Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

A Phenomenological Extension for Microscopic Optical Potentials

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A minimal energy-dependent correction restores missing absorption and multi-step scattering in microscopic optical potentials for light nuclei.

desk verdict A transparent, non-fitted fix that visibly improves low-energy cross sections inside an established microscopic program; the operator replacement is openly heuristic but the results are real and the method is fully specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05080 v1 pith:GVLQJEYD submitted 2026-07-06 nucl-th

Matteo Vorabbi , Michael Gennari , Paolo Finelli , Carlotta Giusti , Petr Navrátil This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 24.10.Ht25.40.Cm21.60.De
keywords opticalpotentialsmultiple-scatteringtheorymicroscopicfoldingmediumcorrectionschiralinteractionsnucleon-nucleusscatteringNo-CoreShellModel
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

Microscopic optical potentials built from realistic nucleon-nucleon forces and multiple-scattering theory give a first-principles account of nucleon-nucleus scattering, yet they systematically under-predict absorption and fail to match angular distributions at low and intermediate energies because medium corrections beyond Pauli blocking and higher-order scattering are missing. The authors introduce a minimal phenomenological fix: an energy-dependent scalar factor that rescales the free two-nucleon propagator so that the in-medium transition operator becomes a short alternating series of free t-matrices. The factor itself is estimated from a semiclassical Monte-Carlo sampling of secondary-collision probability along straight-line trajectories through the target density, using only free NN cross sections and the same ab-initio densities already employed in the folding. When the series is truncated after a few terms, differential cross sections for protons and neutrons on carbon-12 and oxygen-16 improve markedly from roughly 25 MeV up to a few hundred MeV, while the underlying microscopic structure is left intact. Polarization data improve only modestly, underscoring that the correction mainly restores absorption and multi-step strength rather than fine spin dependence. The result offers a practical, essentially parameter-free route to extend the useful range of microscopic optical potentials toward lower energies and, eventually, toward exotic nuclei and astrophysical reactions.

What carries the argument

The phenomenological ansatz g_i W_i G_i(E) ≈ −λ(E) g_i, which converts the in-medium two-nucleon operator into the truncated geometric series aũ = ∑ (-λ)^n (t g)^n t; λ(E) is obtained once from Monte-Carlo secondary-scattering probabilities and is never fitted to data.

What would settle it

Compute the same series for a heavier closed-shell nucleus (e.g., 40Ca) at 30–50 MeV with the identical λ(E) procedure; if the corrected cross sections still under-predict the data by the same relative amount as the pure impulse approximation, the ansatz fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Replacing the free NN t-matrix inside a first-order Watson folding by a short alternating series generated from a real energy-dependent suppression factor λ(E) yields optical potentials that reproduce measured elastic differential cross sections on light nuclei far better than the pure impulse approximation, especially below ~70 MeV, while remaining fully determined by the same chiral interaction and ab-initio densities.

Load-bearing premise

Medium and multi-step effects encoded in the residual interaction and propagator can be replaced by a single real energy-dependent number whose value is taken from a classical straight-line collision probability.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a minimal phenomenological correction to first-order microscopic optical potentials obtained from chiral NN interactions folded with NCSM densities in Watson’s spectator expansion. Medium and higher-order effects are mimicked by replacing the operator combination W_i G_i(E) with a real energy-dependent scalar −λ(E) g_i (Eq. 37), generating a truncated geometric series for the in-medium τ̃ matrix (Eq. 38). λ(E) itself is estimated from a semiclassical Monte-Carlo sampling of secondary-collision probabilities along straight-line trajectories using free NN cross sections and the same NCSM densities (Sec. 4). Applications to elastic n/p scattering on 12C and 16O at 26–201 MeV show systematic improvement of differential cross sections once N_tr ≳ 3, with no parameters adjusted to the scattering data.

Significance. If the correction proves robust, it supplies a practical, essentially parameter-free route to extend the useful energy range of ab-initio optical potentials downward, where pure impulse-approximation calculations systematically under-absorb. The approach retains the microscopic NN interaction and target densities, requires no fit to reaction data, and demonstrates clear, stable gains in dσ/dΩ for light nuclei. These features make it potentially useful for reaction studies of exotic systems and for bridging microscopic and dispersive optical-model frameworks. The explicit acknowledgment of the heuristic character of the ansatz and the absence of data-driven tuning are strengths that keep the work falsifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (37)] Section 3, Eq. (37): The central operator replacement W_i G_i(E) ≈ −λ(E) g_i compresses density-, momentum- and spin-dependent medium corrections into a single real scalar. The authors themselves note that this is a strong simplification and that a real λ formally violates Kramers–Kronig relations. Because the subsequent improvement of the cross sections rests entirely on this replacement, a quantitative sensitivity study (e.g., complex λ, density-dependent λ, or comparison against an explicit mean-field W_i) is needed to establish that the observed gains are not merely the result of any energy-dependent suppression of the free t-matrix.
  2. [Section 4] Section 4 and Eqs. (40)–(50): λ(E) is obtained from a semiclassical straight-line Monte-Carlo estimate of secondary-collision probability. The manuscript correctly states that the connection between this classical path-integrated quantity and the role of λ in the quantum operator series for τ̃_i “remains largely heuristic.” Without an independent microscopic benchmark (e.g., against the medium-modified t-matrix of Chinn et al. or an in-medium cross-section calculation), it is difficult to judge whether the energy dependence of λ faithfully encodes the missing physics or simply supplies a convenient damping factor. A short comparison or an alternative determination of λ would strengthen the claim that the microscopic foundation is preserved.
  3. [Section 5.2] Section 5.2, Figs. 2–6 and 7–8: Differential cross sections improve markedly and appear to stabilize by N_tr = 3–4, but analyzing powers show only modest qualitative improvement and residual quantitative discrepancies. Given that the same real scalar multiplies both real and imaginary parts of τ̃, it is unclear whether the correction systematically improves absorption while leaving spin-orbit interference under-constrained. Explicit discussion of this differential performance, and ideally a test with a complex or spin-dependent λ, is required to support the broader claim of a transferable framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] Section 3 title contains the typographical error “Phenomeneological”; correct to “Phenomenological”.
  2. [Section 5.2 / figure captions] Figure captions for Figs. 3, 5 and 6 repeatedly list “Ntr=33” instead of “N_tr=3”; the same typographical slip appears in the text of Sec. 5.2. Correct throughout.
  3. [Section 4] The free parameters of the Monte-Carlo procedure (Δs, N_c, definition of R_eff) are mentioned but never quantified or subjected to a brief stability check; a short appendix table would aid reproducibility.
  4. [References] References to earlier work by the same group are comprehensive, yet a few key medium-correction papers (e.g., more recent in-medium NN cross-section studies) could be added for context.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: λ(E) is computed from free NN cross sections and NCSM densities without fitting to scattering data; the operator replacement is an explicit phenomenological ansatz whose heuristic status the authors acknowledge.

  1. other [Sec. 3, Eq. (37) and following paragraph; Sec. 4 final paragraphs]
    "we propose an ansatz based on the assumption that the transition amplitudes must be reduced. This leads us to propose a minimal correction like g_i W_i G_i(E) ≈ -λ(E) g_i. … The central weakness of the scheme is that it gives λ an appealing probabilistic meaning, but that meaning is only loosely connected to the role λ plays in the operator expansion for aũ_i. … the connection between the quantities computed within this scheme and the role played by λ in the operator expansion of aũ_i remains largely heuristic."

    The decisive medium correction is introduced by an explicit phenomenological replacement whose probabilistic interpretation is only heuristically linked to its formal operator role. This is not a definitional tautology or a fit-to-data prediction, but it is a mild circularity of justification: the improvement in the cross sections is produced by an insertion whose physical fidelity cannot be verified inside the paper itself.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: free chiral NN t-matrix + NCSM densities → first-order folding (impulse approximation) → replace W_i G_i(E) by the real scalar -λ(E) g_i (Eq. 37) → geometric series for aũ truncated at N_tr ≃ 3 (Eq. 38) → optical potential (Eq. 39) → observables. λ(E) itself is obtained from a Monte-Carlo sampling of secondary-collision probability that uses only free NN elastic cross sections (computed from the same chiral interaction) and the same NCSM densities already employed in the folding; no elastic-scattering observables enter the determination of λ. The authors repeatedly emphasize the absence of any fit (Sec. 4: “does not include any fitting procedure whatsoever, it is self-consistent, and based only on the free NN interaction and the target density”). The only mild circularity is the acknowledged heuristic gap between the classical path-integrated probability and the formal role of λ inside the operator series; that gap is stated openly and does not make the numerical improvement tautological. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier impulse-approximation papers supply the baseline model that is being extended, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the present ansatz. Consequently the central claim (improved cross sections while retaining a microscopic foundation) rests on an explicit, non-fitted phenomenological insertion rather than on a definitional or self-referential reduction. Score 1 reflects only that residual heuristic looseness.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on one new operator approximation, a semiclassical probability model for λ, and a handful of numerical choices (truncation order, step size). No free parameters are fitted to the scattering data that are being described. All nuclear-structure and NN-force inputs are taken from the authors’ earlier published calculations.

free parameters (3)
  • truncation order N_tr
    Series for τ̃ is truncated by hand; N_tr=3 is selected after inspecting convergence plots. Not fitted to data but still a discrete choice that affects the final cross sections.
  • trajectory step Δs
    Must be ‘reasonably evaluated’ relative to nuclear diameter; no unique prescription given.
  • number of Monte-Carlo trials N_c
    Finite sampling used to estimate λ; convergence with N_c is not quantified.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Medium and rescattering effects encoded in W_i G_i(E) may be replaced by the real scalar factor −λ(E) g_i (Eq. 37).
    This is the load-bearing phenomenological replacement; it is motivated by the known reduction of in-medium cross sections but is not derived from the many-body equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The probability of a secondary collision along a straight-line trajectory is σ_NN(E) ρ(s) Δs (Eqs. 40–41).
    Semiclassical Glauber-like estimate used to fix λ; mixes classical path integrals with a quantum multiple-scattering framework.
  • domain assumption The free NN t-matrix and NCSM densities computed with the same chiral interaction are adequate inputs for the folding (standard in the authors’ prior work).
    Inherited from Refs. [13–21]; not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper A real energy-dependent λ preserves enough analytic structure for practical optical-potential calculations even though it formally violates Kramers–Kronig relations.
    Acknowledged limitation in Sec. 3; accepted for the present study.
invented entities (2)
  • energy-dependent suppression factor λ(E)
    purpose: Encodes all missing medium, dispersive and multi-step effects into a single real number that multiplies the free propagator.
    Defined by the Monte-Carlo procedure of Sec. 4; no independent experimental handle outside the optical-potential calculations themselves.
  • truncated alternating series for the in-medium τ̃ matrix (Eq. 38)
    purpose: Generates higher-order multiple-scattering contributions systematically suppressed by powers of λ.
    Constructed ad hoc from the λ ansatz; convergence is checked numerically but not guaranteed by a small parameter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Phenomenological Extension for Microscopic Optical Potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVLQJEYD

@misc{pith2026260705080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Phenomenological Extension for Microscopic Optical Potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVLQJEYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05080}
}
read the original abstract

Microscopic optical potentials constructed from realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions via multiple-scattering theory provide a first-principles description of nucleon-nucleus scattering. Nevertheless, such approaches often neglect medium corrections beyond Pauli blocking and fail to fully capture higher-order scattering contributions, leading to systematic under-prediction of absorption and deficiencies in angular distributions at low and intermediate energies. In this work we introduce a phenomenological correction scheme with an energy-dependent term designed to mimic correlation effects, dispersive contributions, and multi-step scattering processes. The correction is implemented in a minimal form to preserve the predictive character of the underlying microscopic model, while enabling improved flexibility in describing experimental observables. Applications to proton and neutron elastic scattering on light-mass nuclei demonstrate that the modified potentials yield enhanced agreement with measured differential cross sections, without sacrificing the microscopic foundation. This approach provides a practical pathway for incorporating missing medium and higher-order effects into optical model analyses relevant for nuclear structure and reaction studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Definition of the coordinate system and geometrical quantities for the secondary nucleon-nucleus scattering event. The point ((x0, y0, z0)) specifies the entrance position, with the z axis aligned along the longitudinal direction, b denotes the transverse impact parameter in the plane perpendicular to z, and ∆s indicates the infinitesimal trajectory step. Finally, our choice to employ a minus sign in the expansion, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differential cross sections as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 12C(n, n) at 28 MeV. The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interaction. The results are shown for successive expansion orders: Ntr = 0 (yellow line), 1 (orange), 2 (pink), 3 (red), 4 (purple). Experimental data (with error bars) are taken from Ref. [36]. at cD = −1.8 and cE = −0.31 [33]… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differential cross sections as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 12C(n, n) at 35, 65 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−3 ) and 75 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−6 ). The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interaction. The results are shown only for the orders Ntr = 0 (yellow lines) and Ntr = 33 (red lines). Experimental data (with error bars where available) are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differential cross sections as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 16O(n, n) at 26 MeV. The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interaction. The results are shown for successive expansion orders: Ntr = 0 (y…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Differential cross sections as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 12C(p, p) at 35, 45 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−3 ) and 70 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−6 ). The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interacti…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differential cross sections as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 16O(p, p) at 30, 65 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−3 ) and 201 MeV (scaled by a factor 10−6 ). The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interact…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analyzing power as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 12C(p, p) at 30, 45 MeV and 75 MeV. The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interaction. The results are shown only for the orders Ntr = 0 (yellow line…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analyzing power as functions of the center-of-mass scattering angle for the reaction 16O(p, p) at 30, 65 MeV and 201 MeV. The folded optical potential is calculated with the NN-N4LO+3Nlnl chiral interaction. The results are shown only for the orders Ntr = 0 (yellow lin…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2 (Wiley) ISBN 9780471057505 URL https://books.google.it/books?id=7uPvAAAAMAAJ

    Feshbach H 1992Theoretical Nuclear Physics: Nuclear ReactionsTheoretical Nuclear Physics Vol. 2 (Wiley) ISBN 9780471057505 URL https://books.google.it/books?id=7uPvAAAAMAAJ

  2. [2]

    Goldberger M and Watson K 2004Collision TheoryDover books on physics (Dover Publications) ISBN 9780486435077 URL https://books.google.it/books?id=4pnrHN8Y1AgC

  3. [3]

    Satchler G 1983Direct Nuclear ReactionsInternational series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press) ISBN 9780198512691 URL https://books.google.it/books?id=gCZRAAAAMAAJ

  4. [4]

    Foldy L and Walecka J 1969Annals of Physics54447–504 ISSN 0003-4916 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491669901663

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Hebborn Cet al.2023J. Phys. G50060501 (Preprint2210.07293)

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Burrows M, Baker R B, Elster C, Weppner S P, Launey K D, Maris P and Popa G 2020Phys. Rev. C102034606 (Preprint2005.00111)

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Baker R B, Burrows M, Elster C, Launey K D, Maris P, Popa G and Weppner S P 2023 Frontiers in PhysicsVolume 10 - 2022ISSN 2296-424X URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.1071971

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1071971 2023

  8. [8]

    Baker R B, Elster C, Dytrych T and Launey K D 2024Phys. Rev. C110(3) 034605 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034605

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.034605

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Arellano H F, Brieva F A and Love W G 1995Phys. Rev. C52301–315

  2. [10]

    Arellano H F and Bauge E 2011Phys. Rev. C84(3) 034606 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034606

    doi

  3. [11]

    Fuentealba-Bustamante J I and Arellano H F 2025Phys. Rev. C112(3) 034603 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/qxj2-zbcn

    doi

  4. [12]

    Crespo R, Johnson R C and Tostevin J A 1992Phys. Rev. C46279–297

  5. [13]

    Vorabbi M, Finelli P and Giusti C 2016Phys. Rev. C93034619 (Preprint1510.05928)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vorabbi M, Finelli P and Giusti C 2017Phys. Rev. C96044001 (Preprint1710.00716)

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gennari M, Vorabbi M, Calci A and Navratil P 2018Phys. Rev. C97034619 (Preprint 1712.02879)

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Vorabbi M, Finelli P and Giusti C 2018Phys. Rev. C98064602 (Preprint1806.01037)

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Vorabbi M, Gennari M, Finelli P, Giusti C and Navr´ atil P 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.124162501 (Preprint1906.11984)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Vorabbi M, Gennari M, Finelli P, Giusti C, Navr´ atil P and Machleidt R 2021Phys. Rev. C 103024604 (Preprint2010.04792)

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vorabbi M, Gennari M, Finelli P, Giusti C, Navr´ atil P and Machleidt R 2022Phys. Rev. C 105014621 (Preprint2110.05455)

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vorabbi M, Barbieri C, Som` a V, Finelli P and Giusti C 2024Phys. Rev. C109034613 (Preprint2309.04226)

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Vorabbi M, Gennari M, Finelli P, Giusti C and Navr´ atil P 2025 (Preprint2506.15406)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Navratil P, Quaglioni S, Stetcu I and Barrett B R 2009J. Phys. G36083101 (Preprint 0904.0463) 18 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Som` a V, Navr´ atil P, Raimondi F, Barbieri C and Duguet T 2020Phys. Rev. C101(1) 014318 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014318

    doi

  16. [24]

    Crespo R, Johnson R C and Tostevin J A 1991Phys. Rev. C44R1735–R1739

  17. [25]

    Chinn C R, Elster C, Thaler R M and Weppner S P 1995Phys. Rev. C52(4) 1992–2003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1992

    1992 doi

  18. [26]

    Chinn C R, Elster C and Thaler R M 1993Phys. Rev. C48(6) 2956–2966 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2956

    doi

  19. [27]

    Jeukenne J, Lejeune A and Mahaux C 1976Physics Reports2583–174 ISSN 0370-1573 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037015737690017X

  20. [28]

    Li G Q and Machleidt R 1993Phys. Rev. C481702 (Preprintnucl-th/9307028)

  21. [29]

    Epelbaum E, Hammer H W and Meissner U G 2009Rev. Mod. Phys.811773–1825 (Preprint 0811.1338)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rept.5031–75 (Preprint1105.2919)

    Machleidt R and Entem D R 2011Phys. Rept.5031–75 (Preprint1105.2919)

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Entem D R, Machleidt R and Nosyk Y 2017Phys. Rev. C96(2) 024004 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024004

    doi

  24. [32]

    Navratil P 2007Few Body Syst.41117–140 (Preprint0707.4680)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gysbers P, Hagen G, Holt J D, Jansen G R, Morris T D, Navr´ atil P, Papenbrock T, Quaglioni S, Schwenk A, Stroberg S R and Wendt K A 2019Nature Physics15428–431 ISSN 1745-2481 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0450-7

    doi

  26. [34]

    Rept.3861–27 (Preprint nucl-th/0305035)

    Bogner S K, Kuo T T S and Schwenk A 2003Phys. Rept.3861–27 (Preprint nucl-th/0305035)

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bogner S K, Furnstahl R J and Schwenk A 2010Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.6594–147 (Preprint 0912.3688)

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chiba S, Iwamoto O, Yamanouti Y, Sugimoto M, Mizumoto M, Hasegawa K, Sukhovitski˜ ı E S, Porodzinski˜ ı Y V and Watanabe Y 1997Nuclear Physics A624305–327 ISSN 0375-9474 URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947497004740

  29. [38]

    Baba M, Ibaraki M, Miura T, Aoki T, Hirasawa Y, Nakashima H, Meigo S and Tanaka S 2002 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology39204–209 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2002.10875075) URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2002.10875075

    2002 doi

  30. [39]

    Osborne J H, Brady F P, Romero J L, Ullmann J L, Sorenson D S, Ling A, King N S P, Haight R C, Rapaport J, Finlay R W, Bauge E, Delaroche J P and Koning A J 2004Phys. Rev. C70(5) 054613 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.054613

    doi

  31. [40]

    Delaroche J P, Islam M S and Finlay R W 1986Phys. Rev. C33(5) 1826–1829 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.33.1826

    doi

  32. [41]

    Pignanelli M, Micheletti S, De Leo R, Brandenburg S and Harakeh M N 1986Phys. Rev. C 33(1) 40–49 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.33.40

    doi

  33. [42]

    Ieiri M, Sakaguchi H, Nakamura M, Sakamoto H, Ogawa H, Yosol M, Ichihara T, Isshiki N, Takeuchi Y, Togawa H, Tsutsumi T, Hirata S, Nakano T, Kobayashi S, Noro T and Ikegami H 1987Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detect...

  34. [44]

    Karban O, Greaves P, Hnizdo V, Lowe J, Berovic N, Wojciechowski H and Greenlees G 1969 Nuclear Physics A132548–560 ISSN 0375-9474 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947469907179

    1969

  35. [45]

    Rev.167(4) 915–921 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.167.915

    Eldridge H B, Bunker S N, Cameron J M, Richardson J R and van Oers W T H 1968Phys. Rev.167(4) 915–921 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.167.915

    doi

  36. [46]

    Bertrand F E and Peelle R W 1973Phys. Rev. C8(3) 1045–1064 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.8.1045 20

    doi

Pith tools

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