pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17277 · v1 · pith:JYHNJNMNnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Emergence of Cluster Formation in Light Nuclei

Jos\'e Nicol\'as Orce , Manfred Jason Jaftha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 22:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords nuclear shapescluster formationlight nucleitriaxialityquadrupole deformation10B20Nenuclear deformation
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:JYHNJNMN Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{JYHNJNMN}

Prints a linked pith:JYHNJNMN badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

The non-unique coordinate system with experimental β and γ parameters yields the most probable nuclear shapes where clusters form in light nuclei.

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

The paper establishes that the nuclear shape of an eigenstate is described by a coordinate transformation from a randomly oriented ellipsoid to principal axes using three Euler angles plus β for quadrupole deformation and γ for triaxiality. When these β and γ values are taken directly from experimental electric-quadrupole matrix elements, the resulting non-unique system selects the most probable shape without rotational averaging over equivalent orientations. If this is correct, cluster formation appears spatially in light nuclei and reproduces the bowling-pin shapes observed in 10B and 20Ne, while still matching the shapes seen in heavier deformed nuclei. A sympathetic reader cares because the approach supplies a direct physical interpretation of triaxiality as a superposition of multiple intrinsic configurations based on empirical data.

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-unique coordinate system of Eq. 4 with β and γ deformation parameters extracted from experimental electric-quadrupole matrix elements actually yields the most probable nuclear shape. Only then does cluster formation spatially emerge in light nuclei and the characteristic bowling-pin-like shapes of 10B and 20Ne are reproduced, consistent with modern nuclear theory. Both coordinate systems generally exhibit the same shape features for heavier deformed nuclei, where substantial triaxial deformation is empirically observed. However, the approach based on Eq. 4, using empirical β and γ values, provides deeper insight by capturing the superposition of multiple n

What carries the argument

The non-unique coordinate transformation (Eq. 4) from a randomly oriented ellipsoid to principal axes, characterized by β (quadrupole deformation) and γ (triaxiality), which when populated with empirical values selects the most probable shape and reveals spatial clusters.

Load-bearing premise

That directly feeding experimental β and γ into the non-unique coordinate system of Eq. 4 is sufficient to identify the most probable shape without rotational averaging or additional corrections from the three transformation operators that enforce a single intrinsic configuration.

What would settle it

A calculation or measurement showing that the shapes obtained from the non-unique system fail to reproduce the bowling-pin structures of 10B and 20Ne when compared against ab initio results or experimental cluster signatures would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17277 by Jos\'e Nicol\'as Orce, Manfred Jason Jaftha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Characteristic intrinsic nucleon density of the 2+ 1 state in 20Ne obtained with the MR-EDF model. This is the 3D version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of triaxial shapes for the 4n self-conjugate nuclei 10B (top), 20Ne (upper middle), 32S (lower middle) and 36Ar (bottom), obtained using Eq. (4) (left) and Eqs. (6) (right). The axes units are fm [33] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spherical harmonics form a complete orthonormal basis which allows any function on the sphere to be expanded. The nuclear shape of a given eigenstate can thus be described within Bohr's quasi-molecular model by a coordinate transformation from a randomly oriented ellipsoid in space to a coordinate system aligned with the ellipsoid's principal axes. This transformation (Eq. 4) is characterized by three Euler angles and two deformation parameters, $\beta$ (quadrupole) and $\gamma$ (triaxiality), but does not uniquely define the nuclear shape; rotational averaging over equivalent orientations is expected to yield a diffuse nuclear shape. Rotational invariance under $\beta$ and $\gamma$ is achieved using three transformation operators, which define a new coordinate system aligned with a single intrinsic configuration (Eq. 6). Here we show that the non-unique coordinate system of Eq. 4 with $\beta$ and $\gamma$ deformation parameters extracted from experimental electric-quadrupole matrix elements actually yields the most probable nuclear shape. Only then does cluster formation spatially emerge in light nuclei and the characteristic bowling-pin-like shapes of $^{10}$B and $^{20}$Ne are reproduced, consistent with modern nuclear theory. Both coordinate systems generally exhibit the same shape features for heavier deformed nuclei, where substantial triaxial deformation is empirically observed. However, the approach based on Eq. 4, using empirical $\beta$ and $\gamma$ values, provides deeper insight by capturing the superposition of multiple intrinsic configurations that collectively form the nuclear state. This, in turn, offers a physical interpretation of triaxiality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that within Bohr's quasi-molecular model, the non-unique coordinate transformation of Eq. (4), when supplied with quadrupole deformation parameters β and γ taken directly from experimental E2 matrix elements, selects the most probable nuclear shape. Cluster formation then emerges spatially from this shape in light nuclei, reproducing the bowling-pin geometries of 10B and 20Ne; the approach is said to capture superpositions of intrinsic configurations and thereby interpret triaxiality physically. For heavier deformed nuclei the rotationally invariant system of Eq. (6) yields similar features, but Eq. (4) with empirical inputs is presented as providing deeper insight.

Significance. If the central mapping from experimental β, γ to a probability-maximizing shape can be rigorously justified, the work would supply a compact, data-driven route to interpreting cluster emergence and triaxiality in light nuclei that is consistent with modern ab-initio and cluster-model calculations. The direct use of measured E2 matrix elements reduces circularity relative to purely theoretical extractions and could influence how collective-model deformations are interpreted in nuclear-structure studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Eq. (4)] Abstract / Eq. (4): the assertion that populating the non-unique coordinate system of Eq. (4) with experimental β and γ 'actually yields the most probable nuclear shape' is stated without derivation, explicit probability-density maximization, or comparison against alternative extractions of the most probable orientation; the step therefore remains unsupported and is load-bearing for the subsequent claim that cluster formation emerges.
  2. [Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) and following discussion: the statement that the three transformation operators produce a single intrinsic configuration for which rotational averaging is unnecessary requires a concrete demonstration that this choice correctly encodes the superposition of configurations without additional model-dependent projections, especially since the collective Bohr-model extraction of β and γ is known to be approximate for light nuclei.
  3. [Results on light nuclei] Results on 10B and 20Ne: the reproduction of bowling-pin-like shapes is presented as evidence for the emergence of cluster formation, yet no quantitative metric (overlap with ab-initio densities, rms deviation of surface parameters, or direct comparison to modern theory calculations) is supplied to substantiate that the shapes are not artifacts of the coordinate choice.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and main text should clarify whether the probability maximum is defined with respect to a specific measure (e.g., volume element in β-γ space or rotational orbit) and should reference the relevant equation or appendix where this measure is introduced.
  2. [Eq. (4), Eq. (6)] Notation for the Euler angles and the three transformation operators should be introduced explicitly at first use and kept consistent between Eq. (4) and Eq. (6).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. We address the major comments below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, Eq. (4)] Abstract / Eq. (4): the assertion that populating the non-unique coordinate system of Eq. (4) with experimental β and γ 'actually yields the most probable nuclear shape' is stated without derivation, explicit probability-density maximization, or comparison against alternative extractions of the most probable orientation; the step therefore remains unsupported and is load-bearing for the subsequent claim that cluster formation emerges.

    Authors: We recognize that the claim in the abstract and around Eq. (4) is presented as a key result but without an explicit derivation of the probability maximization in the provided text. The reasoning is rooted in the alignment with principal axes using experimental E2-derived parameters, which by construction selects the orientation that maximizes the probability density for the observed deformation. To address this, we will add a dedicated paragraph or appendix in the revised manuscript deriving this from the properties of the spherical harmonic expansion and comparing to averaged orientations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) and following discussion: the statement that the three transformation operators produce a single intrinsic configuration for which rotational averaging is unnecessary requires a concrete demonstration that this choice correctly encodes the superposition of configurations without additional model-dependent projections, especially since the collective Bohr-model extraction of β and γ is known to be approximate for light nuclei.

    Authors: The three operators in Eq. (6) are designed to fix the coordinate system to one representative intrinsic configuration, thereby incorporating the superposition through the empirical β and γ values without needing further projections. However, we agree that a concrete demonstration would clarify this, particularly for light nuclei where the Bohr model is approximate. We will include an illustrative calculation or figure in the revision showing how this encodes the superposition. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results on light nuclei] Results on 10B and 20Ne: the reproduction of bowling-pin-like shapes is presented as evidence for the emergence of cluster formation, yet no quantitative metric (overlap with ab-initio densities, rms deviation of surface parameters, or direct comparison to modern theory calculations) is supplied to substantiate that the shapes are not artifacts of the coordinate choice.

    Authors: The evidence in the manuscript is based on the visual and qualitative match to the expected bowling-pin geometries, which aligns with ab-initio and cluster model predictions referenced in the text. While we acknowledge the value of quantitative metrics, the current focus is on the emergence from the coordinate choice. We will add a quantitative comparison, such as surface parameter deviations or overlap estimates where feasible, in the revised version to substantiate the claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental β,γ inserted into standard Bohr-model Eq. 4; central claim does not reduce to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation begins from the standard Bohr quasi-molecular model and the known non-uniqueness of the coordinate transformation in Eq. 4 (three Euler angles plus β,γ). The paper extracts β and γ directly from external experimental E2 matrix elements rather than fitting them to the target cluster shapes or probability maximum inside the manuscript. The subsequent claim that this choice yields the 'most probable' shape is presented as a result demonstrated by the emergence of bowling-pin densities for 10B and 20Ne; that emergence is an output of the calculation, not an input used to define the coordinate system or the probability measure. No self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or to forbid alternatives, and the contrast with the rotationally invariant Eq. 6 is internal to the model but does not create a definitional loop. The overall chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the completeness of spherical harmonics and the applicability of Bohr's quasi-molecular model to light nuclei; experimental β and γ values are treated as external inputs rather than free parameters of the present work.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Spherical harmonics form a complete orthonormal basis allowing any function on the sphere to be expanded
    Invoked in the first sentence to justify the nuclear-shape expansion
  • domain assumption Bohr's quasi-molecular model provides a valid coordinate transformation from a randomly oriented ellipsoid to principal axes
    Basis for Eq. 4 and the subsequent operators in Eq. 6

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5813 in / 1448 out tokens · 33530 ms · 2026-05-19T22:59:13.788185+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Motivation This work is motivated by novel research at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN probing nuclear geometry via light-ion collisions (LIC). Here, nuclear shapes — includingα- cluster configurations, deviations from axial symmetry [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and shape fluctuations [6] — may be inferred from the overlap region or centrality of the two colli...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To this end, state-of-the-art calculations using nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT) incorporateα-cluster correlations within the minimal nuclear interaction [17]

    Quasi-Molecular Model Revisited Despite general agreement, it was not until recently that modern nuclear theory could account for the large spectroscopic quadrupole moment measured in 20Ne [13]; which quantifies the extent to which the charge distribution in the laboratory frame assumes an ellipsoidal shape. To this end, state-of-the-art calculations usin...

    work page 1952

  3. [3]

    (4) and (6) with empiricalβandγdeformations are shown in the left and right panels of Fig

    Results and Discussion Nuclear shapes obtained using Eqs. (4) and (6) with empiricalβandγdeformations are shown in the left and right panels of Fig. 2, respectively, for 10B (top), 20Ne (upper middle), 32S (lower middle) and 36Ar (bottom). Here,βis determined from the measured spectroscopic quadrupole moment [24] andγfrom the empirical triaxial rotor mode...

    work page

  4. [4]

    = 0.08472(56) eb [39], suggests a similarly dominant prolate shape arising from theα+ d +αcluster configuration, in agreement with AMD density distributions [40]. Inclusion of the octupole and/or hexadecapole degrees of freedom could enhance the lower region, bringing it into Emergence of Cluster F ormation in Light Nuclei5 Figure 2.Evolution of triaxial ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Although Eq

    Conclusions In conclusion, this work highlights how the quasi-molecular model with macroscopic observablesβandγ— extracted from experimental transitional and diagonal electric- quadrupole matrix elements — provides direct insight into the complex many-body dynamics and collective behaviour of nuclei. Although Eq. (4) does not explicitly include nuclear- s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Brewer J, Mazeliauskas A and van der Schee W 2021arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01939URLhttps: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.01939

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.01939

  7. [7]

    Giacalone G, Bally B, Nijs G, Shen S, Duguet T, Ebran J P, Elhatisari S, Frosini M, Lähde T A, Lee D et al.2024arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05995URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402. 05995

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402

  8. [8]

    2024Nucl

    Jia J, Giacalone G, Bally B, Brandenburg J D, Heinz U, Huang S, Lee D, Lee Y J, Loizides C, Li Wet al. 2024Nucl. Sci. Tech.351–17 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-024-01589-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01589-w

  9. [9]

    Wang H C, Li S J, Liu L M, Xu J and Ren Z Z 2024Phys. Rev. C110034909 URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034909

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.034909

  10. [10]

    Liu L M, Wang H C, Li S J, Zhang C, Xu J, Ren Z Z, Jia J and Huang X G 2025Phys. Rev. C111L021901 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.L021901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.111.l021901

  11. [12]

    Aaij R, Beteta C A, Ackernley T, Adeva B, Adinolfi M, Afsharnia H, Aidala C A, Aiola S, Ajaltouni Z, Akar Set al.2022JINST17P05009 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/17/05/ P05009

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/05/

  12. [13]

    1038/nature11246

    Ebran J P, Khan E, Nikši ´c T and Vretenar D 2012Nature487341–344 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nature11246

    work page

  13. [14]

    Mäntysaari H, Schenke B, Shen C and Zhao W 2023Phys. Rev. Lett.131062301 URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.062301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.062301

  14. [15]

    Kanada-En’yo Y and Horiuchi H 1995Prog. Theor . Phys.93115–136 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1143/ptp/93.1.115

    work page

  15. [16]

    Myo T, Lyu M, Zhao Q, Isaka M, Wan N, Takemoto H, Horiuchi H and Doté A 2025Phys. Rev. C112 064324 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/x667-9yb6

    work page doi:10.1103/x667-9yb6

  16. [17]

    Kanada-En’yo Y , Kimura M and Ono A 2012Prog. Theor . Exp. Phys.201201A202 URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1093/ptep/pts001

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/pts001

  17. [18]

    Mehl C V , Orce J N, Ngwetsheni C, Marevi ´c P, Brown B A, Holt J D, Kumar Raju M, Lawrie E A, Abrahams K J, Adsley Pet al.2025Phys. Rev. C111054318 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.111.054318

    work page

  18. [19]

    Funaki Y 2014J. Phys. Conf. Ser .569012003 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/ 569/1/012003

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/

  19. [20]

    Limits of existence of Light nuclei

    Neff T 2010 Structure and reactions of light nuclei studied in fermionic molecular dynamics presented at the Workshop on “Limits of existence of Light nuclei” at ECT*, Trento, Italy

    work page 2010

  20. [21]

    Xue H T, Qiu S, Chen C F, Chen Q B, Zhou X R and Ren Z 2025Phys. Rev. C112(4) 044311 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/nb1m-cyr3

    work page doi:10.1103/nb1m-cyr3

  21. [22]

    Giacalone G, Bally B, Nijs G, Shen S, Duguet T, Ebran J P, Elhatisari S, Frosini M, Lähde T A, Lee D et al.2025Phys. Rev. Lett.135012302 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/k8rb-jgvq

    work page doi:10.1103/k8rb-jgvq

  22. [23]

    Sosin Z, Błocki J, Kallunkathariyil J, Łukasik J and Pawłowski P 2016Eur . Phys. J. A52120 URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16120-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16120-4

  23. [24]

    Freer M, Horiuchi H, Kanada-En’yo Y , Lee D and Meißner U G 2018Rev. Mod. Phys.90035004 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.035004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.035004

  24. [25]

    Nuovo Cimento46521–618 URLhttps://doi.org/10

    Lombardo I and Dell’Aquila D 2023Riv. Nuovo Cimento46521–618 URLhttps://doi.org/10. Emergence of Cluster F ormation in Light Nuclei8 1007/s40766-023-00047-4

    work page

  25. [26]

    Roca-Maza X, Colò G and Sagawa H 2012Phys. Rev. C86031306 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevC.86.031306

    work page

  26. [27]

    48550/arXiv.2506.03236

    Ngwetsheni C, Orce J N, Navrátil P, Garrett P E, Faestermann T, Bergmaier A, Frosini M, Bildstein V , Brown B A, Burbadge Cet al.2025arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03236URLhttps://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2506.03236

    work page arXiv

  27. [28]

    Bohr A N 1952Mat. Fys. Dan. Vid. Selsk.26 no. 14

    work page

  28. [29]

    Bohr A N and Mottelson B R 1998Nuclear Structure V .II(World Scientific Publishing Company)

    work page

  29. [30]

    Laplace P S 1825Traité de mécanique célestevol 5 (Chez JBM Duprat, libraire pour les mathématiques, quai des Augustins)

    work page

  30. [31]

    Rev.891102 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev

    Hill D L and Wheeler J A 1953Phys. Rev.891102 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev. 89.1102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev

  31. [32]

    Verney D 2025Eur . Phys. J. A.6182 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ s10050-025-01545-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/

  32. [33]

    Data Nucl

    Lawrie E A and Orce J N 2025At. Data Nucl. Data Tables164101730 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1016/j.adt.2025.101730

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Orce J N and Lawrie E A 2026submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

    work page

  34. [35]

    Möller P, Bengtsson R, Carlsson B G, Olivius P and Ichikawa T 2006Phys. Rev. Lett.97162502 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.162502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.162502

  35. [36]

    Casten R 2000Nuclear structure from a simple perspectivevol 23 (Oxford university press)

    work page

  36. [37]

    Otsuka T, Tsunoda Y , Shimizu N, Utsuno Y , Abe T and Ueno H 2025Eur . Phys. J. A.61126 URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01553-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01553-1

  37. [38]

    Jaftha M SHAPE code uWCNuclear GitHub (2026) URLhttps://github.com/UWCNuclear/ SHAPE

    work page 2026

  38. [39]

    Hady ´nska-Klek K, Napiorkowski P J, Zieli ´nska M, Srebrny J, Maj A, Azaiez F, Valiente Dobón J J, Kici´nska-Habior M, Nowackiet al.2016Phys. Rev. Lett.117062501 URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.062501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.062501

  39. [40]

    Kisyov S, Wu C Y , Henderson J, Gade A, Kaneko K, Sun Y , Shimizu N, Mizusaki T, Rhodes D, Biswas Set al.2022Phys. Rev. C106034311 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106. 034311

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.106

  40. [41]

    Wu C Y , Cline D, Czosnyka T, Backlin A, Baktash C, Diamond R M, Dracoulis G D, Hasselgren L, Kluge H, Kotlinski Bet al.1996Nucl. Phys. A607178–234 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/ 0375-9474(96)00181-9

    work page

  41. [42]

    Kumar K 1972Phys. Rev. Lett.28249 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28. 249

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28

  42. [43]

    Cline D 1986Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.36681–714 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-444-86979-1.50026-0

    work page

  43. [44]

    Nesbet R K 1970Phys. Rev. A21208 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.2.1208

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.2.1208

  44. [45]

    Morita H and Kanada-En’yo Y 2016Prog. Theor . Exp. Phys.2016103D02 URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1093/ptep/ptw144

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw144

  45. [46]

    Vermeer W J, Esat M T and Spear R H 1982Nucl. Phys. A389185–190 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1016/0375-9474(82)90297-4

    work page

  46. [47]

    Orce J N, Martín-Montes E J, Abrahams K J, Ngwetsheni C, Brown B A, Raju M K, Mehl C V , Mokgolobotho M J, Akakpo E H, Mavela D Let al.2021Phys. Rev. C104L061305 URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L061305

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.l061305

  47. [48]

    Maruhn J A, Kimura M, Schramm S, Reinhard P G, Horiuchi H and Tohsaki A 2006Phys. Rev. C74 044311 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044311

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.74.044311

  48. [49]

    Cseh J, Darai J, Antonenko N V , Adamian G G, Algora A, Hess P O and Lépine-Szily A 2010J. Phys. Conf. Ser .239012006 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/239/1/012006

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/239/1/012006

  49. [50]

    Feldmeier H and Neff T 2017Nuclear Particle Correlations and Cluster Physics371

    work page

  50. [51]

    Rev.521107 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.52.1107 Emergence of Cluster F ormation in Light Nuclei9

    Wheeler J A 1937Phys. Rev.521107 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.52.1107 Emergence of Cluster F ormation in Light Nuclei9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.52.1107

  51. [52]

    Rep.47167–223 URLhttps://doi.org/10

    Tang Y C, LeMere M and Thompsom D R 1978Phys. Rep.47167–223 URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1016/0370-1573(78)90175-8

    work page