Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 75 references

Bayesian Analysis of the $^{86}$Sr$(\alpha, \alpha)$ Reaction to Constrain the $^{86}$Sr$(\alpha, n)$ Cross Section at Astrophysical Energies

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that three elastic-scattering measurements of 86Sr(α,α), analyzed with a Bayesian optical-model fit, constrain the 86Sr(α,n)89Zr cross section at 6.2 MeV to about 50% uncertainty.

desk verdict New 86Sr(α,α) data and a careful Bayesian OMP analysis give a real but conditional ~50% uncertainty on the 86Sr(α,n) cross section; the quote needs a caveat because the imaginary-potential energy dependence is prior-driven, and the paper's own cross-section test shifts the median by 2x. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05461 v1 pith:V5TVMSQW submitted 2025-09-05 nucl-ex astro-ph.SRnucl-th

Caleb Marshall , Taliah Lansing , David Gribble , Richard Longland , Athanasios Psaltis , Kiana Setoodehnia This is my paper
classification nucl-exastro-ph.SRnucl-th PACS 25.55.Ci25.55.-e
keywords alphaopticalmodelBayesianinferenceelasticscattering86Sr(αn)Hauser-Feshbachweakr-processnuclearreactionratesuncertainties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports new elastic-scattering angular distributions for 86Sr(α,α) at 12.1, 18.1, and 20.5 MeV and uses them to build a local alpha optical model potential with quantified uncertainties. The central claim is that the correlated Bayesian posterior for this potential, propagated through Hauser-Feshbach calculations, pins the 86Sr(α,n)89Zr cross section at the astrophysically relevant energy of 6.2 MeV to roughly 50% uncertainty: the 68% credibility interval has a median of 0.26 μb (+0.13/−0.06) for a linear imaginary energy dependence and 0.20 μb (+0.10/−0.06) for a Fermi form. The mechanism is that the low-energy (α,n) cross section is almost entirely set by the imaginary potential's strength at radii beyond about 10 fm, a region the elastic data constrain even though the imaginary potential's energy dependence is not constrained. If correct, this runs contrary to the common view that elastic scattering cannot usefully limit (α,n) cross sections, and it would give weak r-process nucleosynthesis calculations a quantitatively anchored reaction rate rather than an order-of-magnitude spread.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a six-parameter alpha optical model potential: a real Woods-Saxon volume term plus a purely imaginary volume term, with Coulomb radius fixed and energy dependence only in the depths. The real depth falls linearly with energy; the imaginary depth is tried in two forms, linear and Fermi, each handled as its own model. A Bayesian posterior over all potential, normalization, scatter, and beam-energy parameters is sampled with dynamic nested sampling, with a hand-tuned constraint c = V r^1.6 to select phase-shift ambiguity families near a standard starting potential. The posterior samples are then fed into a Hauser-Feshbach statistical-model calculation at 6.2 MeV, and

What would settle it

A direct 86Sr(α,n)89Zr measurement at Eα≈6.2 MeV with total uncertainty below about 20%, or an elastic-scattering measurement at a lower energy (say 8–10 MeV) that shifts the fitted imaginary tail. If the direct cross section falls outside the paper's 68% band (roughly 0.14–0.39 μb after combining linear and Fermi results) or the tail strength changes with the new data, the claim that elastic data alone constrain the cross section to 50% fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that a single, moderate-precision elastic-scattering measurement at three beam energies can reduce the uncertainty of a low-energy (α,n) cross section to about a factor of 1.5 in the upward direction. The authors perform a fully Bayesian analysis of the 86Sr(α,α) data with a six-parameter volume-absorption Woods-Saxon optical model, leaving the overall normalization and additional scatter as free parameters, restricting the discrete phase-shift ambiguity with a V r^1.6 constraint, and treating linear and Fermi forms of the imaginary-depth energy dependence as two separate models. Propagating correlated posterior samples through Hauser-Feshbach calculations gives

Load-bearing premise

The whole 50% band depends on the assumed way the absorbing part of the nuclear force grows with energy; the elastic data themselves do not constrain that energy dependence, so the posterior reflects the prior assumptions about it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A roughly 50%-constrained 86Sr(α,n)89Zr cross section at 6.2 MeV replaces the order-of-magnitude spread among optical models in weak r-process network calculations for this nucleus.
  • Elastic scattering data can serve as a practical surrogate for direct (α,n) measurements when the Bayesian model accounts for normalization and parameter correlations.
  • Future elastic-scattering campaigns should target the imaginary potential at r > 10 fm, since that tail determines the astrophysical cross section.
  • Direct (α,n) data are best used to update optical-model parameters coherently rather than by simple rescaling or model selection; a few high-energy points alone can actually increase low-energy uncertainty if the potential is not updated simultaneously.
  • The two energy-dependence models give very different imaginary depths yet overlapping cross sections, so the predictive quantity is the joint parameter space, not any single optical-model parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 50% number is a posterior conditioned on the assumed energy dependence of the imaginary well; a different but equally plausible energy dependence could move the median, so the result is best read as a constraint within this optical-model family rather than a model-free cross-section measurement.
  • A direct test would be to apply the same Bayesian pipeline to existing elastic-scattering data on neighboring isotopes near N≈50; if the >10 fm imaginary tail correlates with their measured (α,n) cross sections, the proposed mechanism generalizes across the weak r-process region.
  • The paper's tail-strength diagnostic suggests a simplified reaction-rate prescription: instead of comparing full optical potentials, rate libraries could tabulate the imaginary tail strength at a fixed radius (say 12 fm) and propagate its uncertainty, making uncertainty quantification cheaper than full posterior recalculation.
  • Because the linear and Fermi models disagree by a factor of about 4 in imaginary depth yet give overlapping cross sections, future measurements that discriminate the imaginary depth at small radii would not necessarily improve astrophysical predictions; only data sensitive to the tail would.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports 86Sr(α,α) elastic scattering angular distributions at 12.1, 18.1, and 20.5 MeV and analyzes them with a fully specified Bayesian model using a six-parameter Woods-Saxon alpha optical potential, with either linear or Fermi energy dependence for the imaginary depth. Posterior samples are propagated through TALYS Hauser-Feshbach calculations to predict the 86Sr(α,n)89Zr cross section at Eα = 6.2 MeV. The linear and Fermi models give median cross sections of 0.26 and 0.20 μb with 68% intervals of about +0.13/−0.06 and +0.10/−0.06, respectively. When three measured (α,n) cross sections at 10.18, 10.79, and 11.40 MeV are included, the linear-model median increases to 0.51 μb and the upper uncertainty grows to a factor of about 2.6. The authors conclude that the elastic scattering data constrain the low-energy (α,n) cross section to roughly 50%.

Significance. The methodological contribution is valuable: the forward model, priors, likelihoods, and sampling procedure are explicit; the bespoke optical-model code is checked against ECIS97 to 3%; and the posterior is propagated through Hauser-Feshbach calculations with parameter correlations preserved. If the 50% constraint were robust, it would be a useful step for weak r-process nucleosynthesis calculations. However, the manuscript itself states that the imaginary-potential energy dependence, which carries the extrapolation to 6.2 MeV, is not constrained by the data, and the cross-section data test in Sec. IV C shifts the central value by a factor of about two. The significance is therefore conditional on the assumed energy-dependence priors and the single-energy proxy for the reaction-rate uncertainty.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A and Table III] The central 50% constraint is not an empirical constraint on the 6.2 MeV cross section. The paper states: 'Our data does not constrain the energy dependence of the imaginary potential at all, and the posterior value is only based on our initial assumptions.' For the linear model, W1 retains its HalfNormal(1) prior (Eq. 18); for the Fermi model, W1 and W2 retain their truncated-normal priors (Eqs. 20-21). Since the extrapolation from 12-21 MeV down to 6.2 MeV is controlled entirely by W(E), the posterior of the (α,n) cross section is largely a projection of prior choices through TALYS. Please provide a prior-sensitivity study (e.g., wider or alternate W1, W2 priors) and/or explicitly reframe the claim as conditional on the assumed energy dependence.
  2. [Sec. IV C, Eq. 25 and Table III] The internal test with measured (α,n) data undermines the stability implied by the '50%' claim. Adding 86Sr(α,n) cross sections at 10.18, 10.79 and 11.40 MeV shifts the linear-model median at 6.2 MeV from 0.26 to 0.51 μb and increases the 84%/median ratio from 1.5 to 2.57. These data are only 4-5 MeV above the target energy, so a factor-of-two shift demonstrates that the elastic-only posterior is not robust under additional information the same model treats as relevant. The paper calls this 'tension'; the authors should either reconcile this tension or substantially soften the headline statement.
  3. [Sec. III F] The discrete-ambiguity restriction c = V r^1.6 with a hand-tuned range (printed as '380 < c < 270 MeV·fm^n', presumably 270 < c < 380) is an additional assumption that confines the posterior to the McFadden-Satchler family. The choice n=1.6 and the c-range are motivated by mode separation, but they directly affect the real-potential depth and hence the low-energy cross-section prediction. Please quantify the sensitivity of the 6.2 MeV cross-section posterior to the choice of n and to the c-range boundaries.
  4. [Sec. III and Sec. V] The paper assumes 'that the variation at this single data point will be indicative of the overall reaction rate uncertainty' and states it made no attempt to calculate the reaction rate. Because the rate integrand (Eq. 7) receives contributions from a range of energies around the 5.9 MeV c.m. peak, a 68% interval at a single laboratory energy is not automatically a 50% reaction-rate uncertainty. Either compute the rate uncertainty from the posterior samples or explicitly limit the claim to the cross section at 6.2 MeV.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III F] The inequality '380 < c < 270 MeV·fm^n' contains no allowed values; it should presumably be '270 < c < 380 MeV·fm^n'.
  2. [Sec. III B, Sec. V, abstract] Typographical issues: 'Boeltzmann' should be 'Boltzmann', 'creditability' should be 'credibility', and 'constraint' appears where 'constrain' is meant.
  3. [Figs. 2-4] Only linear-model credibility bands are shown, with the Fermi-model fits described as 'seemingly identical.' A quantitative comparison or a supplementary figure would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 6.2 MeV cross-section is a genuine extrapolation, but its claimed precision is partly prior-driven and should be read as conditional on unconstrained imaginary-potential energy-dependence assumptions.

full rationale

The paper does not use the 86Sr(α,n) cross section at 6.2 MeV in its main likelihood; instead, it fits elastic-scattering angular distributions at 12.08, 18.10, and 20.53 MeV, propagates the posterior through TALYS, and reports the resulting 6.2 MeV (α,n) cross-section posterior. The target quantity is therefore not an input to the fit, so the central prediction is not circular by construction. The strongest caveat is the paper's own admission in Sec. IV A: 'Our data does not constrain the energy dependence of the imaginary potential at all, and the posterior value is only based on our initial assumptions.' This means the 6.2 MeV cross-section uncertainty is partly a projection of the W1/W2 priors rather than a pure data constraint. That is a real limitation and a prior-sensitivity risk, but it is not a circular reduction: the cross-section posterior is a nonlinear Hauser-Feshbach function of all optical-model parameters, not an identity with any fitted quantity. The paper also provides a genuine cross-check in Sec. IV C: when measured (α,n) cross sections from Ref. [63] are added, the 6.2 MeV median shifts from 0.26 to 0.51 μb and the uncertainty grows to about a factor of 2.57, showing that the prediction is falsifiable and not statistically forced by the elastic-scattering fit. The self-citation to Ref. [49] for the discrete-ambiguity constraint is a methodological borrowing, not a load-bearing appeal to an unverified uniqueness theorem. The discrete-ambiguity constraint is transparently described, albeit with an apparent typo in the printed inequality ('380 < c < 270'), and it restricts the posterior to the McFadden-Satchler family, but this is a stated modeling choice, not a circular use of the target cross section. Overall, the paper's central claim is independent content: it is an extrapolation with identifiable assumptions, and its own cross-section-data test reveals tension rather than agreement by construction. The main weakness is correctness/robustness risk, not circularity; hence the low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference is only as strong as its priors in the energy-dependence sector: W1 (linear) and W1/W2 (Fermi) posteriors equal their priors, and the discrete-ambiguity constraint is tuned by hand on the same data. The geometry and real-depth constraints come from the data, but the sub-Coulomb extrapolation is substantially assumption-driven. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Discrete-ambiguity exponent n = 1.6
    Sec III F: chosen by hand from the unconstrained posterior ('varied n by hand until the separation between modes appeared to be maximized'), then re-applied as a constraint on the same data; the printed range 380 < c < 270 is internally inconsistent with the stated global c = 259.
  • Real-depth energy slope V1 = HalfNormal(1) prior; posterior shifted to lower values
    Sec IV A: 'it is not clear that our data adds any particular constraint' on V1; the posterior shift is described as an indirect consequence of V-r correlation and the discrete-ambiguity limits.
  • Linear imaginary-depth energy slope W1 = HalfNormal(1) prior; posterior identical to prior
    Sec IV A: 'Our data does not constrain the energy dependence of the imaginary potential at all'; W1 sets W(6.2 MeV) and therefore controls the extrapolated cross section.
  • Fermi imaginary inflection energy W1 = Truncated normal N(10, 0.5); posterior identical to prior
    Sec III E: chosen as 'a rough estimate of their acceptable physical values'; unconstrained by data and directly shapes the low-energy extrapolation.
  • Fermi imaginary width W2 = Truncated normal N(2.0, 0.5); posterior identical to prior
    Sec III E: chosen by hand; posterior equals prior; controls how quickly the imaginary depth changes toward 6.2 MeV.
  • Prior means for depths and geometry (V0 = 185 MeV, W0 = 25 MeV, r = 1.4 fm, a = 0.52 fm, ri = 1.4 fm, ai = 0.52 fm) = McFadden-Satchler values with 20-40% spreads
    Sec III E and Sec III G: all potential priors are centered on McFadden-Satchler parameters, so the posterior cannot wander far from that region; the text also inconsistently quotes the V0 center as 150 MeV.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The α-nucleus interaction is a Woods-Saxon volume potential with a volume-only imaginary term and fixed Coulomb radius 1.3 fm (Eq. 2)
    Sec III A: justified by historical precedence and limited data; excludes surface imaginary, spin-orbit, and non-Woods-Saxon forms, a model-form uncertainty the paper acknowledges in Sec V.
  • domain assumption The real depth falls linearly with energy and the imaginary depth is either linear or Fermi in energy (Eqs. 4-6)
    Sec III A: two forms are tried, but both share McFadden-Satchler-centered priors, and Sec IV A shows the data do not constrain these forms.
  • domain assumption Hauser-Feshbach statistical model with TALYS 2.0 defaults and BSFG level density describes 86Sr(α,n)89Zr
    Sec III B: BSFG chosen following Ref [42]; the level-density choice shifts the 6.2 MeV cross section by a factor 1.4-1.5 and is not propagated as an uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper The posterior may be restricted to the discrete-ambiguity family nearest McFadden-Satchler via c = V r^1.6 with a hand-set range
    Sec III F: n is fitted by hand to the unconstrained posterior and the c-range is chosen to keep modes closest to the global value c = 259; other V ≈ 60-300 MeV families that could give different low-energy cross sections are excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper Uncertainty at the single energy Eα = 6.2 MeV is indicative of the overall reaction-rate uncertainty at about 2 GK
    Sec III: 'We are also assuming that the variation at this single data point will be indicative of the overall reaction rate uncertainty'; stated but untested, and no reaction rate is computed (Sec V).
  • domain assumption For the cross-section-data extension, σ(α,n) ≈ 0.93 σreac with 10% uncertainty at 10.18-11.40 MeV
    Sec IV C, Eq. 25: branching ratio taken from TALYS and claimed weakly sensitive to level density at these energies; used to fold Ref [63] into the linear model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Analysis of the $^{86}$Sr$(\alpha, \alpha)$ Reaction to Constrain the $^{86}$Sr$(\alpha, n)$ Cross Section at Astrophysical Energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5TVMSQW

@misc{pith2026250905461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Analysis of the $^86$Sr$(\alpha, \alpha)$ Reaction to Constrain the $^86$Sr$(\alpha, n)$ Cross Section at Astrophysical Energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5TVMSQW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05461}
}
abstract

The Alpha Optical Model Potential (\aomp \!) is a phenomenological approach used to describe elastic scattering where multiple reaction channels are open. It is one of the most critical inputs for the calculation of thermonuclear reaction rates in explosive stellar environments, but uncertainties within the $\alpha$-OMP lead to imprecise predictions hindering comparisons between calculations and observations. In order to improve the precision of the $\alpha$-OMP, additional nuclear physics data are required. In this paper, a measurement of the $^{86}$Sr($\alpha$, $\alpha$) elastic scattering cross section at multiple energies is reported. A local optical potential is constructed via a fully Bayesian analysis of the elastic scattering data. The resulting uncertainties on the low energy cross sections relevant to nuclear astrophysics are then calculated and shown to be on the order of $50 \%$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05461 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Silicon detector spectrum at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Angular distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Angular distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Angular distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Corner plot for the experimental parameters: overall normalization ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Corner plot for the real potential parameters. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Corner plot for the linear imaginary potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Pair correlation plot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Same as Fig. 10, but with the additional predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The total imaginary potential strength as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We treat the data from each energy as having an un- known normalization and additional statistical uncer- tainty

    work page

  2. [2]

    We constrain the posterior modes that arise due the dis- crete ambiguity via Eq. (22)

    work page

  3. [3]

    Our potential priors are centered around the values of McFadden and Satchler [33]

    work page

  4. [4]

    continuous ambiguity

    Two separate models are constructed and fit that assume either a linear or Fermi energy dependence for the imag- inary depth. Priors: Eα;k ∼ N(Ecal;k, σ2 stat;k +σ 2 sys;k) 1 The relationship between the real radius and depth is often referred to as the “continuous ambiguity”, but is nothing more than run-of-the-mill pa- rameter correlation. V0 ∼ N(185,[0...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Frebel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science68, 237–269 (2018)

    A. Frebel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science68, 237–269 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    C. J. Horowitz, A. Arcones, B. C ˆot´e, I. Dillmann, W. Nazarewicz, I. U. Roederer, H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, D. Atanasov, A. Bauswein, T. C. Beers, J. Bliss, M. Brodeur, 15 J. A. Clark, A. Frebel, F. Foucart, C. J. Hansen, O. Just, A. Kankainen, G. C. McLaughlin, J. M. Kelly, S. N. Liddick, D. M. Lee, J. Lippuner, D. Martin, J. Mendoza-Temis, B. D. Metzg...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Psaltis, M

    A. Psaltis, M. Jacobi, F. Montes, A. Arcones, C. J. Hansen, and H. Schatz, The Astrophysical Journal966, 11 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    S. E. Woosley and R. D. Hoffman, The Astrophysical Journal 395, 202 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    R. D. Hoffman, S. E. Woosley, and Y . Qian, The Astrophysical Journal482, 951–962 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    Arcones and F

    A. Arcones and F. Montes, ApJ731, 5 (2011), arXiv:1007.1275 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hauser and H

    W. Hauser and H. Feshbach, Phys. Rev.87, 366 (1952)

    1952

  4. [12]

    Mohr, Phys

    P. Mohr, Phys. Rev. C94, 035801 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Pereira and F

    J. Pereira and F. Montes, Phys. Rev. C93, 034611 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bliss, A

    J. Bliss, A. Arcones, F. Montes, and J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C 101, 055807 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Psaltis, A

    A. Psaltis, A. Arcones, F. Montes, P. Mohr, C. J. Hansen, M. Ja- cobi, and H. Schatz, ApJ935, 27 (2022), arXiv:2204.07136 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. E. Hodgson,The nucleon optical model(World Scientific, 1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    G. G. Kiss, T. N. Szegedi, P. Mohr, M. Jacobi, G. Gy ¨urky, R. Husz ´ank, and A. Arcones, ApJ908, 202 (2021), arXiv:2009.13169 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. N. Szegedi, G. G. Kiss, P. Mohr, A. Psaltis, M. Jacobi, G. G. Barnaf¨oldi, T. Sz¨ucs, G. Gy¨urky, and A. Arcones, Phys. Rev. C 104, 035804 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    W. J. Ong, M. L. Avila, P. Mohr, K. E. Rehm, D. Santiago- Gonzalez, J. Chen, C. R. Hoffman, Z. Meisel, F. Montes, and J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C105, 055803 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Foug `eres, M

    C. Foug `eres, M. L. Avila, H. Jayatissa, D. Santiago-Gonzalez, K. Brandenburg, Z. Meisel, P. Mohr, F. Montes, C. M ¨uller- Gatermann, D. Neto, W. J. Ong, J. Pereira, K. E. Rehm, T. L. Tang, I. A. Tolstukhin, L. Varriano, G. Wilson, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. C109, 065805 (2024), a...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Foug `eres, M

    C. Foug `eres, M. L. Avila, A. Psaltis, M. Anastasiou, S. Bae, L. Balliet, K. Bhatt, L. Dienis, H. Jayatissa, V . Karayonchev, P. Mohr, F. Montes, D. Neto, F. de Oliveira Santos, W. J. Ong, K. E. Rehm, W. Reviol, D. Santiago-Gonzalez, N. Sen- sharma, R. S. Sidhu, and I. A. Tol...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Williams, C

    M. Williams, C. Angus, A. M. Laird, B. Davids, C. A. Diget, A. Fernandez, E. J. Williams, A. N. Andreyev, H. Asch, A. A. Avaa, G. Bartram, S. Chakraborty, I. Dillmann, K. Directo, D. T. Doherty, E. Geerlof, C. J. Griffin, A. Grimes, G. Hack- man, J. Henderson, K. Hudson, D. Hu...

    2025

  15. [23]

    P. Mohr, T. Rauscher, H. Oberhummer, Z. M ´at´e, Z. F ¨ul¨op, E. Somorjai, M. Jaeger, and G. Staudt, Phys. Rev. C55, 1523 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    Somorjai, Z

    E. Somorjai, Z. F ¨ul¨op, A. Z. Kiss, C. E. Rolfs, H. P. Trautvet- ter, U. Greife, M. Junker, S. Goriely, M. Arnould, M. Rayet, T. Rauscher, and H. Oberhummer, A&A333, 1112 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    F ¨ul¨op, G

    Z. F ¨ul¨op, G. Gy ¨urky, Z. M ´at´e, E. Somorjai, L. Zolnai, D. Galaviz, M. Babilon, P. Mohr, A. Zilges, T. Rauscher, H. Oberhummer, and G. Staudt, Phys. Rev. C64, 065805 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    W. Rapp, I. Dillmann, F. K ¨appeler, U. Giesen, H. Klein, T. Rauscher, D. Hentschel, and S. Hilpp, Phys. Rev. C78, 025804 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Palumbo, W

    A. Palumbo, W. P. Tan, J. G ¨orres, A. Best, M. Couder, R. Crowter, R. J. deBoer, S. Falahat, P. J. LeBlanc, H. Y . Lee, S. O’Brien, E. Strandberg, M. Wiescher, J. P. Greene, Z. F¨ul¨op, G. G. Kiss, E. Somorjai, N. ¨Ozkan, G. Efe, and R. T. G ¨uray, Phys. Rev. C85, 035808 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Mesytec,MSI-8-PT, Mesytec, Putzbrunn, Germany (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    ORTEC,V785 - V785N 32/16 Channel Peak Sensing ADC Se- ries, ORTEC, Viareggio, Italy (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Ritt and A

    S. Ritt and A. P., in10 th Real Time Conference Proceeding (1997)

    1997

  23. [31]

    J. B. MARION, Rev. Mod. Phys.38, 660 (1966)

    1966

  24. [32]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A523, 1 (1991)

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A523, 1 (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Acf-metals/tucson,az/carbon foils,

    “Acf-metals/tucson,az/carbon foils,”

  26. [34]

    Marshall, SciPost Phys

    C. Marshall, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 37 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Wojdyr, Journal of Applied Crystallography43, 1126 (2010)

    M. Wojdyr, Journal of Applied Crystallography43, 1126 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    P. Mohr, Z. F ¨ul¨op, G. Gy ¨urky, G. Kiss, T. Sz ¨ucs, A. Arcones, M. Jacobi, and A. Psaltis, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Ta- bles142, 101453 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    McFadden and G

    L. McFadden and G. Satchler, Nuclear Physics84, 177 (1966)

    1966

  30. [38]

    Avrigeanu, P

    V . Avrigeanu, P. E. Hodgson, and M. Avrigeanu, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2136 (1994)

    1994

  31. [39]

    Avrigeanu, M

    V . Avrigeanu, M. Avrigeanu, and C. M˘an˘ailescu, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044612 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Nolte, H

    M. Nolte, H. Machner, and J. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. C36, 1312 (1987)

    1987

  33. [41]

    Demetriou, C

    P. Demetriou, C. Grama, and S. Goriely, Nuclear Physics A 707, 253 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    N. N. Le and N. Q. Hung, Phys. Rev. C105, 014602 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Varner, W

    R. Varner, W. Thompson, T. McAbee, E. Ludwig, and T. Clegg, Physics Reports201, 57 (1991)

    1991

  36. [44]

    Liang, X.-H

    C.-T. Liang, X.-H. Li, and C.-H. Cai, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics36, 085104 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, The European Physical Journal A59(2023), 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Hamad, K

    G. Hamad, K. Brandenburg, Z. Meisel, C. R. Brune, D. E. Carter, D. C. Ingram, Y . Jones-Alberty, T. N. Massey, M. Sax- ena, D. Soltesz, S. K. Subedi, and A. V . V oinov, Phys. Rev. C 106, 025804 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Levkovskiet al., Inter-Vesi, Moscow, USSR (1991)

    V . Levkovskiet al., Inter-Vesi, Moscow, USSR (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    J. R. Newton, C. Iliadis, A. E. Champagne, A. Coc, Y . Parpot- tas, and C. Ugalde, Phys. Rev. C75, 045801 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Rauscher, Phys

    T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. C81, 045807 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    C. D. Pruitt, J. E. Escher, and R. Rahman, Phys. Rev. C107, 014602 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    A. E. Lovell and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Rev. C97, 064612 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Marshall, P

    C. Marshall, P. Morfouace, N. de S ´er´eville, and R. Longland, Phys. Rev. C102, 024609 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Marshall, K

    C. Marshall, K. Setoodehnia, G. C. Cinquegrana, J. H. Kelly, F. Portillo Chaves, A. Karakas, and R. Longland, Phys. Rev. C 107, 035806 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Odell, C

    D. Odell, C. R. Brune, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C105, 014625 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    S Sivia and J

    D. S Sivia and J. Skilling,Data Analysis A Bayesian Tutorial (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    R. S. de Souza, S. R. Boston, A. Coc, and C. Iliadis, Phys. Rev. C99, 014619 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    R. S. de Souza, C. Iliadis, and A. Coc, The Astrophysical Jour- nal872, 75 (2019). 16

    2019

  50. [58]

    R. S. de Souza, T. H. Kiat, A. Coc, and C. Iliadis, The Astro- physical Journal894, 134 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Drisko, G

    R. Drisko, G. Satchler, and R. Bassel, Physics Letters5, 347 (1963)

    1963

  52. [60]

    Skilling, inAmerican Institute of Physics Conference Se- ries, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    J. Skilling, inAmerican Institute of Physics Conference Se- ries, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 735, edited by R. Fischer, R. Preuss, and U. V . Toussaint (2004) pp. 395–405

    2004

  53. [61]

    Skilling, Bayesian Anal.1, 833 (2006)

    J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal.1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    J. S. Speagle, MNRAS493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4,

    S. Koposov, J. Speagle, K. Barbary, G. Ashton, E. Bennett, J. Buchner, C. Scheffler, B. Cook, C. Talbot, J. Guillochon, P. Cubillos, A. A. Ramos, M. Dartiailh, Ilya, E. Tollerud, D. Lang, B. Johnson, jtmendel, E. Higson, T. Vandal, T. Daylan, R. Angus, patelR, P. Cargile, P. S...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Higson, W

    E. Higson, W. Handley, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby, Statistics and Computing29, 891 (2019), arXiv:1704.03459 [stat.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Raynal,Optical-model and coupled-channel calculations in nuclear physics(IAEA., 1971) pp

    J. Raynal,Optical-model and coupled-channel calculations in nuclear physics(IAEA., 1971) pp. 281–322

    1971

  58. [66]

    Iliadis, R

    C. Iliadis, R. Longland, A. Coc, F. X. Timmes, and A. E. Cham- pagne, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics42, 034007 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Oprea, T

    A. Oprea, T. Glodariu, D. Filipescu, I. Gheorghe, A. Mitu, M. Boromiza, D. Bucurescu, C. Costache, I. Cata-Danil, N. Florea, D. G. Ghita, A. Ionescu, N. Marginean, R. Marginean, C. Mihai, R. Mihai, A. Negret, C. Nita, A. Ola- cel, S. Pascu, C. Sotty, R. Suvaila, L. Stan, L. St...

    2017

  60. [68]

    Igo, Phys

    G. Igo, Phys. Rev. Lett.1, 72 (1958)

    1958

  61. [69]

    Igo, Phys

    G. Igo, Phys. Rev.115, 1665 (1959)

    1959

  62. [70]

    D. F. Jackson and C. G. Morgan, Phys. Rev.175, 1402 (1968)

    1968

  63. [71]

    P. Mohr, Z. F ¨ul¨op, G. Gy¨urky, G. G. Kiss, and T. Sz ¨ucs, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 252701 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Frahn and R

    W. Frahn and R. Venter, Annals of Physics24, 243 (1963)

    1963

  65. [73]

    Melkanoff, T

    M. Melkanoff, T. Sawada, and J. Raynal,Nuclear Optical Model Calculations(Numerical Analysis Research, Depart- ment of Engineering, Department of Physics, University of Cal- ifornia, Los Angeles, and the Department of Physics, University of Southern California, 1965)

    1965

  66. [74]

    Gy ¨urky, P

    G. Gy ¨urky, P. Mohr, A. Angyal, Z. Hal ´asz, G. G. Kiss, Z. M´atyus, T. N. Szegedi, T. Sz¨ucs, and Z. F ¨ul¨op, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025803 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    A. L. Sallaska, C. Iliadis, A. E. Champange, S. Goriely, S. Starrfield, and F. X. Timmes, ApJS207, 18 (2013), arXiv:1304.7811 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.