Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Microscopic calculation of inelastic proton scattering off $^{18}$O, $^{10}$Be, $^{12}$Be, and $^{16}$C for study of neutron excitation in neutron-rich nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Inelastic proton scattering off $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C, computed with a parameter-free microscopic folding model, supports neutron-dominated $2^+_1$ excitations with $M_n/M_p\approx 2$ and $\approx 3$, and implies that standard analyses…

desk verdict A careful no-free-parameter folding study that supports neutron-dominated 2+ excitations in 12Be and 16C and warns that Bernstein-type analyses can underestimate Mn when the neutron transition density has an outer tail; the warning is plausible but rests on AMD radial shapes that the limited-angle data do not independently validate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03293 v1 pith:EUYF2JNF submitted 2019-08-09 nucl-th

Yoshiko Kanada-En'yo , Kazuyuki Ogata This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 25.40.Ep21.60.Gx24.10.Eq27.20.+n
keywords inelasticprotonscatteringneutron-richnucleitransitiondensitycoupled-channelcalculationantisymmetrizedmoleculardynamicsMelbourneg-matrixneutronmatrixelementBernsteinprescription
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how much of the first $2^+$ excitation in the neutron-rich nuclei $^{18}$O, $^{10}$Be, $^{12}$Be, and $^{16}$C is carried by neutrons rather than protons, and whether proton inelastic scattering can see it. The authors compute elastic and inelastic proton scattering with a coupled-channel model that folds the Melbourne $g$-matrix nucleon-nucleon interaction with matter and transition densities from antisymmetrized molecular dynamics, leaving no free reaction parameters. The computed cross sections reproduce measured elastic and inelastic data, and the agreement supports neutron-dominated $2^+_1$ excitations in $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C, with neutron-to-proton transition matrix element ratios $M_n/M_p\approx 2$ and $\approx 3$. They then show that the neutron transition densities in these nuclei have a large-amplitude outer tail that inflates $M_n$ but contributes little to the scattering cross section, so the standard Bernstein-style analysis, which assumes proton and neutron transition densities have the same radial shape, would underestimate the neutron matrix element. If right, the result changes how neutron collectivity should be extracted from hadron scattering data on neutron-rich unstable nuclei.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the system- and energy-dependent sensitivity ratio $b_n^{(p,p')}/b_p^{(p,p')}$, extracted from the linearized relation $\sigma(p,p') = \left| a_n M_n + a_p M_p \right|^2$. The paper obtains the coefficients $a_n$ and $a_p$ by repeating the coupled-channel calculation with the neutron (or proton) transition density scaled by a common factor, then reads off the ratio that controls how strongly the measured cross section constrains the neutron transition matrix element. The argument also depends on the radial shapes of the AMD transition densities: in $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C, $\rho_n^{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ is not proportional to $\rho_p^{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ but has additional amplitude around $r\approx 3$ fm and beyond, which contributes to $M_n$ while contributing only weakly to the cross section.

What would settle it

Compute the $2^+_1$ transition densities of $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C with an ab initio method using chiral $NN+3N$ interactions; if the resulting neutron transition density lacks the pronounced outer-region amplitude relative to the proton part, or if folding those densities with the Melbourne interaction fails to reproduce the measured inelastic cross sections, the claim that $M_n/M_p\approx 2$ and $\approx 3$ and that Bernstein analyses undershoot $M_n$ would be undermined. Alternatively, a new measurement of the inelastic proton cross section for $^{16}$C at $E\approx 50$ MeV/u extending past $\theta_{\mathrm{cm}}\approx 30^{\circ}$ could discriminate between the AMD and collective-model densities because their predicted peak heights differ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the measured inelastic proton scattering cross sections to the $2^+_1$ states of $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C are reproduced by a microscopic coupled-channel calculation that folds the Melbourne $g$-matrix interaction with AMD transition densities, and the agreement supports neutron-to-proton transition matrix element ratios $M_n/M_p\approx 2$ and $\approx 3$ in these nuclei. By artificially scaling the neutron or proton transition density and recomputing the cross sections, the paper derives the sensitivity ratio $b_n^{(p,p')}/b_p^{(p,p')}$ and finds it is about 0.3 smaller than the standard value for $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C, i.e., the cross section is about 15% less sensitive to $M_n$ than assumed in the Bernstein prescription. Because the AMD neutron transition densities in these nuclei have a large-amplitude outer tail that contributes strongly to $M_n$ but only weakly to the scattering cross section, the authors conclude that a Bernstein-style analysis using collective-model transition densities with $\rho_n^{\mathrm{tr}}(r)\propto \rho_p^{\mathrm{tr}}(r)$ would undershoot the neutron matrix element for such exotic systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the AMD calculation gives the correct radial shape of the neutron and proton transition densities, especially the outer-region amplitude of the neutron transition density in $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C; if that radial shape is wrong, the conclusion that Bernstein analyses undershoot $M_n$ does not follow even if the cross sections are reproduced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C, the data are consistent with neutron-dominated $2^+_1$ transitions, $M_n/M_p\approx 2$ and $\approx 3$, reinforcing the picture that the $N=8$ magic number is broken and $sd$-shell neutrons drive the excitation.
  • Bernstein-prescription analyses of inelastic proton data on such neutron-rich nuclei would systematically underestimate $M_n$; e.g., the earlier extraction $B^{(n)}_{\lambda=2}=17$ fm$^4$ for $^{12}$Be lies far below the microscopic value $51.1$ fm$^4$.
  • The parameter-free microscopic folding model can serve as a cross-check for inverse-kinematics reaction analyses of unstable nuclei, avoiding part of the optical-potential uncertainty.
  • Higher-quality differential cross-section data, especially beyond the first peak, can distinguish the AMD transition density from collective-model forms and directly test the predicted reduction in sensitivity to $M_n$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same decoupling between a large outer neutron transition tail and a modest cross-section contribution should occur in other neutron-rich nuclei where valence neutrons occupy radially extended orbits while protons are shell-closed, such as $^{14}$Be or $^{20}$C; testing those cases would show whether the effect is generic.
  • The calculated energy dependence of $b_n/b_p$ (decreasing with energy) could be exploited: if one extracts $M_n$ from data at two beam energies using the Bernstein prescription and the values disagree, that disagreement would be a direct signature of the radial-shape effect reported here.
  • The paper's sensitivity analysis uses cross sections integrated over the measured angular range; examining specific momentum-transfer windows may show even stronger deviations, so reanalyzing existing data bin-by-bin could sharpen the test without new experiments.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents microscopic coupled-channel (MCC) calculations of elastic and inelastic proton scattering to the 2_1^+ states of 18O, 10Be, 12Be, and 16C. The proton-nucleus potentials are obtained by single-folding the Melbourne g-matrix NN interaction with matter and transition densities from antisymmetrized molecular dynamics (AMD), with the Brieva-Rook localization for the exchange terms. The method is first tested on 12C and 16O, then applied to the neutron-rich systems. The calculations are compared with independent data at several incident energies, including inverse-kinematics data for the unstable nuclei. The authors report reasonable reproduction of the cross sections, interpret this as support for the AMD neutron transition densities in 12Be and 16C with Mn/Mp ~ 2 and ~ 3, and analyze the sensitivity of the inelastic cross section to Mn and Mp. They conclude that the outer-tail amplitude of the neutron transition density contributes strongly to Mn but weakly to the cross section, so that Bernstein-type phenomenological analyses may underestimate Mn for such exotic systems.

Significance. The paper is a solid application of a well-established, essentially parameter-free folding reaction model to a set of physically interesting neutron-rich nuclei. The use of microscopic AMD transition densities as inputs, without fitting the scattering data, is a genuine strength, and the comparisons with elastic and inelastic data at multiple energies are informative. If the main quantitative conclusion survives scrutiny, the proposed reduction of the effective b_n/b_p sensitivity for 12Be and 16C would be a useful correction to standard analyses of inelastic hadron scattering from exotic nuclei. However, the central new claim is more fragile than the cross-section reproduction: it depends on the assumed radial shape of the AMD transition densities, on the choice of B(E2) normalization for 16C, and on a prior model ambiguity noted by the authors themselves for 12Be.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV C, Table II, Fig. 12 (16C)] For 16C, the paper adopts the B(E2) value 2.6(9) fm^4 from Ref. [76] and states that the original AMD densities reproduce the experimental B(E2). However, Table II also lists B(E2)=4.15(73) fm^4 from Ref. [13], which is about two standard deviations larger. Since the proton transition density enters the folding potential and sets the overall normalization of the inelastic cross section, and since the claimed Mn/Mp ~ 3 depends on the relative proton and neutron strengths, the analysis should be repeated with the alternative B(E2) normalization, or at least the resulting changes in the cross sections and in the inferred Mn/Mp should be quantified.
  2. [Sec. IV D, Eq. (5), Fig. 13] The central new result, that b_n^{p,p'}/b_p^{p,p'} is reduced by about 15% for 12Be and 16C and that Bernstein-type analyses undershoot Mn, is derived under the explicit assumption that the AMD calculation gives the correct r-dependence of rho_n^tr and rho_p^tr. The inelastic data for 12Be and 16C cover only theta_lab up to about 4.7 and 3.6 degrees, respectively (Figs. 11b and 12b), so they constrain mainly the first diffraction maximum and do not independently validate the outer tail of rho_n^tr that dominates Mn. The robustness of the 15% reduction should be tested, for example by varying the tail amplitude of rho_n^tr while preserving Mn, or by repeating the exercise with an independent structure model. Without such a test, the undershoot conclusion remains plausible but not fully established by the data shown.
  3. [Sec. IV C, paragraph on 12Be neutron transition] The statement that the good reproduction of the inelastic cross sections supports the reliability of the adopted AMD neutron transition density, and hence Mn/Mp ~ 2 for 12Be, is weakened by the authors' own citation of Ref. [11]: an earlier MCC calculation using the same AMD densities favored B(n)_lambda=2 = 37 fm^4, whereas the default AMD value used here is 51.1 fm^4. Both calculations appear to describe the data. A quantitative comparison, for example a chi-square analysis or an estimated band of allowed Mn values, is needed before the 12Be data can be said to select the AMD value.
  4. [Sec. IV D, Eq. (5)] The procedure for extracting the coefficients a_n and a_p is not described in sufficient detail to be reproduced. The text states only that overall factors of rho_n^tr and rho_p^tr are changed and that 'integrated cross sections' are used to reduce the coefficients; it does not specify the angular range or integration used, how the two coefficients are disentangled, or how the complex nature of the reaction amplitudes is handled. Since Eq. (5) is the basis of Fig. 13 and of the final sensitivity claim, these details should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and Sec. III] The caption uses 'AMG+GCM' where 'AMD+GCM' is intended; the same typo appears in the text of Sec. III.
  2. [Sec. IV B] The scaling factor M_p^{exp}(18Ne)/M_n^{cal} is quoted as 1.72, but the Table II central values give sqrt(50/18.6) = 1.64. Please clarify which value of B(n) was used for the scaling.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'reduced from the (p,p') scattering' should read 'deduced from' or 'extracted from'.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Table II] The text says the scaling factors for 10Be are 'listed in Table II', but the table lists B values rather than the ratios M_p^{exp}/M_p^{cal} and M_n^{exp}/M_n^{cal}; including the explicit scaling factors would improve reproducibility.
  5. [References] Reference [34] is missing the beginning of the article title, and some author names in the reference list appear corrupted (e.g., 'Forssn' and 'Navrtil' in Ref. [15]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-section comparisons use AMD transition densities as fixed inputs against independent scattering data, and the Sec. IV D sensitivity analysis is explicitly conditional on an assumed radial shape.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The AMD matter and transition densities are structure-model inputs taken from prior published calculations (Refs. [4,46,47]) and are not fitted to the inelastic proton-scattering data used for validation. Equation (1) rescales the proton transition density to the experimental B(E2), and for 10Be/18O the neutron density is normalized to mirror B(E2) values, but these normalizations are inputs; the calculated cross sections are subsequently compared with external data and could in principle fail. The statement in Sec. IV C that reproduction of the inelastic cross sections supports the adopted neutron transition densities is an inference from agreement with independent data, not an identity. The Sec. IV D sensitivity analysis explicitly assumes ('Here we assume that the AMD calculation gives correct r dependence of rho_n^tr(r) and rho_p^tr(r)') the radial shapes, and then derives smaller b_n/b_p values; this is a conditional model implication, clearly labeled as an assumption, and not a hidden re-import of the conclusion. The limitation that the 12Be and 16C data cover only a narrow forward angular range and that the neutron radial tail is not directly constrained is a correctness and validation concern, not circularity. Self-citations to earlier AMD and CC works supply the structure input, but the central check against scattering data is independent of those citations, so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

The reaction model itself is a concatenation of established ingredients: KMT theory, the Melbourne g-matrix, Brieva-Rook localization, and AMD/GCM densities. The genuinely load-bearing pieces the reader must grant are the radial shape of the AMD transition densities and the assumption that omitting spin-orbit and tensor terms is harmless at these energies. For 18O and 10Be, the transition strengths used as inputs are rescaled to experimental B(E2) and mirror values, so those cases are calibrated rather than predicted.

free parameters (3)
  • Proton transition density scaling factor for 18O, M_p^exp/M_p^cal = 3.88
    Eq. (1) scales the AMD proton transition density to reproduce the experimental B(E2) of 18O; the AMD calculation underestimates the proton excitation.
  • Neutron transition density scaling factor for 18O, M_p^exp(18Ne)/M_n^cal = 1.72
    The default 18O neutron transition density is scaled to the mirror B(E2) of 18Ne; the paper also considers 0.88 times this value.
  • Proton and neutron transition density scaling factors for 10Be = Not quoted; derived from ratios in Table II
    10Be proton and neutron transition densities are renormalized to experimental B(E2) of 10Be and mirror B(E2) of 10C, respectively, as described in Sec. IV C.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kerman-McManus-Thaler multiple scattering theory with resummation factors A/(A-1)
    Used to derive the folding model transition matrix in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Melbourne g-matrix effective NN interaction from the Bonn-B potential is valid for the considered energies
    The central, spin-orbit, and tensor parts of the Melbourne g matrix are assumed to describe nucleon-nucleus scattering at 24 to 135 MeV/u; only the central part is retained.
  • domain assumption Brieva-Rook localization of exchange terms is valid in this energy range
    The simplified single-folding model adopts the BR prescription to localize exchange terms; the paper cites validations for elastic scattering.
  • domain assumption AMD and AMD+GCM wave functions give the correct radial dependence of ground and transition densities, including the outer neutron tail in 12Be and 16C
    Stated explicitly in Sec. IV D: 'we assume that the AMD calculation gives correct r dependence of rho_n^tr and rho_p^tr'. The b_n/b_p result depends on this.
  • domain assumption Mirror symmetry relates 18O/18Ne and 10Be/10C transition strengths
    Used to set default neutron transition strengths for 18O and 10Be in the absence of direct neutron data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic calculation of inelastic proton scattering off $^{18}$O, $^{10}$Be, $^{12}$Be, and $^{16}$C for study of neutron excitation in neutron-rich nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUYF2JNF

@misc{pith2026190803293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic calculation of inelastic proton scattering off $^18$O, $^10$Be, $^12$Be, and $^16$C for study of neutron excitation in neutron-rich nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUYF2JNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03293}
}
abstract

The microscopic coupled-channel calculation of inelastic proton scattering is performed for the study of neutron excitations in $2^+_1$ states of $^{18}$O, $^{10}$Be, $^{12}$Be, and $^{16}$C. Proton-nucleus potentials in the coupled-channel calculation are microscopically derived by folding the Melbourne $g$-matrix $NN$ interaction with matter and transition densities of target nuclei obtained by the structure model calculation of antisymmetrized molecular dynamics. The calculated result reasonably reproduces the elastic and inelastic proton scattering cross sections, and supports the dominant contribution of neutron in the $2^+_1$ excitation of $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C as well as $^{18}$O. Sensitivity of the inelastic scattering cross sections to the neutron transition density is discussed. The exotic feature of the neutron transition density with the amplitude in the outer region in $^{12}$Be and $^{16}$C is focused.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03293 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. In addition to the CC calculation, the one-step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Cross sections of the elastic and inelastic proton scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Neutron and proton densities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Elastic and inelastic form factors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Cross sections of the elastic and inelastic proton scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Cross sections of (a) elastic and (b) inelastic neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Neutron ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Cross sections of the elastic proton scattering off (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Cross sections of the inelastic proton scattering to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (a) Cross sections of the elastic proton scattering off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    H. J. Ong et al. , Phys. Rev. C 78, 014308 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [13]

    Wiedeking et al., Phys

    M. Wiedeking et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 152501 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [11]

    Takashina and Y

    M. Takashina and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 014604 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [1]

    A. M. Bernstein, V. R. Brown and V. A. Madsen, Phys. Lett. 103B, 255 (1981)

    1981

  5. [2]

    Kanada-En’yo and H

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and H. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. C55, 2860 (1997)

    1997

  6. [3]

    Iwasaki et al

    H. Iwasaki et al. , Phys. Lett. B 481, 7 (2000)

    2000

  7. [4]

    Kanada-En’yo, Phys

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 71, 014310 (2005)

    2005

  8. [5]

    Kanada-En’yo, Phys

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 71, 014303 (2005)

    2005

Show all 87 references
  1. [6]

    Sagawa, X

    H. Sagawa, X. R. Zhou, X. Z. Zhang and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 70, 054316 (2004)

    2004

  2. [7]

    Jouanne et al

    C. Jouanne et al. , Phys. Rev. C 72, 014308 (2005)

    2005

  3. [8]

    Takashina, Y

    M. Takashina, Y. Kanada-En’yo and Y. Sakuragi, Phys. Rev. C 71, 054602 (2005)

    2005

  4. [9]

    H. J. Ong et al. , Phys. Rev. C 73, 024610 (2006)

    2006

  5. [10]

    T. J. Burvenich, W. Greiner, L. Guo, P. Klupfel and P. G. Reinhard, J. Phys. G 35, 025103 (2008)

    2008

  6. [12]

    Elekes, N

    Z. Elekes, N. Aoi, Z. Dombradi, Z. Fulop, T. Motobayashi and H. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. C 78, 027301 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, Z. X. Li, Z. P. Li and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024306 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Forssn, R

    C. Forssn, R. Roth and P. Navrtil, J. Phys. G 40, 055105 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    A. M. Bernstein, V. R. Brown and V. A. Madsen, Phys. Lett. 71B, 48 (1977)

    1977

  10. [17]

    Iversen et al

    S. Iversen et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 17 (1978)

    1978

  11. [18]

    Grabmayr, J

    P. Grabmayr, J. Rapaport and R. W. Finlay, Nucl. Phys. A 350, 167 (1980)

    1980

  12. [19]

    Kelly et al

    J. Kelly et al. , Phys. Lett. 169B, 157 (1986)

    1986

  13. [20]

    A. M. Bernstein, V. R. Brown and V. A. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 425 (1979)

    1979

  14. [21]

    Khan et al

    E. Khan et al. , Phys. Lett. B 490, 45 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    J. K. Jewell et al. , Phys. Lett. B 454, 181 (1999)

    1999

  16. [23]

    Khan et al

    E. Khan et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 694, 103 (2001)

    2001

  17. [24]

    Scheit et al

    H. Scheit et al. , Phys. Rev. C 63, 014604 (2000)

    2000

  18. [25]

    Becheva et al

    E. Becheva et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 012501 (2006)

    2006

  19. [26]

    C. M. Campbell et al. , Phys. Lett. B 652, 169 (2007)

    2007

  20. [27]

    Elekes et al

    Z. Elekes et al. , Phys. Rev. C 79, 011302(R) (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Aoi et al

    N. Aoi et al. , Phys. Lett. B 692, 302 (2010). 12

    2010

  22. [29]

    Michimasa et al

    S. Michimasa et al. , Phys. Rev. C 89, 054307 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    L. A. Riley et al. , Phys. Rev. C 90, 011305(R) (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    Corsi et al

    A. Corsi et al. , Phys. Lett. B 743, 451 (2015)

    2015

  25. [32]

    M. L. Corts et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, no. 4, 044315 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    K. Amos, P. J. Dortmans, H. V. von Geramb, S. Karataglidis, and J. Raynal, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 25, 275 (2000)

    2000

  27. [34]

    Karataglidis, Y

    S. Karataglidis, Y. J. Kim and K. Amos, light mass exotic nuclei,” Nucl. Phys. A 793, 40 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.06.006

    2007 doi

  28. [35]

    Minomo, K

    K. Minomo, K. Ogata, M. Kohno, Y. R. Shimizu and M. Yahiro, J. Phys. G 37, 085011 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Toyokawa, K

    M. Toyokawa, K. Minomo, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 88, 054602 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Toyokawa, M

    M. Toyokawa, M. Yahiro, T. Matsumoto, K. Minomo, K. Ogata and M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. C 92, no. 2, 024618 (2015) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 96, 059905(E) (2017)]

    2015

  31. [38]

    Minomo, K

    K. Minomo, K. Washiyama and K. Ogata, arXiv:1712.10121 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    Egashira, K

    K. Egashira, K. Minomo, M. Toyokawa, T. Matsumoto and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 89, 064611 (2014)

    2014

  33. [40]

    Minomo and K

    K. Minomo and K. Ogata, Phys. Rev. C 93, 051601(R) (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    Kanada-En’yo and K

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and K. Ogata, Phys. Rev. C 99, no. 6, 064601 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    Kanada-En’yo and K

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and K. Ogata, Phys. Rev. C 99, no. 6, 064608 (2019)

    2019

  36. [43]

    Kanada-En’yo, H

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, H. Horiuchi and A. Ono, Phys. Rev. C 52, 628 (1995)

    1995

  37. [44]

    Kanada-En’yo and H

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and H. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. C 52, 647 (1995)

    1995

  38. [45]

    Kanada-En’yo, M

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, M. Kimura and A. Ono, PTEP 2012 01A202 (2012)

    2012

  39. [46]

    Kanada-En’yo, H

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, H. Horiuchi and A. Dote, Phys. Rev. C 60, 064304 (1999)

    1999

  40. [47]

    Kanada-En’yo and H

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and H. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. C 68, 014319 (2003). [nucl-th/0301059]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Kanada-En’yo and Y

    Y. Kanada-En’yo and Y. Shikata, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014301 (2019)

    2019

  42. [49]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and Ch. Elster, Phys. Reports 149, 1 (1987)

    1987

  43. [50]

    F. A. Brieva and J. R. Rook, Nucl. Phys. A 291, 299 (1977)

    1977

  44. [51]

    F. A. Brieva and J. R. Rook, Nucl. Phys. A 291, 317 (1977)

    1977

  45. [52]

    F. A. Brieva and J. R. Rook, Nucl. Phys. A 297, 206 (1978)

    1978

  46. [53]

    Haider, Syed Rafi, J

    W. Haider, Syed Rafi, J. R. Rook, and Y. K. Gambhir, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054615 (2016)

    2016

  47. [54]

    Hagino, T

    K. Hagino, T. Takehi, and N. Takigawa, Phys. Rev. C 74, 037601 (2006)

    2006

  48. [55]

    Kamimura, Nucl

    M. Kamimura, Nucl. Phys. A 351, 456 (1981)

    1981

  49. [56]

    J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeune and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 16, 80 (1977)

    1977

  50. [57]

    Matsumoto, D

    T. Matsumoto, D. Ichinkhorloo, Y. Hirabayashi, K. Kat¯ o, and S. Chiba, Phys. Rev. C83, 064611 (2011)

    2011

  51. [58]

    Ichinkhorloo, Y

    D. Ichinkhorloo, Y. Hirabayashi, K. Kat¯ o, M. Aikawa, T. Matsumoto, and S. Chiba, Phys. Rev. C 86, 064604 (2012)

    2012

  52. [59]

    H. Guo, Y. Watanabe, T. Matsumoto, K. Nagaoka, K. Ogata, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034602 (2019)

    2019

  53. [60]

    Matsumoto, J

    T. Matsumoto, J. Tanaka, and K. Ogata, arXiv:1711.07209 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Kanada-En’yo, Phys

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5291 (1998)

    1998

  55. [62]

    Kanada-En’yo, Prog

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117, 655 (2007) Erratum: [Prog. Theor. Phys. 121, 895 (2009)]

    2007

  56. [63]

    Kanada-En’yo, Phys

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054307 (2016)

    2016

  57. [64]

    Kanada-En’yo, Phys

    Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. C 96, no. 3, 034306 (2017)

    2017

  58. [65]

    Fabrici, S

    E. Fabrici, S. Micheletti, M. Pignanelli, F. G. Resmini, R. De Leo, G. D’Erasmo and A. Pantaleo, Phys. Rev. C 21, 844 (1980)

    1980

  59. [66]

    Pignanelli, S

    M. Pignanelli, S. Micheletti, R. De Leo, S. Brandenburg and M. N. Harakeh, Phys. Rev. C 33, 40 (1986)

    1986

  60. [67]

    Bauhoff et al

    W. Bauhoff et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 410, 180 (1983)

    1983

  61. [68]

    Kato et al

    S. Kato et al. , Phys. Rev. C 31, 1616 (1985)

    1985

  62. [69]

    Kato et al

    S. Kato et al. , Nuclear Instruments and Methods 169, 589 (1980)

    1980

  63. [70]

    Kelly et al

    J. Kelly et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 2012 (1980)

    1980

  64. [71]

    Ohnuma et al

    H. Ohnuma et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 514, 273 (1990)

    1990

  65. [72]

    D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller and C. M. Cheves, Nucl. Phys. A 564, 1 (1993)

    1993

  66. [73]

    D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller, C. M. Cheves and R. M. Chasteler, Nucl. Phys. A 595, 1 (1995)

    1995

  67. [74]

    D. R. Tilley, J. H. Kelley, J. L. Godwin, D. J. Millener, J. E. Purcell, C. G. Sheu and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A 745, 155 (2004)

    2004

  68. [75]

    J. H. Kelley, J. E. Purcell and C. G. Sheu, Nucl. Phys. A 968, 71 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    B. E. Norum et al. , Phys. Rev. C 25, 1778 (1982)

    1982

  70. [78]

    J. L. Escudie, R. Lombard, M. Pignanelli, F. Resmini and A. Tarrats, Phys. Rev. C 10, 1645 (1974) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 11, 639 (1975)]

    1974

  71. [79]

    M. D. Cortina-Gil et al. , Phys. Lett. B 401, 9 (1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    A. A. Korsheninnikov et al., Phys. Lett. B343, 53 (1995)

    1995

  73. [81]

    Grassi et al

    L. Grassi et al. , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 381, 012088 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Suzuki and T

    T. Suzuki and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C 56, 847 (1997)

    1997

  75. [83]

    Navin et al

    A. Navin et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 266 (2000)

    2000

  76. [84]

    S. D. Pain et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 032502 (2006)

    2006

  77. [85]

    Imai et al

    N. Imai et al. , Phys. Lett. B 673, 179 (2009)

    2009

  78. [86]

    Meharchand et al

    R. Meharchand et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 122501 (2012)

    2012

  79. [87]

    A. K. Kerman, H. McManus, and R. M. Thaler, Ann. Phys. 8, 551 (1959). 13 100 101 102 103 104 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (a)10Be(2+ 1) cross section (mb/sr) θ lab (degree) CC:60 MeV/u DWBA Exp:59.2 MeV/u 100 101 102 103 104 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (b)12Be(2+ 1) cross section (mb/sr) θ lab (degree) CC...

    1959

Pith tools

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