501 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Machner, J

    H. Machner, J. Phys. G 42, 043001 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Metag, M

    V. Metag, M. Nanova and E. Ya. Paryev, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 199 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    S. Bass, P. Moskal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015003 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Ikeno et al

    N. Ikeno et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 53 no.10, 194 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Xie et al., Eur

    J.-J. Xie et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 55 no.1, 6 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    J. J. Xie et al. , Phys. Rev. C 95, 015202 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Fix et al

    A. Fix et al. , Phys. Lett. B 772, 663 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Barnea, B

    N. Barnea, B. Bazak, E. Friedman and A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B 771, 297 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Barnea, E

    N. Barnea, E. Friedman and A. Gal, Nucl. Phys. A 968, 35 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Barnea, E

    N. Barnea, E. Friedman and A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B 747, 345 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Friedman, A

    E. Friedman, A. Gal, J. Mares, Phys. Lett. B 725, 334 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    N. G. Kelkar, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 309 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    N. G. Kelkar et al. , Rept. Progr. Phys. 76, 066301 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    N. G. Kelkar, Acta Phys. Pol. B 46, 113 1 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Wilkin, Acta Phys

    C. Wilkin, Acta Phys. Pol. B 47, 249 (2016). 10

    2016

  18. [26]

    Wilkin, Phys

    C. Wilkin, Phys. Lett. B 654, 92 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    S. D. Bass, A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 634, 368 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    S. D. Bass, A. W. Thomas, Acta Phys. Polon. B 41, 2239 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Hirenzaki and H

    S. Hirenzaki and H. Nagahiro, Acta Phys. Polon. B 45, 619 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Nagahiro, D

    H. Nagahiro, D. Jido and S. Hirenzaki, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025205 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Nagahiro et al

    H. Nagahiro et al. , Phys. Rev. C 87, 045201 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Hirenzaki et al

    S. Hirenzaki et al. , Acta Phys. Polon. B 41, 2211 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Wycech, W

    S. Wycech, W. Krzemien, Acta Phys. Pol. B 45, 745 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Niskanen, Phys

    J. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C 92, 055205 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    R. S. Bhalerao and L. C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 865 (1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Haider, L

    Q. Haider, L. C. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 172, 257 (1986)

    1986

  29. [37]

    Nanova, et al., Eur

    M. Nanova, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 182 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    A. M. Green, J. A. Niskanen, S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C 54, 1970 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    Wilkin, Phys

    C. Wilkin, Phys. Rev. C 47, 938 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    Wycech, A

    S. Wycech, A. M. Green and J. A. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C 52, 544 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    Berger et al

    J. Berger et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 919 (1988)

    1988

  34. [42]

    Mayer et al

    B. Mayer et al. , Phys. Rev. C 53, 2068 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    G. A. Sokol, L. N. Pavlyuchenko, arXiv:nucl-ex/0111020 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Smyrski et al

    J. Smyrski et al. , Phys. Lett. B 649, 258 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Mersmann et al

    T. Mersmann et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 242301 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Budzanowski, et al

    A. Budzanowski, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 79, 012201(R) (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Papenbrock, et al ., Phys

    M. Papenbrock, et al ., Phys. Lett. B 734, 333 (2014). 11

    2014

  40. [48]

    Moskal, J

    P. Moskal, J. Smyrski, Acta Phys. Polon. B 41, 2281 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Haider, L.-C

    Q. Haider, L.-C. Liu, J. Phys. G 37, 125104 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Krusche, C

    B. Krusche, C. Wilkin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 80, 43 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Moskal, Few Body Syst

    P. Moskal, Few Body Syst. 55, 667 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Moskal, Acta Phys

    P. Moskal, Acta Phys. Polon. B 47, 97 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Moskal, M

    P. Moskal, M. Skurzok and W. Krzemien, AIP Conf. Proc. 1753, 030012 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Skurzok et al

    M. Skurzok et al. , Acta Phys. Polon. B 47, 503 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Wilkin, Eur

    C. Wilkin, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 no 6, 114 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Skurzok et al., EPJ Web of Conferences 181, 01014 (2018)

    M. Skurzok et al., EPJ Web of Conferences 181, 01014 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Rundel et al

    O. Rundel et al. , Acta Phys. Polon. B 48, 1807 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Nogga, Ph

    A. Nogga, Ph. D. Thesis, Ruhr Universitat Bochum

  51. [59]

    N. G. Kelkar, D. B. Ferro, P. Moskal, Acta Phys. Pol. B 47, 299 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Wilkin, Acta Phys

    C. Wilkin, Acta Phys. Polon. B 45, 603 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Tanabashi, et al., Phys

    M. Tanabashi, et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Hiyama, B

    E. Hiyama, B. F. Gibson, M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C 70, 031001 (2004)

    2004

  56. [65]

    Adam, et al., arXiv:nucl-ex/0411038

    H.-H. Adam, et al., arXiv:nucl-ex/0411038

    arXiv

  57. [66]

    Skurzok, Ph

    M. Skurzok, Ph. D. Thesis, Jagiellonian University. 12

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.