Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Pontecorvo Reactions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a compact scintillator-and-lead apparatus can detect the Pontecorvo reaction anti-p + helium-3 -> proton + neutron with 11% efficiency while rejecting background by a factor of about 10^8, making a first…

desk verdict A useful feasibility sketch for a first three-nucleon Pontecorvo measurement, with simulation numbers that are honest about their limitations but not yet validated against data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11000 v1 pith:YHXQCDPO submitted 2025-01-19 physics.ins-det hep-exnucl-ex

Luca Venturelli (for the ASACUSA Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-exnucl-ex
keywords Pontecorvoreactionsantiprotonannihilationhelium-3targetneutrondetectionplasticscintillatorsbackgroundrejectionMonteCarlosimulation
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

The paper argues that the first measurement of a Pontecorvo reaction on a three-nucleon target is within reach. In a Pontecorvo reaction, an antiproton annihilates while involving two or more nucleons of a nucleus, a process forbidden on free nucleons; the reaction anti-p + helium-3 -> proton + neutron is predicted to be 10 to 100 times more likely by a statistical fireball model than by a two-step rescattering model. The paper presents a compact apparatus of plastic scintillator layers interleaved with lead, plus a segmented neutron detector, and reports Monte Carlo results: an 11% detection efficiency for the signal and a background rejection of about $10^{8}$. If those numbers hold, a continuous low-energy antiproton beam would yield a clean sample of these events quickly enough to discriminate between the competing models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an event-selection topology built on a sandwich detector: eleven 6 mm plastic scintillator layers alternating with ten 6 mm lead sheets (a veto system that converts gamma rays from neutral-pion decay into detectable charged particles), surrounded on the outside by three 15 cm plastic-scintillator layers acting as a neutron detector. The lead-scintillator sandwich vetoes charged particles and gamma rays; the neutron detector, with about 45% efficiency per 1 GeV neutron per perpendicular crossing, tags the back-to-back neutron; the innermost segmented scintillator layer (20x20 cells per face) provides the single-hit signature of the fast proton. Monte Carlo simulations with a high-precision hadronic physics list supply the quoted 11% and $10^{8}$ numbers.

What would settle it

A dedicated measurement at the proposed beamline would settle it: stop antiprotons in a helium-3 target and record, with the described scintillator stack, the rate of events passing the single-hit-plus-neutron coincidence selection. If the observed rate per stopped antiproton differs materially from the simulated 11% signal efficiency times the assumed $10^{-6}$ production rate, or if the background survives at a rate above $10^{-8}$, the feasibility claim falls. A more targeted check would compare simulated charged-particle multiplicities and neutral-pion yields from anti-p on helium-3 against a small-sample test run, since these directly set the veto rejection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reaction $\bar{p} + {}^3\text{He} \to p + n$, never measured before, can be isolated from the dominant background of ordinary antiproton annihilations on quasi-free nucleons by a simple, non-magnetic detector. The event selection uses the reaction's distinctive kinematics: the proton and neutron are emitted back-to-back with roughly 1 GeV kinetic energy. Requiring exactly one hit in the innermost veto scintillator (the proton), a hit in the neutron detector along the proton's path, a hit in the opposite neutron-detector direction (the neutron), and no signals far from the proton track yields a simulated efficiency of 11% for reaction (1) and a background suppression on the order of $10^{8}$. With the assumed Pontecorvo production rate of $10^{-6}$, this gives a signal-to-noise ratio of 10, so a single two-minute spill from a continuous-beam facility would suffice to observe one event on average.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's model of antiproton annihilation on helium-3, including the pion multiplicity and the response of the plastic scintillators and neutron detector, must be accurate enough that the computed 11% efficiency and $10^{8}$ background rejection reflect real detector behaviour; the paper itself notes that the Monte Carlo only approximates antiproton annihilation products and that the chosen physics list was used because experimental data are lacking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulation is right, the first measurement of a three-nucleon Pontecorvo reaction can be done with a compact scintillator apparatus instead of a magnetic spectrometer, at a fraction of the cost.
  • With a continuous low-energy antiproton beam, one two-minute spill would be expected to contain a signal-to-noise ratio of 10; the secondary antiproton line would need about 90 spills, roughly 3 hours of data acquisition.
  • A successful measurement would distinguish the rescattering model (rates $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-7}$) from the fireball model ($10^{-6}$), a separation of one to two orders of magnitude.
  • The same apparatus and selection logic also work for the tritium-target reaction $\bar{p} + {}^3\text{H} \to n + n$, giving a similar efficiency and rejection, though tritium raises practical safety issues.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's assumption that the signal rate is $10^{-6}$ (fireball model) could be tested independently from the apparatus by first measuring the total annihilation rate of antiprotons on helium-3 and the two-nucleon Pontecorvo channels, reducing the model ambiguity before the expensive exclusive measurement.
  • The same veto-and-neutron topology could be adapted to other three-nucleon final states, such as $\bar{p} + {}^3\text{He} \to d + \pi$ or channels with strangeness, extending the short-range-dynamics program beyond the proton-neutron channel.
  • The background rejection of $10^8$ is estimated from simulation; a staged run with hydrogen or deuterium targets would let the collaboration validate the Monte Carlo approximations empirically before committing to helium-3, as the paper itself hints when it calls for more antiproton-hydrogen data.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript, a proceedings contribution from the ASACUSA collaboration, proposes a feasibility study for measuring the Pontecorvo reaction \bar{p} + ^3He → p + n at CERN's AD/ELENA facility. The authors motivate the reaction as a discriminating test between rescattering and fireball model predictions, which differ by one to two orders of magnitude in the expected branching ratio. They describe a simple apparatus consisting of a gaseous ^3He target, a layered plastic-scintillator/lead veto system, and a plastic-scintillator neutron detector, and they report GEANT4 simulation results: a detection efficiency of 11% for the signal, a background rejection power of about 10^8, and, assuming a 10^-6 branching ratio, a signal-to-noise ratio of 10. They conclude that one ELENA spill (2 minutes) would suffice to observe a single signal event if a continuous beam mode were available.

Significance. If the reported simulation numbers are robust, the proposed apparatus would provide a low-cost, spectrometer-free route to the first measurement of a three-nucleon Pontecorvo reaction, potentially distinguishing between theoretical models. The paper has several strengths: it clearly frames the physics motivation using measured LEAR branching ratios for deuterium, it gives a concrete and surprisingly simple detector concept with explicit segmentation and readout counts, and it is unusually candid about the limitations of its simulation, explicitly stating that GEANT4 approximates antiproton annihilation products and that the chosen physics list was used for lack of experimental data. These caveats are to the authors' credit, but they also identify exactly where the central feasibility claim needs additional support before the quoted numbers can be taken as predictive.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4] The headline numbers '11% detection efficiency' and 'background rejection power on the order of 10^8' are quoted without any uncertainty estimate. Even a simple binomial confidence interval on the efficiency would be helpful, but the more serious issue is systematic: the background rejection depends on the simulated multiplicity and angular distributions of pions, gammas, and spectator nucleons from antiproton annihilation on ^3He. The paper cites reference [18] as showing that GEANT4 approximates these annihilation products, but no quantitative comparison is made between the simulation and the measured branching ratios in Table 2 (antiproton annihilation in hydrogen) or the LEAR deuterium data in Table 1. A factor-of-two error in the simulated charged-particle multiplicity could plausibly change the 10^8 rejection by several orders of magnitude. I ask the authors to provide a validation study of their physics list against at least one of these datasets, or to present the background rejection as a range obtained with alternative physics lists and model variations.
  2. [§4] The simulation assumes that all events are 'generated at the target's center' and applies a 500 keV detection threshold. Since the target is a 10 cm cylinder and the apparatus covers only about 2/3 of the solid angle, the detection efficiency for reaction (1) will depend on the annihilation vertex position and on the energy and angular distributions of the outgoing proton and neutron. A target-center-only study is not sufficient to support the feasibility claim. Please show the efficiency as a function of vertex position inside the target volume, including events near the walls and in the corners, and as a function of the detection threshold; the quoted 11% should be the average over the expected vertex distribution, not a point estimate at the center.
  3. [§4 and Conclusions] The signal-to-noise ratio of 10 is not an independent simulation output; it follows directly from the assumed branching ratio of 10^-6 via S/N ≈ (BR × efficiency × N) / (passing background), with a background rejection of 10^8. This means all downstream statements — 'one spill to see one event' for ELENA and '90 spills' for the ASACUSA line — are conditional on the fireball-model branching ratio. The rescattering model predicts 10^-8 to 10^-7, which would make the measurement impossible with the quoted background rejection. The paper should state this scaling explicitly and, ideally, report the sensitivity as a function of the assumed branching ratio, including the upper limit that could be set if no events are observed. As written, the conclusion that the measurement is 'feasible' is not robust to the very model uncertainty (1–2 orders of magnitude) that the experiment is designed to resolve.
  4. [§4] The statement that 'a similar result is also achieved for the reaction (2)' is too vague to assess. Reaction (2), \bar{p} + ^3H → n + n, has a two-neutron final state with no charged particle for triggering, so the efficiency and background rejection cannot be expected to mirror reaction (1) in any obvious way. Please either present the numbers and selection criteria for reaction (2) or remove this claim, since the abstract and introduction motivate only the ^3He measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The word 'rerrangement' in Figure 1's caption is a typo; it should read 'rearrangement'.
  2. [§3.1] The text says the ASACUSA secondary line remains a 'posible alternative'; this should be 'possible alternative'.
  3. [§3.1] The ELENA 'continuous beam' is a hypothetical future mode; the paper should clearly distinguish the current pulsed operation (10^7 antiprotons per pulse every two minutes) from the assumed continuous rate of 10^5 s^-1. The sentence 'If the same number of antiprotons were distributed continuously over the two-minute interval' is conditional, but the later 'one spill' statement would be clearer if it restated the pulse structure.
  4. [§3.4 and §4] The event selection requires 'a signal in the neutron detector in the direction opposite to the proton impact,' but the paper does not state the angular tolerance or the logic for matching the neutron hit to the proton track direction. Please specify the matching criterion, since this directly affects both the efficiency and the background rejection.
  5. [References] References [43] and [44] are listed as 'These Proceedings' without page numbers or arXiv identifiers; please update them if available at the time of publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection efficiency and background rejection are Monte Carlo outputs, and the assumed 10^-6 branching ratio is an explicitly labeled external input, not a derived result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are a GEANT4-simulated detection efficiency of 11% for reaction (1) and a background rejection power of about 10^8. These are computed by generating the signal final state with a custom class, simulating ordinary annihilations with the built-in physics list, and applying the event selection of Section 3.4. They are not obtained by fitting or from the quantity they are used to estimate. The statement 'Assuming that the production rate of Pontecorvo reaction is 10^-6, consistent with predictions from the fireball model, the signal-to-noise ratio is 10' is explicitly conditional: the branching ratio is an external theoretical input, not a prediction of the simulation, and the 'one spill to observe a single event' sentence is an arithmetic consequence of that assumption. If the rescattering-model rate (10^-8 to 10^-7) were used instead, the same formulas would give a different exposure estimate, which is exactly what the paper intends. The caveat that 'GEANT4 approximates antiproton annihilation products [18]' and that the physics list was used 'due to a lack of experimental data' identifies a validity limitation of the simulation, not a circular derivation. The self-references to ASACUSA/AD-ELENA proceedings ([43], [44]) supply beam-transport and facility context and are not load-bearing for the detector-performance numbers. The paper is self-contained against external measured branching ratios (Tables 1 and 2) and theoretical model predictions. Therefore no circular step is exhibited; the legitimate concerns about the unvalidated GEANT4 model and the assumed branching ratio belong to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The feasibility claim rests on an assumed reaction rate and on an approximate simulation model. There are two explicit free parameters (the assumed rate and the detection threshold), and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Assumed branching ratio for anti-p + helium-3 -> proton + neutron = 10^-6
    Used in Section 4 to compute the signal-to-noise ratio and required number of spills. Taken from the fireball model prediction, but the experiment is meant to measure this quantity, so the feasibility conclusion scales directly with this input.
  • Detection threshold = 500 keV
    Applied to all detectors in the simulation, as stated in Section 4. It affects both the detection efficiency and the background rejection, but no sensitivity study is shown.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Fireball model prediction of branching ratio around 10^-6 for anti-p + helium-3 -> proton + neutron
    Assumed in Section 4 to compute signal-to-noise equals 10 and the number of spills. The paper states this assumption explicitly, but the conclusion of feasibility depends on it.
  • domain assumption GEANT4 with FTFP_BERT_HP+STD+HPPhysicsList adequately simulates antiproton annihilation and detector response
    Used for all background simulations. The paper acknowledges that GEANT4 approximates antiproton annihilation products and cites reference [18] for validation, but this is an approximation without direct experimental data for helium-3.
  • domain assumption Rescattering model predicts branching ratio 10^-8 to 10^-7 for the same reaction
    Quoted in Section 2 as the motivation for the measurement. This value is not used in the simulation but forms the alternative hypothesis the experiment would test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pontecorvo Reactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHXQCDPO

@misc{pith2026250111000,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pontecorvo Reactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHXQCDPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11000}
}
abstract

Pontecorvo reactions are rare antinucleon annihilation processes that are forbidden on free nucleons but allowed on nucleons bound within nuclei. The interest in studying this phenomenon lies in its potential to provide insights into the annihilation mechanism and, particularly, the short-distance dynamics between nucleons within the nucleus. Some measurements were performed in the past at CERN's Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR) using antiprotons annihilating on a deuterium target. However, no data exist for targets consisting of three nucleons, such as $^3\text{He}$ or $^3\text{H}$. The measurement of the rate of the process $\overline{p} \, ^3\text{He} \rightarrow p + n$ would allow for distinguishing between different theoretical models whose predictions vary by 1-2 orders of magnitude. The ASACUSA collaboration is studying the feasibility of performing this measurement at CERN's ELENA-AD. A preliminary design of a simple measurement apparatus, utilizing plastic scintillators and degrader layers, is presented, together with Monte Carlo simulations assessing its efficiency in measuring the branching ratios of the aforementioned reaction and rejecting background from more probable typical antiproton annihilations in the target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11000 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , the graph of reaction (1) according to the rescattering model and the rerrangement graph in the fireball model are shown. p p π − 3He ¯p n n p π + u d u d u d u d u p n ¯p p n p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the proposed apparatus. pions formed during the annihilation of antiprotons on quasi-free nucleons in the target. Conversely, to identify the reaction (1), its kinematics must be exploited, where the two nucleons are emitted back-to-back with a kinetic energy of approximately 1 GeV. A preliminary design of the apparatus, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Amsler et al.,Antiproton annihilation at rest in thin solid targets and comparison with Monte Carlo simulations,Eur

    C. Amsler et al.,Antiproton annihilation at rest in thin solid targets and comparison with Monte Carlo simulations,Eur. Phys. J. A60 (2024) 225

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Hori and J

    M. Hori and J. Walz,Physics at CERN’s Antiproton Decelerator, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72 (2013) 206–253

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    E. K. Andersonet al.,Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter,Nature 621 (2023) 716–722

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Kellerbaueret al., Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam, Nucl

    A. Kellerbaueret al., Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B266 (2008) 351–356

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    233(2015)21–27

    P.Perezetal.,TheGBARantimattergravityexperiment ,HyperfineInteract. 233(2015)21–27

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    M.Ahmadi etal.,Characterizationofthe1S–2Stransitioninantihydrogen ,Nature557(2018) 71–75

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Ahmadiet al.,Observation of the 1S–2P Lyman-𝛼 transition in antihydrogen,Nature561 (2018) 211–215

    M. Ahmadiet al.,Observation of the 1S–2P Lyman-𝛼 transition in antihydrogen,Nature561 (2018) 211–215

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    The ALPHA Collaboration,Investigation of the fine structure of antihydrogen, Nature 578 (2020) 375–380

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Horiet al., Two-photon laser spectroscopy of antiprotonic helium and the antiproton-to- electron mass ratio,Nature475 (2011) 484–488

    M. Horiet al., Two-photon laser spectroscopy of antiprotonic helium and the antiproton-to- electron mass ratio,Nature475 (2011) 484–488

    2011

  2. [9]

    Horiet al., Buffer-gas cooling of antiprotonic helium to 1.5 to 1.7 K, and antiproton-to- electron mass ratio,Science 354 (2016) 610–614

    M. Horiet al., Buffer-gas cooling of antiprotonic helium to 1.5 to 1.7 K, and antiproton-to- electron mass ratio,Science 354 (2016) 610–614

    2016

  3. [10]

    Ahmadi et al.,Observation of the hyperfine spectrum of antihydrogen, Nature548 (2017) 66

    M. Ahmadi et al.,Observation of the hyperfine spectrum of antihydrogen, Nature548 (2017) 66. 8 Pontecorvo Reactions Luca Venturelli

    2017

  4. [11]

    Malbrunot et al., The ASACUSA antihydrogen and hydrogen program: results and prospects, Philos

    C. Malbrunot et al., The ASACUSA antihydrogen and hydrogen program: results and prospects, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.376 (2018) 20170273

    2018

  5. [12]

    BASE Collaboration,BASE - The Baryon Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics224 (2015) 16

    2015

  6. [13]

    Doser,Antiprotonic Bound Systems, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics125 (2022) 103964

    M. Doser,Antiprotonic Bound Systems, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics125 (2022) 103964

    2022

  7. [14]

    Zurlo et al.,Evidence for the production of slow antiprotonic hydrogen in vacuum, Phys

    N. Zurlo et al.,Evidence for the production of slow antiprotonic hydrogen in vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006) 153401

    2006

  8. [15]

    Bianconi et al.,Measurement of the antiproton–nucleus annihilation cross section at 5.3 MeV, Phys

    A. Bianconi et al.,Measurement of the antiproton–nucleus annihilation cross section at 5.3 MeV, Phys. Lett. B704(2011) 461-466

    2011

  9. [16]

    Aghai-Khozani et al.,Measurement of the antiproton–nucleus annihilation cross-section at low energy, Nucl

    H. Aghai-Khozani et al.,Measurement of the antiproton–nucleus annihilation cross-section at low energy, Nucl. Phys. A970 (2018) 366

    2018

  10. [17]

    Aghai-Khozani et al.,Limits on the antiproton-nuclei annihilation cross sections at 125 keV,Nucl

    H. Aghai-Khozani et al.,Limits on the antiproton-nuclei annihilation cross sections at 125 keV,Nucl. Phys. A1009(2021) 122170

    2021

  11. [19]

    Aumann- PUMA collaboration,Puma, antiproton unstable matter annihilation, Eur. Phys. J. A 58(2022) 88

    2022

  12. [20]

    Amsler,Nucleon-antinucleon annihilation at LEAR, ArXiv:1908.08455 [hep-ph], 2019

    C. Amsler,Nucleon-antinucleon annihilation at LEAR, ArXiv:1908.08455 [hep-ph], 2019

    1908 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fiz.30(1956) 947

    B.M.Pontecorvo, One-MesonandZero-MesonAnnihilationofAntinucleons ,Zh.Eksp.Teor. Fiz.30(1956) 947

    1956

  14. [22]

    Donnachie,Low-energy hadronic physics, Physics Reports403–404(2004) 281–301

    A. Donnachie,Low-energy hadronic physics, Physics Reports403–404(2004) 281–301

    2004

  15. [23]

    Hernandez, E

    E. Hernandez, E. Oset,Study of the¯𝑝𝑑→𝜋−𝑝 reaction, Nucl. Phys. A494 (1989) 533

    1989

  16. [24]

    L.Kondratyuk,M.G.Sapozhnikov, Pontecorvoreactionsoftwo-bodyantiprotonannihilation in deuterium, Phys. Lett. B220 (1989) 333

    1989

  17. [25]

    Kondratyuk, C

    L. Kondratyuk, C. Guaraldo,Pontecorvo reactions of two-body annihilations¯𝑝𝑑 and ¯𝑝3He and multiquark states in𝑑 and 3He, Phys. Lett. B256 (1991) 6-10

    1991

  18. [26]

    Kudryavtsev, V.E

    A.E. Kudryavtsev, V.E. Tarasov,Production of Deuterons in High Energy Reactions, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.55(1992) 538

    1992

  19. [27]

    Kharzeev, F

    D.E. Kharzeev, F. Nichitiu, M.G. Sapozhnikov,Study of Antiproton Annihilation in Nuclear Matter,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.55(1992) 748

    1992

  20. [28]

    Kudryavtsev, V.E

    A.E. Kudryavtsev, V.E. Tarasov,Calculation of the probability for the Pontecorvo reaction ¯𝑝𝑑→𝜋−𝑝 at rest, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.56(1993) 548. 9 Pontecorvo Reactions Luca Venturelli

    1993

  21. [29]

    Rafelski, ¯𝑝 annihilation on heavy nuclei, Phys

    J. Rafelski, ¯𝑝 annihilation on heavy nuclei, Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 281-284

    1980

  22. [30]

    Rafelski,Quark-gluon plasma in 4 GeV/c antiproton annihilations on nuclei, Phys

    J. Rafelski,Quark-gluon plasma in 4 GeV/c antiproton annihilations on nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 371-376

    1988

  23. [31]

    Cugnon, J

    J. Cugnon, J. Vandermeulen,Possibility of unusual antiproton annihilation on nuclei, Phys. Lett. B146 (1984) 16-20

    1984

  24. [32]

    Cugnon, J

    J. Cugnon, J. Vandermeulen,Antiproton and antilambda annihilations on several nucleons, Phys. Rev. C39(1989) 181-191

    1989

  25. [33]

    Bizzarri et al.,Three-body interaction (¯𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) in antiproton-deuteron annihilation at rest, Lett

    R. Bizzarri et al.,Three-body interaction (¯𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) in antiproton-deuteron annihilation at rest, Lett. Nuovo Cim.2S1(1969) 431-436

    1969

  26. [34]

    J.Riedlbergeretal.(ASTERIXCollaboration), Antiprotonannihilationatrestinnitrogenand deuterium gas, Phys. Rev. C40 (1989) 2717-2731

    1989

  27. [35]

    Denisov et al.,Light baryon production in binary𝑝𝑑 annihilation reactions at rest, Phys

    O. Denisov et al.,Light baryon production in binary𝑝𝑑 annihilation reactions at rest, Phys. Lett. B460 (1999) 248

    1999

  28. [36]

    A 351 (1995) 325

    C.Amsleretal., FirstobservationsofPontecorvoreactionswitharecoilingneutron ,Z.Phys. A 351 (1995) 325

    1995

  29. [37]

    Gorchakov et al.,Measurement of the𝑝𝑑 → 𝜙𝑛 Pontecorvo reaction for antiproton annihilation at rest, Phys

    O.E. Gorchakov et al.,Measurement of the𝑝𝑑 → 𝜙𝑛 Pontecorvo reaction for antiproton annihilation at rest, Phys. Lett. B528(2002) 34-42

    2002

  30. [38]

    Ableev et al

    V.G. Ableev et al. (OBELIX Collaboration),A study of Pontecorvo reactions in antiproton deuterium annihilations at rest,Nuovo Cim. A107 (1994) 2837-2852

    1994

  31. [39]

    Amsler et al.,First observation of the production of nucleon resonances in antiproton annihilation in liquid deuterium,Phys

    C. Amsler et al.,First observation of the production of nucleon resonances in antiproton annihilation in liquid deuterium,Phys. Lett. B352 (1995) 187-192

    1995

  32. [40]

    Abele et al.,Observation of Pontecorvo reactions with open strangeness:¯𝑝𝑑→ Λ𝐾0 and ¯𝑝𝑑→ Σ0𝐾0,Phys

    A. Abele et al.,Observation of Pontecorvo reactions with open strangeness:¯𝑝𝑑→ Λ𝐾0 and ¯𝑝𝑑→ Σ0𝐾0,Phys. Lett. B469 (1999) 276-286

    1999

  33. [41]

    Chiba et al.,Pontecorvo reactions in antiproton annihilation at rest in deuterium to𝜋0𝑛, 𝜋0Δ0,𝜂𝑛, and𝜂Δ0, Phys

    M. Chiba et al.,Pontecorvo reactions in antiproton annihilation at rest in deuterium to𝜋0𝑛, 𝜋0Δ0,𝜂𝑛, and𝜂Δ0, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 2577–2583

    1997

  34. [42]

    Caravita, Perspectives from a cold antideuteron beam in the AD/ELENA facility , ArXiv:2404.08000 [hep-ph], 2024

    R. Caravita, Perspectives from a cold antideuteron beam in the AD/ELENA facility , ArXiv:2404.08000 [hep-ph], 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D.Gambaetal., FuturePerspectivesoftheAD-ELENAFacilityatCERN ,TheseProceedings

  36. [44]

    Kraxberger et al.,Towards a Study of Low Energy Antiproton Annihilations on Nuclei, These Proceedings

    V. Kraxberger et al.,Towards a Study of Low Energy Antiproton Annihilations on Nuclei, These Proceedings

  37. [45]

    Silson Ltd., Pressure Windows and Vacuum Windows , accessed January 2025, https://silson.com/product/pressure-windows-vacuum-windows/

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lu and R.D

    Y. Lu and R.D. Amado,Branching ratios in proton-antiproton annihilation from Skyrmion dynamics, Physics Letters B, Volume 357, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 446–450, doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(95)00904-Y. 10

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.