Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Mirror Symmetry Breaking Disclosed in the Decay of Three-Proton Emitter 20Al

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first observation of the proton-unbound nucleus 20Al, determines its three-proton decay energy as 1.93(+0.11,-0.09) MeV, and argues its ground state has spin-parity 1-, breaking mirror symmetry with its neutron-rich…

desk verdict First data on 20Al as a new 3p emitter, but the mirror-symmetry claim rests on a background subtraction that needs actual significance numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08245 v1 pith:FNZSURFB submitted 2024-12-11 nucl-ex

X.-D. Xu , I. Mukha , J. G. Li , S. M. Wang , L. Acosta , M. Bajzek , E. Casarejos , D. Cortina-Gil
show 20 more authors
J. M. Espino A. Fomichev H. Geissel J. Gomez-Camacho L.V. Grigorenko O. Kiselev A.A. Korsheninnikov D. Kostyleva N. Kurz Yu.A. Litvinov I. Martel C. Nociforo M. Pfutzner C. Rodr{i}guez-Tajes C. Scheidenberger M. Stanoiu K. Suemmerer H. Weick P.J. Woods M.V. Zhukov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 21.10.-k23.50.+z25.60.-t27.30.+n
keywords 20Althree-protonemissionmirrorsymmetrybreakingisospinprotondriplineangularcorrelationsGamowshellmodelsequentialdecay
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 reports the first observation of the previously unknown nucleus $^{20}\mathrm{Al}$, produced in flight as a by-product of a $^{20}\mathrm{Mg}$ secondary-beam experiment and detected through the coincident tracks of its decay products $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}+p+p+p$. From the angular correlations of those four fragments, the authors determine the ground-state three-proton decay energy $Q_{3p}=1.93^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ MeV and show that the decay proceeds sequentially: one proton is emitted first, leaving the two-proton emitter $^{19}\mathrm{Mg}$ in its ground state, which then decays by 2p emission. This is the first observed case of daughter two-proton radioactivity following a parent's 1p decay. The measured decay energy is much lower than predictions inferred from the mirror nucleus $^{20}\mathrm{N}$ by isospin symmetry, and the assigned ground-state spin-parity $1^-$ differs from the $2^-$ of $^{20}\mathrm{N}$, together indicating a large mirror-symmetry breaking corroborated by Gamow Shell Model and Gamow-Coupled-Channel calculations. If correct, the result revises where the proton drip line ends and predicts that the neighbouring isotope $^{21}\mathrm{Si}$ should be a four-proton emitter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-proton angular-correlation variable $\rho_3=\sqrt{\theta_{p_1-^{17}\mathrm{Ne}}^2+\theta_{p_2-^{17}\mathrm{Ne}}^2+\theta_{p_3-^{17}\mathrm{Ne}}^2}$, a single number built from the angles each detected proton makes with the $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}$ recoil in a $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}+p+p+p$ event. Because this quantity tracks the total three-proton decay energy $E_T$, gating on the low-$\rho_3$ bump and then projecting the individual $\theta_{p-^{17}\mathrm{Ne}}$ angles isolates the first-emitted proton's wide-angle peak from the narrower, already-known $\theta_{p-^{17}\mathrm{Ne}}$ distribution of the $^{19}\mathrm{Mg}$ ground-state 2p decay. Fitting the sum of two Monte-Carlo detector responses — one with variable 1p-decay energy, one with the fixed 0.76(5) MeV 2p-decay energy of $^{19}\mathrm{Mg}$(g.s.) — yields the 1p-decay energy 1.17(+0.10,-0.08) MeV and hence $Q_{3p}=1.93^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ MeV. The mirror comparison runs through the empirical mirror-energy-difference parametrization $\mathrm{MED}=(Z/A^{1/3})\,\mathrm{MED}'$, and the spin-parity interpretation through the Gamow Shell Model and Gamow-Coupled-Channel calculations, both of which place a $1^-$ state lowest.

What would settle it

A storage-ring or multi-reflection time-of-flight mass measurement of $^{20}\mathrm{Al}$ that yields a 3p-separation energy different from 1.93 MeV, or a re-analysis in which the irregular 38-mrad bins are shown to arise from a distinct sequential branch (for example through the 1.288-MeV state of $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}$) that shifts the fitted 1p-decay energy, would settle whether the claimed decay energy and mirror-symmetry breaking are correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $^{20}\mathrm{Al}$ is a three-proton emitter whose ground state has mass excess +40.30(15) MeV, sits $Q_{3p}=1.93^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ MeV above the $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}+3p$ threshold, and decays sequentially as $^{20}\mathrm{Al}\to p+{}^{19}\mathrm{Mg}(\mathrm{g.s.})\to p+p+{}^{17}\mathrm{Ne}(\mathrm{g.s.})$. The authors further claim that the ground state is a $1^-$ s-wave proton state, in contrast to the $2^-$ ground state of its mirror $^{20}\mathrm{N}$, so the isospin mirror symmetry expected between $^{20}\mathrm{Al}$ and $^{20}\mathrm{N}$ is broken. They support the spin-parity assignment with two continuum-embedded models, the Gamow Shell Model and the Gamow-Coupled-Channel model, both of which place a $1^-$ state below other low-lying states; they interpret the extra binding relative to isospin predictions as an enhanced Thomas-Ehrman shift, beyond what the standard mirror-energy-difference parametrization gives.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the detected $^{17}\mathrm{Ne}+3p$ events are dominated by the sequential decay path through the ground state of $^{19}\mathrm{Mg}$, and that non-resonant four-body background and any alternative branch are small enough to ignore.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 20Al joins the short list of ground-state three-proton emitters (7B, 17Na, 31K, 13F), and its measured energy Q3p = 1.93 MeV becomes a new anchor for mass predictions at the proton drip line.
  • The sequential 1p-2p path through 19Mg(g.s.) is the first observed daughter two-proton radioactivity, extending the known decay mechanisms beyond the dripline.
  • The ground-state spin-parity difference (1- for 20Al versus 2- for 20N) and the large Thomas-Ehrman shift imply that mirror symmetry cannot be used blindly to predict the location of the drip line for the most proton-rich nuclei.
  • The observed extra binding in 20Al, similar to 31K, suggests a systematic nuclear-structure effect that would push the border of bound and resonant isotopes farther from the proton dripline, enlarging the predicted region of existence of isotopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct mass measurement of 20Al with a storage ring or multi-reflection time-of-flight device would provide an independent value of S3p and test whether the 1.93 MeV decay energy is an artifact of the correlation fits.
  • The unresolved irregular bins near 38 mrad, which the authors themselves flag, point to a possible weak sequential branch through the 1.288-MeV state of 17Ne; a dedicated simulation including that branch would show whether the derived Q3p for the ground state shifts.
  • If the enhanced Thomas-Ehrman shift is confirmed, the same technique applied to predicted four-proton emitters such as 21Si could reveal whether the sequential 1p-1p-2p chain pattern holds, providing a sharper test of isospin breaking in the continuum.
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 manuscript reports the first observation of the proton-unbound nucleus 20Al, produced as a by-product of a 20Mg secondary-beam experiment. From 17Ne+3p four-fold coincidences the authors construct a ρ3 correlation variable and, after gating, extract a ground-state 3p-decay energy Q3p = 1.93(+0.11,-0.09) MeV and an excited-state energy Q3p = 3.60(22) MeV. They interpret the ground-state decay as sequential 1p-2p emission through the 19Mg ground state, claim this is the first observed case of daughter two-proton radioactivity following 1p decay, and, with Gamow Shell Model and Gamow-Coupled-Channel calculations, assign Jπ = 1− to the 20Al ground state. This leads to the claim of mirror-symmetry breaking with respect to the 20N ground state and to the prediction that 21Si is a 4p emitter.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this is a valuable new datum: 20Al becomes a new three-proton emitter, its sequential decay pattern provides a new decay mode, and the large Thomas-Ehrman shift with a possible 1− ground state is a strong test of isospin symmetry beyond the proton dripline. The paper's strengths include the use of an established in-flight decay tracking technique, anchoring the small-angle component to the known 19Mg ground-state 2p decay, explicit GEANT Monte Carlo simulations with a quantitative Kolmogorov-test comparison, and two independent continuum models that both predict a 1− ground state. The main weakness is that the non-resonant background is not quantitatively subtracted and no statistical significance is quoted for the resonance excess, so the central claims currently rest on an assumption that needs further support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(a), text after Eq. (2)] The non-resonant background is not quantitatively established. The 4-body phase-volume curve is normalized to the measured intensity at ρ3 ≤ 60 and ≥ 160 mrad, but the low-ρ3 normalization interval overlaps the signal gate (i) at 45–82 mrad; moreover, no statistical significance is given for the excess above the curve in Fig. 1(a) or for the peaks in the gated spectrum of Fig. 1(b). As a result, the statement that low-energy 20Al resonance contributions are required is not yet demonstrated at a quantitative level.
  2. [Appendix A, Fig. 2] The extraction of Q1p = 1.17(+0.10,-0.08) MeV and Q3p = 1.93(+0.11,-0.09) MeV is based on a Kolmogorov fit that includes only the simulated 1p-decay component and the known 19Mg(g.s.) 2p-decay component. The non-resonant phase-space contribution shown in Fig. 1(a) is not included in this fit, and no alternative with background is tested. Since the background shape overlaps the gate used for the fit, the central values and quoted uncertainties should be regarded as model-dependent until this omission is addressed.
  3. [Appendix A, irregular 38-mrad bins] The paper itself identifies a ~3σ deviation at 38 mrad inside gate (i) and proposes that it arises from a decay branch feeding 17Ne*(1.288 MeV) with Q3p = 3.55 MeV. This admission implies that gate (i) is not exclusively populated by the 20Al ground-state sequential decay. The proposed branch is not included in the fit that determines Q1p, and its effect on the extracted energies is not quantified. The claim that this is the first observed case of daughter two-proton radioactivity following 1p decay therefore needs a cleaner demonstration that the ground-state branch dominates.
  4. [Appendix A, Monte Carlo parameters] All Monte Carlo fits assume intrinsic widths of 1 keV for the 20Al states, while the paper later quotes only an upper-limit width Γ < 400 keV. For a proposed 1p s-wave resonance at Q1p ≈ 1.17 MeV, such a small width is not obviously justified and may affect the simulated θp−17Ne distributions and hence the fitted Q1p. The authors should either vary the width in the simulations or justify explicitly why the extracted energy is insensitive to this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The sentence 'two possible states in 20 assumed at ET of 2.0 and 3.6 MeV are shown' contains an incomplete nucleus label; it should read '20Al'.
  2. [General] The name 'Thomas-Ehrmann shift' appears to be a typo; the standard spelling is 'Thomas-Ehrman shift'.
  3. [Fig. 6 and Appendix B/C] The Jπ = 1− assignment for the 20Al ground state rests entirely on the GSM and GCC calculations; no experimental spin-parity information is presented. The authors should state clearly that this part of the mirror-breaking claim is model-dependent, especially since the model parameters are adjusted to reproduce neighboring nuclei and no model uncertainties are given.
  4. [Fig. 2 and width estimate] The Wigner-width estimate quoted for a 1d3/2 configuration is not obviously relevant for the proposed s-wave ground state; please clarify which orbital the estimate refers to and why the s-wave width is not estimated.
  5. [Data presentation] The histograms in Figs. 1–3 are shown without statistical error bars; adding them would help the reader assess the significance of the peaks and the quality of the fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 20Al decay energy and mirror-breaking claim are derived from measured correlations with external inputs, not from the conclusions themselves.

full rationale

The central measurement (Q3p = 1.93 MeV) comes from fitting the measured theta_{p-17Ne} distribution in the rho3 gate with a sum of a GEANT-simulated 1p-emission component (variable Q1p) and the known 2p decay of the 19Mg ground state (Q2p = 0.76 MeV from Refs. [12,16]). The 19Mg ground-state energy is an external experimental input, not fitted in this paper, and the model predictions (Kelson-Garvey, MED parameterization, GSM, GCC) are confronted with, not fitted to, the 20Al data. The GCC parameters are adjusted to reproduce 19Mg levels; the GSM is constrained by 17Ne and 19Mg, not by 20Al. The 4-body phase-space normalization is explicitly labeled an upper-limit estimate and is conservative even though the normalization range overlaps the signal region; this is a possible statistical weakness, not a circular reduction. Appendix A's unmodeled irregular bins near 38 mrad are acknowledged as a possible alternate branch and do not enter the Q3p extraction by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [11,12] supply detector calibration and the known daughter decay pattern; these are independent, externally reproducible measurements. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the claimed mirror-symmetry breaking or the 1- assignment, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; 20Al is an observed nucleus, not a postulated entity. The ledger instead records the model-calibration parameters, hand-chosen gates, and background-normalization choices that the central claims rest on.

free parameters (7)
  • GCC Woods-Saxon central potential depth = -43.9 MeV
    Adjusted to reproduce the experimental 19Mg spectrum in Appendix C; affects predicted 20Al state energies and spin-parity.
  • GCC spin-orbit strength = 14.3 MeV
    Adjusted together with the central potential in Appendix C to match 19Mg data.
  • GCC quadrupole deformation beta2 = -0.2
    Chosen deformation of the 18Mg core; no independent fit is shown.
  • GSM T=0 contact interaction strengths V_s and V_t = not specified
    Constrained to reproduce the 17Ne ground-state energy in Appendix B; explicit values are not reported.
  • rho3 gate boundaries for state (i) = 45 to 82 mrad
    Hand-chosen gate around the 2 MeV bump in Fig. 1(a) used to extract the ground-state angular correlations.
  • rho3 gate boundaries for state (ii) = 82 to 92 mrad
    Hand-chosen gate around the 3.5 to 3.6 MeV bump used to extract the excited-state angular correlations.
  • Non-resonant background normalization = normalized to data at rho3 <= 60 and >= 160 mrad
    Used to produce an upper-limit estimate of the non-resonant 4-body phase-space contribution in Fig. 1(a).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption All four-fold coincident 17Ne+3p events selected by the gates originate from decays of 20Al produced in the charge-exchange reaction, with negligible contamination from other reaction channels.
    The production mechanism is inferred, not tagged; low statistics make contamination hard to exclude. This premise enters in the description of the 20Al spectrum extraction.
  • domain assumption The known 19Mg g.s. decay energy Q2p = 0.76(5) MeV and its angular distribution from Refs. [12,16] are correct and can be used as a fixed component in the fits.
    The ground-state Q3p = 1.93 MeV is the sum of the fitted 1p energy 1.17 MeV and this prior value; if the prior value or shape is wrong, the result shifts.
  • domain assumption GEANT detector-response simulations from Refs. [11,12] accurately model the DSSD array, efficiency, and resolutions, and the same calibration coefficients apply to this by-product analysis.
    No new calibration is performed; Appendix A relies entirely on these simulations for the Kolmogorov-test fits.
  • standard math The 4-body phase volume for the non-resonant channel is proportional to E_T^(7/2), and normalizing it to the endpoint regions gives an upper-limit background estimate.
    Standard N-body phase-space scaling; the normalization choice is what makes the estimate an upper limit.
  • domain assumption The GCC and GSM Hamiltonians, with parameters tuned to 19Mg and 17Ne, are reliable enough to predict the 20Al ground-state spin-parity and energy ordering outside the fitted region.
    The spin-parity difference with 20N is the core evidence for mirror symmetry breaking beyond the energy shift; the models are not independently validated for 20Al.
  • domain assumption The Thomas-Ehrman shift parameterization MED = (Z/A^(1/3)) MED' from Ref. [17] applies to the 20N-20Al mirror pair.
    Used to estimate expected S3p values of -2.64 and -3.42 MeV against which the measured energy is compared.
  • domain assumption The improved Kelson-Garvey mass relations from Refs. [14,15] predict the 20Al g.s. energy in the 3.4 to 3.6 MeV range used to define the search gates.
    The gates and peak assignments are partially motivated by these predictions; the discrepancy with them is the central claim, not the gate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mirror Symmetry Breaking Disclosed in the Decay of Three-Proton Emitter 20Al." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNZSURFB

@misc{pith2026241208245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mirror Symmetry Breaking Disclosed in the Decay of Three-Proton Emitter 20Al},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNZSURFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08245}
}
read the original abstract

The previously-unknown nucleus 20Al has been observed for the first time by detecting its in-flight decays. Tracking trajectories of all decay products with silicon micro-strip detectors allowed for a conclusion that 20Al is unbound with respect to three-proton (3p) emission. The 3p-decay energy of 20Al ground state has been determined to be 1.93(+0.11,-0.09) MeV through a detailed study of angular correlations of its decay products, 17Ne+p+p+p. This value is much smaller in comparison with the predictions inferred from the isospin symmetry by using the known energy of its mirror nucleus 20N, which indicates a possible mirror symmetry violation in the structure of 3p emitters. Such an isospin symmetry breaking is supported by the calculations of the continuum embedded theoretical frameworks, describing the observed 20Al ground state as an 1p s-wave state with a spin-parity of 1-, which contradicts to the spin-parity (2-) of the 20N ground state. The 20Al ground state decays by sequential 1p-2p emission via intermediate ground state of 19Mg, which is the first observed case of daughter two-proton radioactivity following 1p decay of the parent state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08245 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Three-proton angular correlations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Proposed decay scheme of the two lowest states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The energies of lowest states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pf¨ utzner, I

    M. Pf¨ utzner, I. Mukha, and S. M. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. , 104050 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Golubkova, X.-D

    T. Golubkova, X.-D. Xu, L. Grigorenko, I. Mukha, C. Scheidenberger, and M. Zhukov, Phys. Lett. B 762, 263 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    R. J. Charity, J. M. Elson, J. Manfredi, R. Shane, L. G. Sobotka, B. A. Brown, Z. Chajecki, D. Coupland, H. Iwasaki, M. Kilburn, J. Lee, W. G. Lynch, A. Sane- tullaev, M. B. Tsang, J. Winkelbauer, M. Youngs, S. T. Marley, D. V. Shetty, A. H. Wuosmaa, T. K. Ghosh, and M. E. Howard, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014320 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    K. W. Brown, R. J. Charity, J. M. Elson, W. Reviol, L. G. Sobotka, W. W. Buhro, Z. Chajecki, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, R. Shane, R. H. Showalter, M. B. Tsang, D. Weisshaar, J. R. Winkelbauer, S. Bedoor, and A. H. Wuosmaa, Phys. Rev. C 95, 044326 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Kostyleva, I

    D. Kostyleva, I. Mukha, L. Acosta, E. Casarejos, V. Chu- doba, A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, J. A. Due˜ nas, V. Dunin, J. M. Espino, A. Estrad´ e, F. Farinon, A. Fomichev, H. Geissel, A. Gorshkov, L. V. Grigorenko, Z. Janas, G. Kami´ nski, O. Kiselev, R. Kn¨ obel, S. Krupko, M. Kuich, Y. A. Litvinov, G. Marquinez-Dur´ an, I. Mar- tel, C. Mazzocchi, C. Nocifor...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    R. J. Charity, T. B. Webb, J. M. Elson, D. E. M. Hoff, C. D. Pruitt, L. G. Sobotka, K. W. Brown, G. Cer- izza, J. Estee, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, P. Morfouace, C. Santamaria, S. Sweany, C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, K. Zhu, S. A. Kuvin, D. McNeel, J. Smith, A. H. Wuosmaa, and Z. Chajecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 132501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    R. J. Charity, J. Wylie, S. M. Wang, T. B. Webb, K. W. Brown, G. Cerizza, Z. Chajecki, J. M. Elson, J. Estee, D. E. M. Hoff, S. A. Kuvin, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, N. Michel, D. G. McNeel, P. Morfouace, W. Nazarewicz, C. D. Pruitt, C. Santamaria, S. Sweany, J. Smith, L. G. Sobotka, M. B. Tsang, and A. H. Wuosmaa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 172501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    L. V. Grigorenko, I. Mukha, D. Kostyleva, C. Schei- denberger, L. Acosta, E. Casarejos, V. Chudoba, A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, J. A. Due˜ nas, V. Dunin, J. M. Espino, A. Estrad´ e, F. Farinon, A. Fomichev, H. Geis- sel, A. Gorshkov, Z. Janas, G. Kami´ nski, O. Kise- lev, R. Kn¨ obel, S. Krupko, M. Kuich, Y. A. Litvi- nov, G. Marquinez-Dur´ an, I. Martel, C...

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Mukha, L

    I. Mukha, L. V. Grigorenko, D. Kostyleva, L. Acosta, E. Casarejos, A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, J. A. Due˜ nas, V. Dunin, J. M. Espino, A. Estrad´ e, F. Fari- non, A. Fomichev, H. Geissel, A. Gorshkov, Z. Janas, G. Kami´ nski, O. Kiselev, R. Kn¨ obel, S. Krupko, M. Kuich, Y. A. L...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Mukha, K

    I. Mukha, K. S¨ ummerer, L. Acosta, M. A. G. Alvarez, E. Casarejos, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina-Gil, J. Espino, A. Fomichev, J. E. Garcia-Ramos, H. Geissel, J. Gomez- Camacho, L. Grigorenko, J. Hofmann, O. Kiselev, A. Ko- rsheninnikov, N. Kurz, Y. Litvinov, I. Martel, C. Nocif- o...

    2007

  3. [11]

    Mukha, K

    I. Mukha, K. S¨ ummerer, L. Acosta, M. A. G. Al- varez, E. Casarejos, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina-Gil, I. A. Egorova, J. M. Espino, A. Fomichev, J. E. Garc ´ ıa-Ramos, H. Geissel, J. G´ omez-Camacho, L. Grigorenko, J. Hof- mann, O. Kiselev, A. Korsheninnikov, N. Kurz, Y. A. Litvi...

    2010

  4. [12]

    Mukha, L

    I. Mukha, L. Grigorenko, L. Acosta, M. A. G. Alvarez, E. Casarejos, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina-Gil, J. M. Espino, A. Fomichev, J. E. Garc ´ ıa-Ramos, H. Geissel, J. G´ omez- Camacho, J. Hofmann, O. Kiselev, A. Korsheninnikov, N. Kurz, Y. A. Litvinov, I. Martel, C. Nociforo, W. O...

    2012

  5. [13]

    Stanoiu, K

    M. Stanoiu, K. Summerer, I. Mukha, A. Chatillon, E. C. Gil, M. Heil, J. Hoffman, O. Kiselev, N. Kurz, and W. O. S. Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 266, 4625 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    J. Tian, N. Wang, C. Li, and J. Li, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014313 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Y. Y. Zong, C. Ma, M. Q. Lin, and Y. M. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034321 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    X.-D. Xu, I. Mukha, L. V. Grigorenko, C. Scheiden- berger, L. Acosta, E. Casarejos, V. Chudoba, A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, J. Du´ enas-D ´ ıaz, V. Dunin, J. M. Espino, A. Estrad´ e, F. Farinon, A. Fomichev, H. Geissel, T. A. Golubkova, A. Gorshkov, Z. Janas, G. Kami´ nski, O. K...

    2018

  9. [17]

    H. T. Fortune, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034301 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    R. G. Thomas, Phys. Rev. 88, 1109 (1952)

    1952

  11. [19]

    J. B. Ehrman, Phys. Rev. 81, 412 (1951)

    1951

  12. [20]

    Mukha, L

    I. Mukha, L. V. Grigorenko, X. Xu, L. Acosta, E. Casare- jos, A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, J. Du´ enas-D ´ ıaz, V. Dunin, J. M. Espino, A. Estrad´ e, F. Farinon, 9 A. Fomichev, H. Geissel, T. A. Golubkova, A. Gorshkov, Z. Janas, G. Kami´ nski, O. Kiselev, R. Kn¨ obel, S. Krupko, ...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. P loszajczak, and K. Ben- naceur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 042502 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Ploszajczak, and T. Vertse, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 36, 013101 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. G. Li, Y. Z. Ma, N. Michel, B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, W. Zuo, and F. R. Xu, Physics 3, 977 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    S. M. Wang, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 96, 044307 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    S. M. Wang and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142501 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    S. M. Wang, W. Nazarewicz, R. J. Charity, and L. G. Sobotka, Jour. of Phys. G: Nucl. and Part. Phys. 49, 10LT02 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. D. Holt, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 022502 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    H. T. Fortune, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034304 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, L. Broglia, A. Brunengo, H. B. a nd S. Chauvie, J. Chuma, R. Chytracek, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, P. Degtyarenko, A. Dell’A...

    2003

  22. [30]

    W. T. Eadie, D. Drijard, F. E. James, and B. Sadoulet, Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics (North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1971)

    1971

  23. [31]

    Berggren, Nucl

    T. Berggren, Nucl. Phys. A 109, 265 (1968)

    1968

  24. [32]

    Betan, R

    R. Betan, R. J. Liotta, N. Sandulescu, and T. Vertse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 042501 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Michel and M

    N. Michel and M. P loszajczak, The Euroschool Lectures on Physics with Exotic Beams, Vol. I (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Michel, J

    N. Michel, J. G. Li, L. H. Ru, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 106, L011301 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Michel, J

    N. Michel, J. G. Li, F. R. Xu, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 103, 044319 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Y. Jin, C. Y. Niu, K. W. Brown, Z. H. Li, H. Hua, A. K. Anthony, J. Barney, R. J. Charity, J. Crosby, D. Dell’Aquila, J. M. Elson, J. Estee, M. Ghazali, G. Jhang, J. G. Li, W. G. Lynch, N. Michel, L. G. Sobotka, S. Sweany, F. C. E. Teh, A. Thomas, C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, S. ...

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. G. Li, N. Michel, W. Zuo, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034305 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Sparenberg and D

    J.-M. Sparenberg and D. Baye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3802 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    S. M. Wang and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 212502 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    D. R. Thompson, M. Lemere, and Y. C. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A 286, 53 (1977)

    1977

  35. [43]

    Cwiok, J

    S. Cwiok, J. Dudek, W. Nazarewicz, J. Skalski, and T. Werner, Com. Phys. Comm. 46, 379 (1987)

    1987

  36. [44]

    Saito, Suppl

    S. Saito, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. 62, 11 (1977)

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.