Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A magnetic field shifts the exponential tails of light-nuclei wave functions linearly, and fluctuating fields therefore always enhance low-energy fusion rates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Magnetic fields linearly change the exponential decay rate of light-nucleus wave functions, which the authors argue could enhance low-energy fusion reactions and, at implausibly high field strengths, affect the Big Bang lithium abundance.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A new bound-state calculation of magnetic-field effects on light nuclei, but the claimed cross-section enhancement is an untested assumption and the lithium resolution needs implausibly large fields. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03684 v1 pith:K6HUSW6Z submitted 2025-09-03 nucl-th astro-ph.COhep-phnucl-ex

Light nuclei under magnetic field and the lithium problem

Nodoka Yamanaka This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.COhep-phnucl-ex PACS 26.35.+c27.10.+h13.40.-f21.60.Gx
keywords magnetic field effects on nucleibig bang nucleosynthesislithium problemCoulomb barrier tunnelingnucleon density distributionfew-body nuclear structurealpha-cluster modelnuclear reaction rates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Low-energy nuclear fusion happens by tunneling through the Coulomb barrier, and the probability of tunneling is set by how far the nuclear wave function reaches. This paper calculates how an external magnetic field changes the long-distance tails of the proton and neutron density distributions in 2H, 3H, 3He, and 6Li, treating the few-nucleon systems from first principles and 6Li in an alpha-cluster model. The leading effect is a shift in the exponential damping rate that is linear in the magnetic field; because the shift changes sign with field orientation, averaging over a fluctuating field always enhances the tunneling rate. The author argues this cannot reduce the yield of 7Be in the big bang, but could resolve the lithium problem by speeding up 7Be + p -> 8B in the early universe, or by flagging stray magnetic fields in the laboratory measurements of 4He + 3He -> 7Be used as BBN input.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the asymptotic exponential falloff of the one-nucleon density under an external magnetic field is modified according to the asymptotic relative factor (ARF), rho_N(r)|B / rho_N(r)|0 ~ exp(-C_N(B) r), with C_N(B) = C_N^(1) B + C_N^(2) B^2. The linear coefficient dominates, and it is largest for the proton density of 3He and the neutron density of 3H; 6Li inherits the sensitivity of its deuteron subcluster. Because the ARF is linear in B at leading order, averaging over a sign-fluctuating field gives a hyperbolic cosine, which is always greater than or equal to one, so magnetic fluctuations enhance rather than suppress low-energy fusion c

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the asymptotic relative factor (ARF), the ratio of the one-nucleon density at distance r in a magnetic field B to that at B = 0, fitted as exp(-C_N(B) r) at r = 7-12 fm. The exponent C_N(B) is Taylor-expanded to second order in B, and the linear term drives the argument: it makes the averaged response to a fluctuating field equal to cosh(C_N^(1) B r), which is always larger than one. The wave functions are obtained with the Gaussian expansion method, a variational expansion of few-body wave functions in Gaussian basis functions with geometric range parameters, using the Argonne v18 nucleon-nucleon force for the two- and three-nucleon systems and an alpha-nucleon cluste

Load-bearing premise

The paper's cross-section predictions rest on treating the bound-state one-nucleon density at large distance as proportional to the Coulomb-barrier tunneling rate; if barrier penetration is instead controlled by the two-body scattering wave function, the enhancement and suppression factors do not apply.

What would settle it

A direct two-body scattering calculation of 7Be + p Coulomb-barrier penetration at E ~ 0.1 MeV in a magnetic field of order B ~ 800 MeV^2 (natural units) would settle the central claim: if the computed cross-section enhancement differs substantially from the factor-of-two predicted from the tail-density ARF, the assumption that tunneling scales with the bound-state density fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Because the averaged ARF is (exp(-C^(1) B r) + exp(+C^(1) B r))/2 = cosh(C^(1) B r) >= 1, any sign-fluctuating magnetic field enhances, never suppresses, low-energy charged-particle fusion rates.
  • The 4He + 3He -> 7Be channel is therefore always sped up by magnetic fields, so the lithium problem cannot be solved this way by suppressing 7Be production.
  • A sufficiently strong BBN-era magnetic field, which the paper estimates at B ~ 800 MeV^2 in natural units, could enhance 7Be + p -> 8B enough to reduce the final 7Li abundance, assuming 7Be responds like its 3He analog.
  • If fixed-target 4He + 3He -> 7Be experiments generated magnetic fluctuations of comparable size near the beam, the measured cross sections would be systematically too high, making the BBN simulations that use them overpredict 7Li.
  • The quadratic-in-B term and the magnetic confining force change the exponent only at subleading order; they are negligible at BBN-scale fields, so the linear effect dominates the phenomenology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same mechanism implies that other low-energy fusion measurements made in magnetic environments—storage rings, plasma targets, or high-current beam lines—could carry a systematic enhancement, so extracted S-factors may need re-examination.
  • Beyond the paper, a direct calculation of the 7Be wave function in a magnetic field would convert the suggested B ~ 800 MeV^2 estimate into a firmer prediction, since the paper only uses the 3He analog by cluster-structure analogy.
  • Beyond the paper, in astrophysical sites with turbulent magnetic fields such as supernovae and neutron-star mergers, network reaction rates would be systematically enhanced, potentially shifting nucleosynthesis yields beyond the BBN-only analysis.
  • Beyond the paper, the dependence on spin-orbital configuration mixing suggests a diagnostic: reactions fed by compact open-shell nuclei like 3H and 3He should show larger magnetic sensitivity than those involving closed-shell 4He, a difference that can be checked in controlled experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the asymptotic one-nucleon density tails of 2H, 3H, 3He (AV18) and 6Li (α+n+p cluster model) in a uniform magnetic field. It fits the B-dependent exponential decay constant C_N(B)=C_N^{(1)}B+C_N^{(2)}B^2 from density ratios at r=7 and 12 fm. It then identifies the density ratio ARF with the enhancement/suppression of low-energy fusion cross sections. Because the exponent is linear in B, it concludes that fluctuating fields always enhance fusion, and uses this to propose two speculative resolutions of the cosmological lithium problem: enhancing 7Be+p->8B in BBN, or a systematic magnetic-field effect in laboratory measurements of 4He+3He->7Be.

Significance. If the cross-section identification could be justified, the result would be significant: magnetic-field-induced enhancement of sub-Coulomb fusion would affect BBN, stellar evolution, and low-energy nuclear experiments. The nuclear-structure calculation is a useful, nontrivial first step, and the extraction is not circular: the C_N coefficients are fitted to computed densities, not to lithium abundances. The author is transparent about several limitations. However, the central step connecting bound-state density tails to fusion penetrability is an assumption rather than a derivation, and the numerical extraction rests on two points without error estimates. As it stands, the paper provides a plausible qualitative effect, not a quantitative cross-section prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The ARF is a bound-state one-nucleon density ratio, but the fusion cross-section enhancement is introduced only by 'By assuming that the tunneling rate is proportional to the nucleon probability density under the Coulomb barrier...'. This is an ad hoc identification, not a derivation. Low-energy fusion is governed by the two-body scattering wave function in the combined nuclear+Coulomb potential; the barrier penetrability depends on the reduced mass and the Gamow exponent, not on the exponential tail of the isolated nucleus density. Since every BBN and experimental consequence uses this factor, the manuscript needs a scattering-theoretic derivation or a concrete model establishing the equivalence.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (14) and Table I] The claim that the net effect is 'always enhanced' is derived by averaging only the linear term. With the second-order terms in Table I, the averaged ARF becomes cosh(C1 B r) e^{-C2 B^2 r}; for positive C2 (e.g., 2H, 3He p, 6Li) this falls below unity for sufficiently large B^2 r. Thus even within the paper's framework the unconditional 'always' is not true. The conclusion should be restricted to the linear-dominated regime and to fields/radii where C2 is negligible.
  3. [Sec. II C and Table I] The coefficients C_N^{(1)} are obtained from only two density points (r=7 and 12 fm) with no error bars, no check of the exponential plateau, and no convergence test with respect to the Gaussian basis. Since the enhancement at r~60 fm is e^{-C B r}, moderate errors in C are exponentially amplified. The paper itself warns that variational tails are 'often unstable.' Provide multi-point fits, basis-size dependence, and uncertainties before using these numbers quantitatively.
  4. [Sec. III, lithium-problem proposals] The proposed resolutions require B ~ 800 MeV^2 for 7Be+p and similar laboratory δB. Using the paper's conversion (1 eV^2 ≈ 51 G), 800 MeV^2 ≈ 4×10^12 T, which is far beyond known BBN magnetic-field bounds and any conceivable fixed-target field. The manuscript cites constraints but does not reconcile the required magnitude with them; the text states that quantification is left for future work, so the paper currently offers a speculative mechanism rather than a demonstrated resolution. This should be stated explicitly, or the required field strength should be shown to be allowed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II A] The 'ab initio' description of 3H/3He omits three-nucleon forces; this is mentioned only in passing. The potential impact on the density tails should be discussed or at least clearly labeled as a limitation.
  2. [Sec. II C] The magnetic-field unit 'eV^2' is confusing as written. The conversion to tesla/gauss should be stated cleanly, and the same symbol should be used consistently (the text and figures use 'MeV^2' and 'eV^2' without a consistent convention).
  3. [Sec. III, 7Be paragraph] The sensitivity of 7Be is inferred by analogy with 3He and 6Li, but 7Be is not computed. The argument should be labeled as a conjecture, not a result.
  4. [Sec. II C, Eq. (12)] Define R' more explicitly; the sentence 'last Jacobi coordinate' is not sufficient for a reader to reconstruct the projection operator in Eq. (12).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central 'prediction' of fusion cross-section enhancement is the fitted density ratio by assumption; the underlying bound-state calculation is independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, Eq. (13) and the following sentence]
    "We fit the one-nucleon probability density at two points, namely r = 7 fm and r = 12 fm, for which our calculation is sufficiently stable. This relative factor has a practical meaning in the context of low energy nuclear reactions and the BBN. By assuming that the tunneling rate is proportional to the nucleon probability density under the Coulomb barrier, the ARF (13) gives the enhancement/suppression of the nuclear fusion cross section as a function of the penetration and the magnetic field."

    The ARF (13), e^{-C_N(B) r}, is defined as the ratio of the computed one-nucleon density tails and C_N(B) is fitted from that density at r = 7 and 12 fm. The 'prediction' that this factor gives the enhancement/suppression of the fusion cross section is introduced only by the assumption that tunneling is proportional to the bound-state nucleon density. Thus the predicted cross-section enhancement is, by construction, the same fitted density ratio. The subsequent 'always enhance' result (Eq. 14) follows from the mathematical identity (e^{-x}+e^{x})/2 >= 1 applied to that fitted exponent; it is not an independent scattering or penetrability calculation. The paper itself cautions that the density coordinate is the distance from the center of mass and 'might not exactly be the distance controll

full rationale

The bound-state part of the paper is genuinely self-contained: the two- and three-nucleon densities are obtained by diagonalizing Eq. (2) with the Argonne v18 or cluster-model interactions, and the coefficients C_N(B) are fitted to those computed densities, not to the lithium abundance or to BBN reaction rates. So the astrophysical target is not used as input. The circularity is localized in the step that converts the fitted density ratio into a cross-section prediction: Eq. (13) defines the asymptotic density ratio, and the sentence following it simply assumes that this ratio equals the fusion cross-section enhancement. That makes the paper's headline claim ('fluctuating magnetic fields always enhance the tunneling rate') equivalent, under that assumption, to the fitted quantity itself, rather than a derived consequence of scattering theory. The paper is transparent about the assumption, but the abstract and conclusion present the enhancement as a finding. The self-citations in the manuscript (e.g., [96,97,99,100,103,107,127-129]) are methodological or analogical and are not load-bearing for this step; the Gaussian expansion method is cited from the external reference [87], and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Hence the score reflects one central prediction that reduces by construction, while the underlying ab initio density calculation remains independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on standard quantum mechanics plus several model assumptions. The most load-bearing are the ad hoc proportionality between bound-state density and tunneling rate, and the unreported basis parameters that control the numerical output. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Two-point fit positions for the asymptotic exponent = r=7 fm and r=12 fm
    C_N(B) is extracted from the density ratio at two radii (Eq. 13). The choice of radii affects the extracted exponent, and no stability check is shown.
  • Gaussian basis parameters = not stated
    The geometric progression ranges for the Gaussian expansion (r_min, a, n_max; R_min, A, N_max) are not given, so the numerical output depends on undisclosed variational parameters.
  • OCM Pauli projector strength = lambda=10^4
    Used for 6Li in the orthogonality condition model; the paper notes this may interfere with the small magnetic interaction and requires stability checks (Sec. II A).
axioms (6)
  • standard math The nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation with Hamiltonian (2) describes the nucleus under an external magnetic field.
    Assumed throughout; no relativistic corrections are considered.
  • domain assumption Argonne v18 accurately describes 2H, 3H, and 3He without three-nucleon forces.
    Stated in Sec. II A: 'We do not consider the three-nucleon force in this work.' This is an approximation for the three-nucleon systems.
  • domain assumption The Kanada-Kaneko + Argonne v8' + OCM model correctly describes 6Li as an alpha+n+p cluster.
    Used in Sec. II A; no validation against 6Li observables is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The bound-state one-nucleon density tail controls the low-energy fusion tunneling rate.
    Stated in Sec. III: 'By assuming that the tunneling rate is proportional to the nucleon probability density under the Coulomb barrier.' This is the bridge from the computed density to all cross-section claims.
  • ad hoc to paper The variational Gaussian expansion is stable and converged at r=7-12 fm despite known tail instability.
    The paper asserts the calculation is 'sufficiently stable' at these radii but provides no convergence evidence.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field does not modify the nuclear interaction or the Coulomb barrier itself.
    The Hamiltonian couples B only to kinetic terms and magnetic moments; plasma screening and field feedback on the potential are ignored.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light nuclei under magnetic field and the lithium problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6HUSW6Z

@misc{pith2026250903684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light nuclei under magnetic field and the lithium problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6HUSW6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03684}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We analyze the effect of the magnetic field on the proton and neutron density distributions of the nuclei 2H, 3H, 3He, which are calculated ab initio, and the 6Li nucleus in the alpha-cluster model. It is found that the asymptotic exponential damp of the probability density at long distance is modified, and that the linear component of the exponent with respect to the magnetic field yields the leading contribution, while those of the second derivative and the confining magnetic force are subleading. Due to the linear dependence of the exponent, fluctuating magnetic fields always enhance the tunneling rate, i.e. the cross section of low energy nuclear reactions which occur at large separation across the Coulomb barrier. While this mechanism cannot suppress the production of 7Be in the early Universe, it has the potential to resolve the lithium problem either by increasing the reaction rate of 7Be + p -> 8B at the bigbang nucleosynthesis era if the magnetic field at this time was sufficiently strong, or by correcting the systematically enlarged 4He + 3He -> 7Be cross section by the unwanted magnetic field generated in the nuclear experimental setup, which was so far used as the input of the simulation of bigbang nucleosynthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03684 by Nodoka Yamanaka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The Jacobi coordinate of three-body systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Density distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The modifications of the neutron probability distrib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Modification of the wave function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Bipartite Solution to the Lithium Problem

    hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    A sequential majoron-to-neutrinos decay followed by axion-like particle-to-photons decay can lower primordial lithium without exceeding deuterium limits.

  2. FewBodyToolkit.jl: a Julia package for solving quantum few-body problems

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0

    FewBodyToolkit.jl is a documented, open-source Julia solver for two- and three-body quantum bound and resonant states that matches reference results for Coulomb, low-dimensional universal, nuclear resonance, and posit...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 37 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, no.10, 410-413 (1966)

    1966

  2. [2]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 146, 542-552 (1966)

    1966

  3. [3]

    R. V. Wagoner, W. A. Fowler and F. Hoyle, Astrophys. J. 148, 3-49 (1967)

    1967

  4. [4]

    M. S. Smith, L. H. Kawano and R. A. Malaney, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 85, 219-247 (1993)

    1993

  5. [5]

    D. N. Schramm and M. S. Turner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 303-318 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9706069 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    A. Coc, E. Vangioni-Flam, P. Descouvemont, A. Adah- chour and C. Angulo, Astrophys. J. 600, 544-552 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0309480 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T. H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015004 (2016) [arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    C. A. Bertulani and T. Kajino, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 89, 56-100 (2016) [arXiv:1604.03197 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    G. J. Mathews, M. Kusakabe and T. Kajino, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 26, no.08, 1741001 (2017) [arXiv:1706.03138 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J. P. Uzan and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rept. 754, 1-66 (2018) [arXiv:1801.08023 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T. H. Yeh and C. Young, JCAP 03, 010 (2020) [erratum: JCAP 11, E02 (2020)] [arXiv:1912.01132 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Reichert et al

    M. Reichert et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 268, no.2, 66 (2023) [arXiv:2305.07048 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Sbordone et al

    L. Sbordone et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 522, A26 (2010) [arXiv:1003.4510 [astro-ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Spite and M

    F. Spite and M. Spite, Astron. Astrophys. 115, 357-366 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    Richard, G

    O. Richard, G. Michaud and J. Richer, Astrophys. J. 619, 538-548 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0409672 [astro- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Piau et al

    L. Piau et al. , Astrophys. J. 653, 300-315 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0603553 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    X. Fu, A. Bressan, P. Molaro, P. Marigo, and M. Spite, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 452, 3256 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    B. D. Fields and K. A. Olive, JCAP 10, 078 (2022) [arXiv:2204.03167 [astro-ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    B. S. Nara Singh, M. Hass, Y. Nir-El and G. Haquin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 262503 (2004) [arXiv:nucl- ex/0407017 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    Descouvemont, A

    P. Descouvemont, A. Adahchour, C. Angulo, A. Coc and E. Vangioni-Flam, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 88, 203-236 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0407101 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    3He(alpha,gamma)7Be cross section at low energies

    G. Gyurky et al. , Phys. Rev. C 75, 035805 (2007) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0702003 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Astrophysical S-factor of the 3He(alpha,gamma)7Be reaction measured at low energy via prompt and delayed gamma detection

    F. Confortola et al. [LUNA], Phys. Rev. C 75, 065803 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2151 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    T. A. D. Brown et al. , Phys. Rev. C 76, 055801 (2007) [arXiv:0710.1279 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Di Leva et al

    A. Di Leva et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 232502 (2009) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 159903 (2009)]

    2009

  25. [25]

    B. D. Fields, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61, 47-68 (2011) [arXiv:1203.3551 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Activation measurement of the 3He(a,g)7Be reaction cross section at high energies

    C. Bordeanu et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 908, 1-11 (2013) [arXiv:1304.4740 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Kawabata et al

    T. Kawabata et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.5, 052701 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    The $^{7}$Be($\boldsymbol{n,p}$)$^{7}$Li reaction and the Cosmological Lithium Problem: measurement of the cross section in a wide energy range at n_TOF (CERN)

    L. Damone et al. [n TOF], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.4, 042701 (2018) [arXiv:1806.03050 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Cross section of $^3$He($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be around the $^7$Be proton separation threshold

    T. Sz¨ ucs et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, no.5, 055804 (2019) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 105, no.6, 069901 (2022)] [arXiv:1905.01711 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Hayakawa et al

    S. Hayakawa et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, no.1, L13 (2021). 8

    2021

  31. [31]

    Experimental determination of the $^3$He($\alpha$,$\gamma$)$^7$Be reaction cross section above the $^7$Be proton separation threshold

    ´A. T´ othet al. , Phys. Rev. C 108, no.2, 025802 (2023) [arXiv:2307.10218 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    J. R. Ellis, J. E. Kim and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 145, 181-186 (1984)

    1984

  33. [33]

    Lindley, Astrophys

    D. Lindley, Astrophys. J. 294, 1-8 (1985)

    1985

  34. [34]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Sato, Phys. Lett. B 189, 23 (1987)

    1987

  35. [35]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Astrophys. J. 331, 19-32 (1988)

    1988

  36. [36]

    J. R. Ellis, G. B. Gelmini, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B 373, 399-437 (1992)

    1992

  37. [37]

    Stau-catalyzed $^6$Li Production in Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis

    K. Hamaguchi, T. Hatsuda, M. Kamimura, Y. Kino and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 650, 268-274 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0702274 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    The cosmic 6Li and 7Li problems and BBN with long-lived charged massive particles

    K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063524 (2008) [arXiv:0707.2070 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    The X^- Solution to the ^6Li and ^7Li Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Problems

    M. Kusakabe, T. Kajino, R. N. Boyd, T. Yoshida and G. J. Mathews, Astrophys. J. 680, 846 (2008) [arXiv:0711.3858 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Pospelov and J

    M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103514 (2010) [arXiv:1006.4172 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    Big Bang Nucleosynthesis as a Probe of New Physics

    M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 539-568 (2010) [arXiv:1011.1054 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Destruction of 7Be in big bang nucleosynthesis via long-lived sub-strongly interacting massive particles as a solution to the Li problem

    M. Kawasaki and M. Kusakabe, Phys. Rev. D 83, 055011 (2011) [arXiv:1012.0435 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    R. H. Cyburt, J. Ellis, B. D. Fields, F. Luo, K. A. Olive and V. C. Spanos, JCAP 12, 037 (2012) [arXiv:1209.1347 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    A. Coc, J. P. Uzan and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.12, 123530 (2013) [arXiv:1303.1935 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Revised Big Bang Nucleosynthesis with long-lived negatively charged massive particles: updated recombination rates, primordial 9Be nucleosynthesis, and impact of new 6Li limits

    M. Kusakabe, K. S. Kim, M. K. Cheoun, T. Kajino, Y. Kino and G. J. Mathews, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 214, 5 (2014) [arXiv:1403.4156 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Goudelis, M

    A. Goudelis, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.21, 211303 (2016) [arXiv:1510.08858 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Fradette and M

    A. Fradette and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.7, 075033 (2017) [arXiv:1706.01920 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 023502 (2018) [arXiv:1709.01211 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Light Dark Matter: A Common Solution to the Lithium and ${H_0}$ Problems

    J. Alcaniz, N. Bernal, A. Masiero and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136008 (2021) [arXiv:1912.05563 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Boyarsky, M

    A. Boyarsky, M. Ovchynnikov, O. Ruchayskiy and V. Syvolap, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.2, 023517 (2021) [arXiv:2008.00749 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    T. H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive and B. D. Fields, JCAP 10, 046 (2022) [arXiv:2207.13133 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Chang, S

    S. Chang, S. Ganguly, T. H. Jung, T. S. Park and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 015019 (2024) [arXiv:2401.00687 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    BBN catalysis by doubly charged particles

    E. Akhmedov and M. Pospelov, JCAP 08, 028 (2024) [arXiv:2405.06019 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Y. M. Chen and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.12, 123024 (2025) [arXiv:2410.07343 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Akita, G

    K. Akita, G. Baur, M. Ovchynnikov, T. Schwetz and V. Syvolap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.12, 121001 (2025) [arXiv:2411.00892 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Consistent $N_{\rm eff}$ fitting in big bang nucleosynthesis analysis

    S. Ganguly, T. H. Jung and S. Yun, [arXiv:2507.23354 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Y. Luo, T. Kajino, M. Kusakabe and G. J. Mathews, Astrophys. J. 872, no.2, 172 (2019) [arXiv:1810.08803 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    K. Park, Y. Luo and T. Kajino, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.10, 103002 (2024) [arXiv:2310.06292 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 148, 51-68 (1967)

    1967

  60. [60]

    J. J. Matese and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. 180, 1289- 1292 (1969)

    1969

  61. [61]

    M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2743 (1988)

    1988

  62. [62]

    J. M. Quashnock, A. Loeb and D. N. Spergel, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 344, L49-L51 (1989)

    1989

  63. [63]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Lett. B 265, 258-261 (1991)

    1991

  64. [64]

    Ratra, Astrophys

    B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 391, L1-L4 (1992)

    1992

  65. [65]

    B. l. Cheng, D. N. Schramm and J. W. Truran, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5006-5018 (1994) [arXiv:astro-ph/9308041 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  66. [66]

    B. l. Cheng, A. V. Olinto, D. N. Schramm and J. W. Truran, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4714-4718 (1996) [arXiv:astro-ph/9606163 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  67. [67]

    G. Sigl, A. V. Olinto and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D 55, 4582-4590 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9610201 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  68. [68]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rept. 348, 163- 266 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0009061 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  69. [69]

    Primordial magnetic fields from second-order cosmological perturbations: Tight coupling approximation

    S. Maeda, S. Kitagawa, T. Kobayashi and T. Shiromizu, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 135014 (2009) [arXiv:0805.0169 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  70. [70]

    Demozzi, V

    V. Demozzi, V. Mukhanov and H. Rubinstein, JCAP 08, 025 (2009) [arXiv:0907.1030 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Kandus, K

    A. Kandus, K. E. Kunze and C. G. Tsagas, Phys. Rept. 505, 1-58 (2011) [arXiv:1007.3891 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  72. [72]

    Primordial magnetic field limits from cosmological data

    T. Kahniashvili, A. G. Tevzadze, S. K. Sethi, K. Pandey and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 82, 083005 (2010) [arXiv:1009.2094 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [73]

    D. G. Yamazaki, T. Kajino, G. J. Mathew and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rept. 517, 141-167 (2012) [arXiv:1204.3669 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

    Kobayashi, JCAP 05, 040 (2014) [arXiv:1403.5168 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Kobayashi, JCAP 05, 040 (2014) [arXiv:1403.5168 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen and A. Wickens, JCAP 09, 019 (2019) [arXiv:1907.04315 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Y. Di, J. Wang, R. Zhou, L. Bian, R. G. Cai and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.25, 251102 (2021) [arXiv:2012.15625 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    M. O. Olea-Romacho, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 015023 (2024) [arXiv:2310.19948 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Yanagihara, F

    K. Yanagihara, F. Uchida, T. Fujita and S. Tsu- jikawa, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.8, 083506 (2024) [arXiv:2312.07938 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Forward cascade of large-scale primordial magnetic fields during structure formation

    M. Abramson, E. Clarke, T. Kahniashvili, S. Man- dal, S. Mtchedlidze and J. Schober, [arXiv:2508.00694 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    M. Zhou, V. Zhdankin, M. W. Kunz, N. F. Loureiro and D. A. Uzdensky, Astrophys. J. 960, no.1, 12 (2024) [arXiv:2308.01924 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.