Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

$^{15}$C inelastic $1/2^+ \rightarrow 5/2^+$ excitation: A single-particle versus a collective process

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CDCC with 15C breakup reproduces elastic scattering but fails the measured 1/2+→5/2+ inelastic angular distribution; the paper argues deuteron breakup, transfer, or core excitation must be added.

desk verdict A solid, honest reanalysis: CDCC with breakup fails on the 15C inelastic channel, but the inert-core assumption leaves the 'why' open. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23291 v1 pith:FGVRZ3DE submitted 2026-07-25 nucl-th nucl-ex

C. Beckman , M. Catacora-Rios , C. Hebborn , F. M. Nunes This is my paper
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords 15ChalonucleusinelasticscatteringCDCCsingle-particleexcitationcollectivemodelbreakupcouplingsBayesianuncertainty
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

15C is a one-neutron halo nucleus whose first excited state sits close to the neutron separation threshold. This paper tests whether the measured excitation of 15C on a deuteron target is a single-particle promotion of the halo neutron or a collective rotation of the whole nucleus. Using a three-body 14C+n+d CDCC model with full couplings to the 15C breakup continuum, the authors find that breakup effects are large and improve the elastic prediction, which the collective DWBA used in the original analysis did not describe well. But the same CDCC calculation, even with Bayesian uncertainties from the n-d interaction, still misses the measured inelastic angular distribution around 40–50 degrees, and so does the collective DWBA. The paper concludes that neither mechanism alone is sufficient and that couplings to deuteron breakup, transfer channels, or excitation of the 14C core are likely needed.

What carries the argument

The three-body 14C+n+d model solved with the Continuum Discretized Coupled Channel method (CDCC), which expands the scattering wave function on bound states of 15C plus energy-bin wave packets representing the n+14C continuum. It carries the argument by letting the halo neutron undergo breakup and re-scattering before the inelastic transition, and by providing a single-particle description of the excitation. Pairwise interactions are constrained by subsystem data, with the n-d interaction calibrated by Bayesian MCMC on p-d data to propagate parametric uncertainties.

What would settle it

A calculation that includes 14C core excitation (e.g., an extended CDCC model) and reproduces the 40–50° peak in the 15C(d,d') inelastic angular distribution would show that the inert-core assumption is the cause. Alternatively, measuring the same 1/2+→5/2+ excitation with a proton target at about 7 A MeV and finding that single-particle CDCC describes it would indicate that deuteron breakup or transfer channels are the missing ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the 15C+d scattering is solved as a three-body 14C+n+d problem with the Continuum Discretized Coupled Channel method, treating the 1/2+→5/2+ excitation as a single-particle transition of the halo neutron and including couplings to breakup states, the elastic angular distribution is reproduced well. The inelastic angular distribution, however, is not: the calculation gets the second minimum right but fails to produce the third peak seen in the data near 40–50 degrees, and the 68% credible interval from n-d interaction uncertainties does not cover the discrepancy. A 1-step DWBA with a collective quadrupole deformation (beta2 = 0.35) fitted to the data reproduces the magnitude at forward a

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that missing reaction mechanisms explain the discrepancy assumes the 14C core is inert; if the first excited states of 14C (just above 6 MeV) couple to the inelastic channel, the single-particle CDCC failure could be due to core excitation rather than to deuteron breakup or transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 15C+d at around 7 A MeV, couplings to the 15C breakup continuum are a necessary ingredient: they shift both elastic and inelastic angular distributions and bring predictions closer to data than bound-state-only calculations.
  • The measured inelastic angular distribution cannot be used to extract a reliable quadrupole deformation for 15C under a simple one-step DWBA, since that model's angular shape does not match the data.
  • A single-particle picture with an inert 14C core is insufficient for this reaction; if the conclusion holds, any future analysis must include at least deuteron breakup or transfer-channel couplings.
  • The n-d interaction uncertainty is not the culprit: the Bayesian 68% band is too narrow to explain the inelastic discrepancy.
  • Testing the same excitation with a proton target would isolate the reaction mechanism from deuteron-induced complications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing mechanism is core excitation, then the valence-neutron ANC product extracted under the inert-core assumption may be biased; an extended CDCC calculation with 14C excited states would be the direct test.
  • The large (d,p) and (d,t) cross sections relative to the inelastic channel suggest that a full four-body treatment (14C+n+n+p) may be necessary to model 15C+d scattering, even for the elastic and inelastic channels.
  • The result generalizes to other one-neutron halo nuclei on deuteron targets: deuteron breakup and transfer couplings should be checked before attributing inelastic data to the projectile's structure.
  • A measurement of the 5/2+ inelastic excitation at more backward angles would discriminate models, since the discrepancy appears in the 40–50° region where data currently exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the measurement of 15C(d,d')15C* at 7.1A MeV by Chen et al., aiming to test whether the 1/2+→5/2+ excitation is better described as a single-particle process than as a collective excitation. The authors use a three-body 14C+n+d CDCC model with the 15C continuum included, calibrate the n-d interaction to p-d data, and propagate its parametric uncertainty through a Bayesian MCMC analysis. They compare the CDCC elastic and inelastic angular distributions with the data and with a collective DWBA (β2=0.35) from the original work. The main result is that CDCC reproduces the elastic angular distribution well, including the minimum near 35°, but fails to reproduce the inelastic angular distribution in the 40–50° region even when n-d parametric uncertainties are included; the collective DWBA also fails the inelastic shape. The paper then investigates the role of breakup couplings, deuteron breakup, transfer couplings, and core excitation, and concludes that the inert-core single-particle model is insufficient and that additional effects may be responsible.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable negative result: it shows that a well-constrained, converged CDCC calculation with a single-particle inert-core structure cannot simultaneously describe elastic and inelastic scattering for this halo nucleus, despite the single-particle picture being natural for a one-neutron halo. The paper is honest about its limitations and does not overclaim: the central claim is that CDCC fails, which is directly supported by the figures and by the stated checks. The Bayesian uncertainty quantification is a strength, as is the explicit exploration of alternative mechanisms. The result should motivate further work with more complete structure models (e.g., XCDCC with core excitation) and four-body reaction frameworks, as well as experiments on proton targets where the reaction mechanism is simpler.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV (final paragraph)] The interpretive claim that 'there are other reaction mechanisms relevant to the process that have not been included in our model space' is not unique, because the CDCC model assumes an inert 14C core. The authors acknowledge that the first excited states of 14C lie just above 6 MeV and are open at this beam energy, but they do not quantify the possible core-excitation contribution. Since the 5/2+ state of 15C can contain 14C(2+)⊗ν components, the inelastic discrepancy could be a structure-model limitation rather than evidence for missing deuteron-breakup or transfer mechanisms. Please either explicitly qualify the conclusion as 'the inert-core single-particle model is insufficient' and list core excitation as an equally plausible source, or provide a rough estimate of the core-excitation coupling (e.g., a simple coupled-channel estimate or an XCDCC test) to support the mechanistic inter
  2. [Sec. II.B (CDCC convergence)] The central negative claim depends on the CDCC calculation being numerically converged. The text states that the model space includes J_max=40, l_max=5, Q=4, and 0.5-MeV bins up to 10 MeV, and states that convergence was reached, but no convergence study is shown. The reader cannot verify that the 40–50° discrepancy is not a truncation artifact. Please include a convergence figure or table for the elastic and inelastic angular distributions, showing the effect of varying J_max, l_max, bin width, and multipole order Q, with particular attention to the angular region of the discrepancy.
  3. [Sec. II.C (uncertainty quantification)] The Bayesian credible interval is computed from the posterior of the two n-d Yukawa parameters, calibrated to p-d data. This interval covers only parametric uncertainty within the assumed functional form; it does not include the model-form uncertainty (e.g., the choice of a single Yukawa form, absence of spin-orbit, energy-independent parameters) or the systematic error in transferring p-d to n-d via isospin symmetry. Thus the statement that the disagreement persists 'even considering the uncertainty resulting from the n-d interaction' should be qualified as 'even considering the parametric n-d uncertainty only.' The authors should state that the shown band is a lower bound on the n-d uncertainty and discuss whether model-form/systematic errors could plausibly affect the 40–50° region.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'explore various the reaction mechanisms' contains a grammar error; it should be 'explore various reaction mechanisms.'
  2. [Eq. (2)] In the continuum expansion, the notation φ_k(r)ψ_k^K(R) uses k both as the continuum momentum label and as a dummy index; the superscript K is not defined at that point. Please clarify the indexing and define K consistently.
  3. [Table I] The n-d interaction row shows blank entries for the spin-orbit and imaginary components. Please explicitly state that the Yukawa n-d interaction has no spin-orbit or imaginary part, to avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. II.B] Please state the energy of the p-d data [19] used for calibrating the n-d interaction and discuss the validity of using an energy-independent Yukawa potential at the 7.1A MeV beam energy.
  5. [Sec. IV (deuteron breakup)] The calculation labeled 15C(d,np)15C treats 15C as an inert spectator in a three-body 15C+n+p model. The text should explicitly state this, so that the comparison in Fig. 5 is clearly between two separate three-body models (15C breakup with inert d, and d breakup with inert 15C), not a simultaneous four-body treatment.
  6. [Sec. V (Conclusions)] The Conclusions list deuteron breakup and transfer couplings as possible effects but omit core excitation, which is discussed in Sec. IV. Please add a sentence noting the inert-core assumption as a possible source of the discrepancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CDCC inelastic prediction is not fitted to the 15C+d data, and the only target-data fit (DWBA beta2=0.35) is explicitly labeled as a comparison curve.

full rationale

The paper's central negative result is that the single-particle CDCC calculation fails to reproduce the measured 15C(d,d') 1/2+ -> 5/2+ inelastic angular distribution. This is a genuine prediction: the inputs (14C-n bound-state interaction, n-d interaction, 14C-d optical potential) are constrained by subsystem data and masses, not by the target 15C+d elastic or inelastic observables. The paper states: 'In contrast, CDCC is a true prediction; it was not fit to either elastic or inelastic data shown in Fig.3.' The 14C-n interaction is adjusted to reproduce the neutron separation energies (1.218 MeV and 0.478 MeV) and its ground-state ANC is compared to an experimental value, which constrains structure but does not force the scattering angular distribution. The n-d interaction is fit to p-d data (with a Bayesian calibration), again not to the 15C data. The only fit to the target inelastic data is the DWBA collective-model curve with beta2=0.35, and the paper explicitly identifies it as such: 'DWBA-β2 calculation was specifically fitted to reproduce the magnitude of the cross section at these angles.' It is used for comparison, not as the paper's prediction. The self-citations (Refs. 22-24) supply Bayesian methodology, an MCMC coverage hyperparameter, and an ANC-constrained prior for the 14C-n interaction; they do not provide the scattering result and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The acknowledged inert-14C assumption in Sec. IV ('The CDCC model considered in this work assumed the 14C is inert...') is a model limitation that could affect the interpretation, but it is a correctness/coverage concern, not a circularity: the paper's derivation does not reduce to its own input. No step was found in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, an ansatz is smuggled through self-citation, or a stated result is equivalent by construction to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a small set of fitted interaction parameters, most calibrated to subsystem data (p-d scattering, 15C separation energies, ANC). No free parameter is fit to the 15C+d elastic/inelastic data; the only such fit shown (beta2) is a comparison curve. The n-d potential is the main quantified uncertainty. Several structural simplifications are explicit: inert 14C core, unity spectroscopic factors, and separate treatment of deuteron breakup and transfer. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • n-d Yukawa depth V = 33.26 MeV (prior center; posterior shifts slightly, see Fig. 2)
    Fitted to p-d elastic data [19] via chi2 in sFRESCO; then Bayesian-calibrated with a 20% Gaussian prior.
  • n-d Yukawa range r_v = 2.708 fm
    Determined in the same p-d fit as V; posterior distribution shown in Fig. 2.
  • 14C-n central depth V = 77.79 MeV
    Adjusted to reproduce the 1.218 MeV neutron separation energy of 15C(g.s.).
  • 14C-n spin-orbit depth V_so = 7.27 MeV
    Adjusted to reproduce the 0.478 MeV separation energy of the 5/2+ state.
  • 14C-n geometry (r_v, a_v, r_so, a_so) = 0.991, 0.51, 1.210, 0.65 fm
    Chosen from systematics/prior constraints; alternative geometries from [23] were tested and had minor effects in the 40-50 degree range.
  • M (model-error inflation factor) = 0.35
    Hyperparameter in the Bayesian likelihood accounting for unmodeled errors; set to give 'good empirical coverage' following Ref. [24].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 15C is represented as an inert 14C core plus one valence neutron (15C = 14C+n); no core degrees of freedom.
    Used in Eq. (1) with H_int = T_r + V_nC; core excitation is acknowledged as beyond scope in Sec. IV.
  • domain assumption The n-d interaction can be inferred from p-d scattering data via isospin symmetry; available n-d data around 7.1 MeV do not constrain the fit.
    Sec. IIB: 'We use p-d data because the available n-d data around 7.1 MeV does not constrain the parameters.'
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic factors for the 1/2+ ground state and 5/2+ first excited state of 15C are set to unity.
    Sec. IIB: 'we assume the spectroscopic factor for both bound states in 15C is unity.'
  • standard math The CDCC model-space truncation (Jmax=40, lmax=5, Emax=10 MeV, Q<=4) yields converged elastic and inelastic cross sections.
    Sec. IIB states convergence is reached; no convergence curves are shown.
  • domain assumption The 14C-d optical potential of Ref. [16], developed for stable nuclei, is applicable to this exotic-nucleus reaction.
    Sec. IIB uses U_dC from Ref. [16]; Sec. III notes the global optical model is not expected to work well on exotic nuclei, yet it is used inside CDCC.
  • domain assumption Deuteron breakup, transfer, and core excitation can be assessed separately rather than included in the coupled-channel space.
    Sec. IV discusses these mechanisms using separate CDCC calculations and published transfer data; no four-body coupled calculation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $^{15}$C inelastic $1/2^+ \rightarrow 5/2^+$ excitation: A single-particle versus a collective process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGVRZ3DE

@misc{pith2026260723291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $^15$C inelastic $1/2^+ \rightarrow 5/2^+$ excitation: A single-particle versus a collective process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGVRZ3DE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23291}
}
abstract

Background: The excitation of one-neutron halo nucleus $^{15}$C from the $1/2^+$ ground state to the $5/2^+$ first excited state was measured at Argonne National Laboratory by impinging $^{15}$C on a deuterated target at $7.1 A$ MeV. This data was then analyzed in the Distorted Wave Born Approximation using a rigid rotor model for the excitation. Purpose: Being a one-neutron halo, we expect a single-particle excitation to better represent the excitation of $^{15}$C rather than a collective process. We expect the breakup of $^{15}$C to influence the reaction mechanisms because of the low one-neutron separation threshold, which is close in energy to $^{15}$C's first excited state. The goal of this work is to explore various the reaction mechanisms to reinterpret the data of Ref.[1] for the inelastic excitation of $^{15}$C. Method: We solve the scattering problem assuming a three-body model $^{14}$C$+n+d$. We use the Continuum Discretized Coupled Channel method (CDCC) and compare the results with those obtained assuming 1-step DWBA with quadrupole deformation, as done in the original experimental analysis. We also use Bayesian uncertainty quantification to estimate the uncertainties in our predictions coming from the $n$-$d$ interaction. Results: We analyze both the elastic and inelastic angular distributions for $^{15}$C(d,d')$^{15}\text{C}^*$ at $7.1 A$ MeV. Our results show that $^{15}$C breakup effects are important. Conclusions: While CDCC predicts the elastic angular distribution correctly, it is not able to fully describe the experimental inelastic angular distribution. We discuss additional effects that may be responsible for the remaining discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The 3-body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The corner plot for the calibration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Calculations of the angular distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: the top panel (a) concerns 15C breakup while the bottom panel (b) concerns deuteron breakup. In the range where this reaction was measured, deuteron breakup has a larger effect on the elastic than 15C breakup. Considering specifically the range where CDCC does not matc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Assessment of the importance of breakup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Chen, B. P. Kay, T. L. Tang, I. A. Tolstukhin, C. R. Hoffman, H. Li, P. Yin, X. Zhao, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, et al., Physical Review C106, 064312 (2022), ISSN 2469- 9985, 2469-9993, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.106.064312

    2022

  2. [2]

    Mottelson, Nuclear Physics A649, 45 (1999), ISSN 0375-9474, giant Resonances, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0375947499000378

    B. Mottelson, Nuclear Physics A649, 45 (1999), ISSN 0375-9474, giant Resonances, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0375947499000378

    1999

  3. [3]

    Verney, Eur

    D. Verney, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 82 (2025), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01545-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01545-1 2025

  4. [4]

    Cline, Annual Review Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence36, 683 (1986), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ns.36.120186.003343

    D. Cline, Annual Review Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence36, 683 (1986), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ns.36.120186.003343

    arXiv 1986

  5. [5]

    Glasmacher, Annual Review Nuclear and Particle Science48, 1 (1998), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.nucl.48.1.1

    T. Glasmacher, Annual Review Nuclear and Particle Science48, 1 (1998), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.nucl.48.1.1

    1998

  6. [6]

    Keeley, J

    N. Keeley, J. Lilley, J. Wei, M. Dasgupta, D. Hinde, J. Leigh, J. Mein, C. Morton, H. Timmers, and N. Row- ley, Nuclear Physics A628, 1 (1998), ISSN 0375- 9474, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947497005976

    1998

  7. [7]

    N. C. Summers and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C70, 011602 (2004), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.70.011602

    2004

  8. [8]

    I. J. Thompson and F. Nunes,Nuclear reactions for astrophysics: principles, calculation and applications of low-energy reactions(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK ; New York, 2009), ISBN 978-0-521-85635-5, oCLC: ocn311769280

    2009

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    F. M. Nunes, Comptes Rendus Physique4, 489 (2003), ISSN 1631-0705, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1631070503000550

    2003

  2. [10]

    Pesudo, M

    V. Pesudo, M. J. G. Borge, A. M. Moro, J. A. Lay, E. N´ acher, J. G´ omez-Camacho, O. Tengblad, L. Acosta, M. Alcorta, M. A. G. Alvarez, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 152502 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.152502

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    A. M. Moro, J. Casal, and M. G´ omez-Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 47 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/ epja/s10050-025-01500-0

    2025

  4. [12]

    Keeley, K

    N. Keeley, K. Kemper, and K. Rusek, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 145 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    N. C. Summers and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C78, 011601 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.78.011601

    2008

  6. [14]

    Austern, Y

    N. Austern, Y. Iseri, M. Kamimura, M. Kawai, G. Raw- itscher, and M. Yahiro, Physics Reports154, 125 (1987), ISSN 0370-1573, URLhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0370157387900949

    1987

  7. [16]

    An and C

    H. An and C. Cai, Physical Review C73, 054605 (2006), ISSN 0556-2813, 1089-490X, URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.73.054605

    2006 doi

  8. [17]

    For then-dinteraction we take a Yukawa form, inspired by Ref

    (1.74±0.11 fm −1). For then-dinteraction we take a Yukawa form, inspired by Ref. [18]. The parameters of this Yukawa interaction were fit onp-ddata [19] using the standardχ 2 minimization procedure insfresco[20]. We usep-ddata because the availablen-ddata around 7.1 MeV [21] d...

    2022

  9. [18]

    McCleskey, A

    M. McCleskey, A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, L. Trache, R. E. Tribble, A. Banu, V. Eremenko, V. Z. Goldberg, Y.- W. Lui, E. McCleskey, B. T. Roeder, et al., Phys. Rev. C89, 044605 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044605

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    L. D. Blokhintsev, V. O. Eremenko, B. F. Irgaziev, and Y. V. Orlov, Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sci- ences: Physics75, 505 (2011), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.3103/S1062873811040095

    2011 doi

  11. [21]

    I. J. Thompson, Comp. Phys. Rep.7(1988)

    1988

  12. [22]

    Schwarz, H

    P. Schwarz, H. Klages, P. Doll, B. Haesner, J. Wilczynski, B. Zeitnitz, and J. Kecskemeti, Nuclear Physics A398, 1 (1983), ISSN 03759474, URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0375947483906450

    1983

  13. [23]

    A. E. Lovell and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C97, 064612 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.97.064612

    2018

  14. [24]

    Catacora-Rios, A

    M. Catacora-Rios, A. E. Lovell, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C108, 024601 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.024601. 7

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    C. D. Pruitt, A. E. Lovell, C. Hebborn, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C110, 064606 (2024), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.064606

    2024 doi

  16. [26]

    Koning and J

    A. Koning and J. Delaroche, Nuclear Physics A713, 231 (2003), ISSN 0375-9474, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0375947402013210

    2003

  17. [27]

    N. J. Upadhyay, A. Deltuva, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C85, 054621 (2012), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.054621

    2012 doi

  18. [28]

    A. M. Moro, F. M. Nunes, and R. C. Johnson, Phys. Rev. C80, 064606 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.064606

    2009 doi

  19. [29]

    Descouvemont, Phys

    P. Descouvemont, Phys. Lett. B772, 1 (2017)

    2017

  20. [30]

    A. H. Wuosmaa, B. B. Back, S. Baker, B. A. Brown, C. M. Deibel, P. Fallon, C. R. Hoffman, B. P. Kay, H. Y. Lee, J. C. Lighthall, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 132501 (2010), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.132501

    2010 doi

  21. [31]

    Jiang, J

    Y. Jiang, J. Chen, B. Kay, C. Hoffman, T. Tang, I. Tolstukhin, M. Xie, J. Li, N. Michel, M. Avila, et al., Physics Letters B868, 139789 (2025), ISSN 0370- 2693, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269325005507

    2025

  22. [32]

    N. C. Summers, F. M. Nunes, and I. J. Thompson, Phys. Rev. C74, 014606 (2006), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.014606. 8

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.