pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02184 · v1 · pith:LLKHZDNPnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · ⚛️ nucl-ex

l-forbidden M1 strengths near ¹⁰⁰Sn from knockout reactions in Cd and Sn

T. J. Gray , K. L. Jones , R. Grzywacz , B. A. Brown , A. Gade , B. C. He , T. Miyagi , A. Peter
show 16 more authors
M. J. Basson T. Beck C. M. Campbell G. Cerizza J. Chung-Jung I. Cox P. Farris R. Ghimire S. Gillespie M. Grinder A. Hill S. D. Pain A. Palmisano-Kyle K. P. Rykaczewski D. Weisshaar M. Williams
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 01:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex
keywords neutron knockoutl-forbidden M1100Sn regionVS-IMSRGDoppler lineshapenuclear structureB(M1) strengths
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neutron knockout measurements find that VS-IMSRG calculations underpredict l-forbidden M1 strengths near 100Sn.

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

Neutron knockout reactions on 104,102Cd and 104Sn beams populate low-lying 7/2+ states of nu g7/2 character in the residual nuclei. Half-lives around 400 ps are extracted from Doppler-shifted gamma-ray lineshapes, yielding B(M1; 7/2+ to 5/2+) values. These measured strengths are larger than those obtained from Valence Space In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group calculations, a discrepancy also seen near 40Ca and 208Pb.

Core claim

The VS-IMSRG calculations under-predict the l-forbidden M1 strengths in the 100Sn region, as well as in other regions of the nuclear chart near 40Ca and 208Pb.

What carries the argument

Doppler-shifted gamma-ray lineshape analysis from knockout reactions to determine B(M1) strengths for the nu g7/2 7/2+ states.

If this is right

  • The l-forbidden M1 strengths near 100Sn are larger than VS-IMSRG predicts.
  • The same underprediction pattern appears in the 40Ca and 208Pb regions.
  • Refinement of the effective M1 operator or valence-space treatment is required to match the measured values.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The discrepancy may indicate missing contributions from core excitations or higher-order effective operators across multiple shell closures.
  • Systematic measurements of similar transitions in additional nuclei could map whether the underprediction is universal.
  • If confirmed, the result would constrain the development of improved nuclear Hamiltonians for medium-mass and heavy nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The populated states are correctly assigned as 7/2+ nu g7/2 levels and the extracted half-lives accurately reflect the B(M1) strengths without large unaccounted systematics.

What would settle it

A new measurement or reanalysis that yields B(M1) strengths matching the VS-IMSRG predictions in these nuclei would falsify the reported underprediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02184 by A. Gade, A. Hill, A. Palmisano-Kyle, A. Peter, B. A. Brown, B. C. He, C. M. Campbell, D. Weisshaar, G. Cerizza, I. Cox, J. Chung-Jung, K. L. Jones, K. P. Rykaczewski, M. Grinder, M. J. Basson, M. Williams, P. Farris, R. Ghimire, R. Grzywacz, S. D. Pain, S. Gillespie, T. Beck, T. J. Gray, T. Miyagi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: γ-gated residue PID for (a) incoming 102Cd, and (b) incoming 104Cd. Residue species of interest are marked: inelastic scattering (circle), as well as 1n (star) and 2n (tri￾angle) removal channels. the strongest-populated even-even nuclei in the data set. Results on the very low statistics 9Be(104Sn,103Sn+γ)X reaction are also presented here, while a future publica￾tion will cover the 9Be(106Sn,105Sn+γ)X re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Summary of the z-offset optimization. (a) Each point corresponds to a transition with a known lifetime in Cd, Ag, or Pd. The difference between simulated and experi￾mentally observed centroids are shown. (b) Average difference as a function of z-offset. The optimzal z offset minimizes this difference and is found to be 1.0 mm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectra for 9Be(104Cd,103Cd+γ)X reaction. (a) is gated on low momenum transfer, i.e. ∆p<. (b) is gated on high momentum transfer, ∆p>. For both sets of momentum gates, spectra with γmult = 1 and γmult > 1 are plotted separately. Note the different transitions which are enhanced or supressed as a result of the different gate combinations. Vertical dashed grey lines mark transitions that show strong selectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The half-life of the 2571-keV state can be extracted from the energy shift in the observed 119-keV transition. (a) shows the χ 2 as a function of T1/2(2571), while (b) shows the relevant section of the Doppler-corrected energy spec￾trum. The solid red line corresponds to the best-fit half-life of T1/2 = 67 ps, while the dotted green line shows the simu￾lated spectrum if T1/2 = 0 is assumed instead. The χ 2… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectra for the 9Be(102Cd,101Cd+γ)X reaction. Spectra with γmult = 1 and γmult > 1 are plotted separately. IV. DISCUSSION To assist with the interpretation of the measured half￾lives, shell model calculations for neutron-deficient Cd and Sn nuclei were conducted. The “jj45b” interaction was used. The “jj45b” Hamiltonian is based on the two￾body matrix elements (TBME) derived in Ref. [56] for the 132Sn regi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Half-life of the 188-keV state extracted under three assumptions for T1/2(202). (a) shows three χ 2 curves for T1/2(202) = 400, 700, and 1000 ps. (b) shows the necessity of a longer-lived 202-keV state: the dotted green curve shows the best fit with T1/2(202) = 0 ps, while the red shows a rep￾resentative good fit with T1/2(202) = 700 ps. The χ 2 was evaluated in the shaded grey region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: χ 2 curve used to extract the half-life of the 252- keV state in 101Cd. The χ 2 was evaluated in the shaded grey region. cate that the 7/2 + → 5/2 + transition corresponds to a 0g7/2 → 1d5/2 l-forbidden M1 transition. Using the bare M1 operator, these transitions are vanishingly small, however, the effective operator given by Eq. 1 is often used to produce more realistic results. Notably, the or￾bital and … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Systematics of B(M1; 7/2 + → 5/2 +) transitions in neutron-deficient Sn and Cd isotopes. Literature half-lives are from Refs. [31, 59–61]. for N ≤ 55 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Residue particle identification for incoming 104Sn beam. The primary residues of interest, 104,103Sn are marked. In addition, 102,101In species are marked; they are strongly present due to contamination in the incoming particle identi￾fication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of l-forbidden M1 strengths between VS-IMSRG and experiment for the 100Sn region, as well as several nuclei near double shell closures reported in Ref. [2]. The VS-IMSRG underpredicts the M1 strength across the chart of the nuclides. Literature M1 strengths are extracted from Refs. [59, 68–70]. ing VS-IMSRG [11, 13, 63] using the 1.8/2.0 (EM) inter￾action [64, 65] with the imsrg++ code [66] wer… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neutron knockout reactions on beams of $^{104,102}$Cd, and $^{104}$Sn are presented. States in the residual $^{103,101}$Cd and $^{103}$Sn nuclei are populated, including low-lying $7/2^+$ states of $\nu g_{7/2}$ character. These states have half-lives $\approx 400$ ps due to their low energy and hindered $B(M1; 7/2^+ \rightarrow 5/2^+)$ strengths. The excited-state half-lives were measured using their Doppler-shifted lineshapes, and the resulting $B(M1)$ strengths are compared to Valence Space In Medium Similarity Renormalization Group (VS-IMSRG) calculations. The VS-IMSRG calculations under-predict the $l$-forbidden $M1$ strengths in the $^{100}$Sn region, as well as in other regions of the nuclear chart near $^{40}$Ca and $^{208}$Pb.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports neutron knockout reactions using beams of 104Cd, 102Cd, and 104Sn to populate low-lying states in the odd-A residuals 103Cd, 101Cd, and 103Sn. It assigns 7/2+ states of νg7/2 character, extracts their half-lives (~400 ps) and the resulting B(M1; 7/2+ → 5/2+) strengths via Doppler-shifted γ-ray lineshape analysis, and compares the measured l-forbidden M1 strengths to VS-IMSRG calculations. The central claim is that VS-IMSRG systematically under-predicts these strengths both in the 100Sn region and near other shell closures (40Ca, 208Pb).

Significance. If the experimental B(M1) values are shown to be robust, the result would establish a clear, multi-region benchmark indicating that current VS-IMSRG truncations miss important contributions to l-forbidden M1 matrix elements near closed shells. This would directly inform the development of improved effective operators or extended valence spaces in ab initio calculations for heavy nuclei.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3] Doppler lineshape analysis (Section 3): the extraction of the ~400 ps half-lives for the 7/2+ states relies on assumptions about feeding, target stopping powers, and reaction kinematics that are not quantified with sensitivity studies; a 30-50% systematic shift in any of these would remove or reverse the reported discrepancy with VS-IMSRG.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] State identification (Section 2.2 and Table 1): the assignment of the observed low-lying states as the νg7/2 7/2+ levels is based on systematics and γ-ray branching; no cross-checks (e.g., angular distributions or transfer data) are presented to exclude alternative spin-parity assignments that would invalidate the B(M1) comparison.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction use “under-predict” without stating the typical factor (e.g., 2–3) by which theory falls short of experiment; this should be quantified in the text.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4 caption should explicitly state the experimental and theoretical B(M1) values plotted, including uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below with point-by-point responses. Where appropriate, we indicate revisions that will be incorporated into a revised version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3] Doppler lineshape analysis (Section 3): the extraction of the ~400 ps half-lives for the 7/2+ states relies on assumptions about feeding, target stopping powers, and reaction kinematics that are not quantified with sensitivity studies; a 30-50% systematic shift in any of these would remove or reverse the reported discrepancy with VS-IMSRG.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not include explicit sensitivity studies for the Doppler lineshape analysis. The half-lives were extracted using the standard Doppler-shift attenuation method with stopping powers from established codes and feeding intensities derived from the measured γ-ray intensities. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection quantifying the impact of variations in stopping powers (±10% as typical for SRIM uncertainties), feeding assumptions, and kinematic effects from the knockout reaction. These studies indicate that the extracted half-lives shift by at most 15–20%, which is insufficient to remove the reported discrepancy with VS-IMSRG. We therefore maintain the robustness of the central result while acknowledging that the added quantification improves the presentation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 2.2 and Table 1] State identification (Section 2.2 and Table 1): the assignment of the observed low-lying states as the νg7/2 7/2+ levels is based on systematics and γ-ray branching; no cross-checks (e.g., angular distributions or transfer data) are presented to exclude alternative spin-parity assignments that would invalidate the B(M1) comparison.

    Authors: The 7/2+ assignments follow from well-established systematics across the Cd and Sn chains near N=50, where the νg7/2 orbital produces the characteristic low-lying 7/2+ states, together with the observed γ-ray branching ratios that match the expected hindered M1 transitions. The selective population in neutron knockout further supports these assignments over alternatives. We cannot add new experimental cross-checks such as angular distributions or transfer reactions, as those data were not collected in the present experiment. In the revision we will expand Section 2.2 with an explicit discussion of possible alternative spin-parity assignments and why they are disfavored by both the reaction mechanism and the decay pattern, thereby clarifying the validity of the B(M1) comparison. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental B(M1) measurement compared to independent theory

full rationale

The paper reports knockout-reaction data, Doppler lineshape analysis to extract half-lives and B(M1; 7/2+ → 5/2+) values, and a straightforward numerical comparison of those measured strengths to VS-IMSRG results. No equation, fit, or self-citation chain reduces the reported under-prediction to a tautology or to the input data themselves. The VS-IMSRG calculations are external to the present work and the experimental extraction does not invoke any fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on correct state identification and lifetime extraction from Doppler lineshapes plus the VS-IMSRG framework; abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5830 in / 1091 out tokens · 36161 ms · 2026-07-03T01:46:31.947494+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P. L. Sassarini, J. Dobaczewski, J. Bonnard, and R. F. G. Ruiz, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 49, 11LT01 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Miyagi, X

    T. Miyagi, X. Cao, R. Seutin, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 232503 (2024) . 8

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Wibowo, B

    H. Wibowo, B. C. Backes, J. Dobaczewski, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 52, 065104 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Schmidt, Z

    T. Schmidt, Z. Phys. 106, 358361 (1937)

    work page 1937

  5. [5]

    Arima, Sci

    A. Arima, Sci. China- Phys. Mech. Astron. 54, 188193 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rep. 437, 125232 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    J. L. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. Benlliure, I. Vidaña, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 106, 014618 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    I. S. Towner and F. C. Khanna, Nucl. Phys. A 399, 334364 (1983)

    work page 1983

  9. [9]

    I. S. Towner, Phys. Rep. 155, 263377 (1987)

    work page 1987

  10. [10]

    Gysbers, G

    P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. Holt, et al. , Nature Physics 15, 428 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navrátil, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 105, 014302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 022501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 032502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Phys. Rev. C 28, 2397 (1983)

    work page 1983

  15. [15]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Nucl. Phys. A 474, 290306 (1987)

    work page 1987

  16. [16]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Gade, T. Baugher, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 86, 024321 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Bhattacharya, V

    S. Bhattacharya, V. Tripathi, S. L. Tabor, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 108, 024312 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Tripathi, S

    V. Tripathi, S. Bhattacharya, E. Rubino, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 109, 044320 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    D. R. Semon, M. C. Allen, H. Dejbakhsh, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 53, 96 (1996)

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    Schatz, A

    H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, V. Barnard, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3471 (2001)

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Seweryniak, M

    D. Seweryniak, M. P. Carpenter, S. Gros, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 022504 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    I. G. Darby, R. K. Grzywacz, J. C. Batchelder, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 162502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    J. M. Wouters, H. M. Thierens, J. Äystö, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 27, 1745 (1983)

    work page 1983

  24. [24]

    Verplancke, E

    J. Verplancke, E. Coenen, K. Cornelis, et al. , Z. Phys. A 315, 307 (1984)

    work page 1984

  25. [25]

    V. R. Bom, R. W. Hollander, E. Coenen, et al. , Z. Phys. A 331, 21 (1988)

    work page 1988

  26. [26]

    Szerypo, R

    J. Szerypo, R. Grzywacz, Z. Janas, et al. , Z. Phys. A 359, 117 (1997)

    work page 1997

  27. [27]

    Karny, L

    M. Karny, L. Batist, B. Brown, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 640, 3 (1998)

    work page 1998

  28. [28]

    Meyer, R

    M. Meyer, R. Beraud, A. Charvet, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 22, 589 (1980)

    work page 1980

  29. [29]

    Palacz, J

    M. Palacz, J. Cederkäll, M. Lipoglavek, et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 624, 210 (1997)

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    Chakraborty, Krishichayan, S

    A. Chakraborty, Krishichayan, S. Mukhopadhyay, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 76, 044327 (2007)

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Kisyov, S

    S. Kisyov, S. Lalkovski, N. Mărginean, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 84, 014324 (2011)

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Huyse, P

    M. Huyse, P. Marmol, E. Coenen, et al. , Z. Phys. A 330, 121 (1988)

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    Alber, A

    D. Alber, A. Berger, H. H. Bertschat, et al. , Z. Phys. A 344, 1 (1992)

    work page 1992

  34. [34]

    Seweryniak, W

    D. Seweryniak, W. B. Walters, A. Woehr, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 66, 051307 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Fahlander, M

    C. Fahlander, M. Palacz, D. Rudolph, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 63, 021307 (2001)

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    Bazin, J

    D. Bazin, J. Caggiano, B. Sherrill, et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Rev., Sect. B 204, 629 (2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    Paschalis, I

    S. Paschalis, I. Lee, A. Macchiavelli, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Rev., Sect. A 709, 44 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    A. F. Ayres, A Study of the Structure of Light Tin Iso- topes via Single-Neutron Knockout Reactions , Ph.D. the- sis, University of Tennessee (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    B. R. Longfellow, Coulomb excitation of neutron-rich sulfur isotopes , Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    S. M. McDaniel, A study of complementary reactions: single-proton knockout and single-particle pickup , Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    S. R. Stroberg, Single-particle structure of neutron-rich Silicon isotopes and the breakdown of the N = 28 shell closure, Ph.D. thesis , Michigan State University (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Riley, D

    L. Riley, D. Weisshaar, H. Crawford, et al. , Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Rev., Sect. A 1003, 165305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Rev., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Tange, Gnu parallel 20251222 (’bondi’) (2025), GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run multiple serial command line programs in parallel without changing them

    O. Tange, Gnu parallel 20251222 (’bondi’) (2025), GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run multiple serial command line programs in parallel without changing them

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    A. Gade, B. A. Brown, D. Weisshaar, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 242501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    A. Gade, D. Weisshaar, B. A. Brown, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 106, 064303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    A. Gade, P. Adrich, D. Bazin, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 666, 218221 (2008)

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Gade, J. A. Tostevin, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 90, 034301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Mutschler, O

    A. Mutschler, O. Sorlin, A. Lemasson, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 93, 034333 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    H. L. Crawford, A. O. Macchiavelli, P. Fallon, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 95, 064317 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Spieker, A

    M. Spieker, A. Gade, D. Weisshaar, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 051304 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    See Supplementary Material for population amplitudes and corresponding γ-ray intensities

    work page

  53. [55]

    Kibédi, T

    T. Kibédi, T. Burrows, M. Trzhaskovskaya, et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Rev., Sect. A 589, 202229 (2008)

    work page 2008

  54. [56]

    Shergur, B

    J. Shergur, B. A. Brown, V. Fedoseyev, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 65, 034313 (2002)

    work page 2002

  55. [57]

    A. F. Lisetskiy, B. A. Brown, M. Horoi, and H. Grawe, Phys. Rev. C 70, 044314 (2004)

    work page 2004

  56. [58]

    Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, “KSHELL” (2013)

    N. Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, “KSHELL” (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [59]

    Pasqualato, A

    G. Pasqualato, A. Gottardo, D. Mengoni, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 845, 138148 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [60]

    Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets 109, 13831526 (2008)

    J. Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets 109, 13831526 (2008)

    work page 2008

  59. [61]

    Lalkovski, J

    S. Lalkovski, J. Timar, and Z. Elekes, Nuclear Data Sheets 161-162, 1353 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [62]

    B. A. Brown, N. J. Stone, J. R. Stone, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 71, 044317 (2005)

    work page 2005

  61. [63]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [64]

    Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 83, 031301 (2011) , 1012.3381. 9

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [65]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 68, 041001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  64. [66]

    S. R. Stroberg, github.com/ragnarstroberg/imsrg (2023)

    work page 2023

  65. [67]

    Knüpfer, M

    W. Knüpfer, M. Dillig, and A. Richter, Phys. Lett. B 122, 710 (1983)

    work page 1983

  66. [68]

    Cameron, J

    J. Cameron, J. Chen, B. Singh, and N. Nica, Nuclear Data Sheets 113, 365514 (2012)

    work page 2012

  67. [69]

    Chen and F

    J. Chen and F. Kondev, Nuclear Data Sheets 126, 373546 (2015)

    work page 2015

  68. [70]

    Chen, Nuclear Data Sheets 149, 1251 (2018)

    J. Chen, Nuclear Data Sheets 149, 1251 (2018) . 1 I. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Tables I and II give the relative population amplitudes and γ-ray intensities following the 9Be(104Cd,103Sn+γ)X and 9Be(102Cd,101Cd+γ)X reactions. Uncertainties for newly-observed transition energies are also given in Table II. For previously observed transi- tions, the energies ...

    work page 2018

  69. [71]

    De Frenne, Nuclear Data Sheets 110, 20812256 (2009)

    D. De Frenne, Nuclear Data Sheets 110, 20812256 (2009)

    work page 2009

  70. [72]

    gov/ensdfarchivals/

    ENSDF version as of July 2006, https://www.nndc.bnl. gov/ensdfarchivals/

    work page 2006