Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Proton removal from $^{73,75}$Br to $^{72,74}$Se at intermediate energies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Proton removal from 73Br and 75Br on a proton target gives equal inclusive cross sections into 72Se and 74Se, hinting that the same proton orbitals drive both reactions.

desk verdict New inclusive and partial proton-removal cross sections for 72,74Se that look solid, with an unquantified 73Br isomer as the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09835 v1 pith:ZPAW576Z submitted 2024-11-14 nucl-ex nucl-th

M. Spieker , D. Bazin , S. Biswas , P.D. Cottle , P.J. Farris , A. Gade , T. Ginter , S. Giraud
show 8 more authors
K.W. Kemper J. Li S. Noji J. Pereira L.A. Riley M.K. Smith D. Weisshaar R.G.T. Zegers
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords protonremovalintermediate-energyknockoutinclusivecrosssectionspartial72Se74Sesingle-particleorbitalsmulti-stepreactionprocesses
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 reports the first proton-removal measurements on a liquid-hydrogen target for the short-lived nuclei 73Br and 75Br, populating 72Se and 74Se. The central data result is that the inclusive cross sections, 68(4) mb and 66(4) mb, are identical within uncertainties, which would follow naturally if the same proton single-particle orbitals are occupied in both bromine isotopes. Using the GRETINA gamma-ray array, the authors resolve partial cross sections to many excited states and find a similar fragmentation pattern in both selenium isotopes. Comparing with older (d,3He) transfer data on stable germanium and selenium targets, they argue that fp-shell, sd-shell, and 1g9/2 orbitals all contribute and that the proton spectroscopic strength sits at lower excitation energy in selenium than in germanium. The paper also notes the population of high-spin states (up to 8+ in 72Se and 7- in 74Se) as evidence that multi-step reaction processes play a role at intermediate energies.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the proton-removal reaction in inverse kinematics on a liquid-hydrogen target, measured with the S800 spectrograph for inclusive cross sections and with the GRETINA gamma-ray tracking array for gamma-tagged partial cross sections. The argument that the same orbitals are involved rests on the ratio of partial to inclusive cross sections and on a comparison of the measured partial cross sections with spectroscopic factors from (d,3He) transfer reactions on stable germanium and selenium targets, which decompose the strength into l=1, 2, 3, and 4 transfers. This comparison is the mechanism that connects the knockout data to specific single-particle orbitals.

What would settle it

Measure the longitudinal momentum distributions of the 72Se and 74Se residues tagged by their decay gamma rays. If the momentum distribution shapes for corresponding final states differ significantly between the two reactions, the single-particle orbital content is not the same, contradicting the equal-orbital interpretation. The same measurement could also reveal whether the high-spin states carry a different momentum signature than the low-spin states, testing the multi-step hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the inclusive and partial cross sections for proton removal from 73Br and 75Br on a proton target, 72Se and 74Se being the residues. The inclusive cross sections, 68(4) mb and 66(4) mb, agree within uncertainties, and the partial cross sections for resolved excited states show closely similar magnitudes and fragmentation in the two isotopes. From a comparison with (d,3He) data on stable targets, the authors tentatively conclude that angular-momentum transfers l=1, 2, 3, and 4 (the fp shell, the sd shell, and the 1g9/2 orbital) all contribute, and that the bulk of this strength appears at lower excitation energies in the selenium isotopes than in the germanium isotopes. The observed population of high-spin states—6+ in both isotopes, 7- in 74Se, and 8+ in 72Se—from projectiles with known low ground-state spins suggests that multi-step processes contribute to the reaction, an effect outside current eikonal reaction theory. The authors are explicit that these orbital and multi-step conclusions require dedicated structure and reaction calculations to be confirmed.

Load-bearing premise

The orbital and energy-shift conclusions depend on the assumption that spectroscopic factors from (d,3He) transfer reactions on stable germanium and selenium targets can be transferred to intermediate-energy proton removal from the short-lived bromine beams; if this transferability fails, those interpretations collapse even though the measured cross sections would still stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the equal inclusive cross sections reflect the same orbital occupancies, then the different ground-state spins of 73Br (1/2-) and 75Br (3/2-) do not significantly alter the total proton-removal strength.
  • If the l=1-4 strength is indeed concentrated at lower excitation energy in selenium than in germanium, then the proton single-particle structure follows the shape-transitional behavior in this mass region and could be connected to the enhanced octupole collectivity near A=72.
  • If multi-step processes contribute as the high-spin populations suggest, eikonal reaction theory would need to be extended to extract reliable spectroscopic factors from these reactions in collective nuclei.
  • The new partial cross sections for 72,74Se extend the 70Se data to a three-isotope chain, providing a testing ground for shell-model and beyond-mean-field predictions of proton occupancies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test of the 'same orbitals' claim is to measure the longitudinal momentum distributions of the residues: matching final states should have similar momentum shapes if the orbital content is identical.
  • If multi-step processes are confirmed, inclusive proton-removal cross sections alone should not be used to extract spectroscopic factors in deformed nuclei; partial cross sections and momentum distributions carry the needed information.
  • The equal-cross-section result may hold for other isotope pairs in the same region; checking, for instance, proton removal from neighboring rubidium or krypton isotopes would show whether the pattern is general.
  • A dedicated measurement of the lifetime of the 27-keV state in 73Br would remove the one beam-contamination caveat the authors could not fully exclude.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports inclusive and partial cross sections for proton removal from 73Br and 75Br on a liquid-hydrogen target, populating 72Se and 74Se at mid-target energies of about 95 and 89 MeV/u, respectively. Inclusive cross sections of 68(4) mb and 66(4) mb are measured and agree within uncertainties. Using GRETINA and the S800 spectrograph, partial cross sections for resolved excited states are extracted from Doppler-corrected gamma-ray spectra via UCGRETINA/GEANT4 simulations, including corrections for observed feeding. The data are compared with the earlier 9Be(71Br,X)70Se measurement of Wimmer et al. The paper suggests, with explicit hedging, that the similarity of the inclusive cross sections and partial-cross-section patterns might indicate the same proton orbitals (fp, sd, 1g9/2) contribute, that a comparison with (d,3He) data on stable Ge/Se targets suggests a lower-energy concentration of l=1-4 strength in Se than in Ge, and that population of high-spin states (6+, 8+, 7-) may indicate multi-step processes. The authors call for dedicated structure and reaction calculations and note limitations, including possible isomeric contamination.

Significance. If the measured cross sections stand, the data are a useful addition to the sparse proton-removal systematics in the neutron-deficient Ge-Se region: they provide the first partial cross sections for excited states of 72,74Se and extend the comparison to the N=36 case. The experimental analysis is careful: event-by-event particle identification, standard gamma-ray tracking simulations with known branching ratios, and stated uncertainty contributions including target thickness, beam composition, and software gating. The manuscript is appropriately hedged in most interpretive statements. The main scientific value lies in the data themselves and in the qualitative comparison with normal-kinematics transfer; the interpretive claims about identical orbital content and multi-step mechanisms are suggestive rather than established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, first paragraph and abstract] The possible 26.9-keV isomeric component of the 73Br beam is not quantified, and the argument given for dismissing it is indirect. The paper estimates an approximately 800 ns lifetime from the 71Se B(E2) value; at v/c about 0.4, such a state can survive to the reaction target in a substantial fraction of the beam. If a fraction of the beam is in the 5/2- isomer, the inclusive cross section and every partial cross section in Table I are weighted averages over two initial states. In particular, the populations of the 6+1 and 8+1 states could be direct knockout from the 5/2- isomer rather than evidence for multi-step processes. The paper's counterargument, that the 72Se and 74Se patterns are similar and that 75Br has no such low-lying isomer, does not constrain the 73Br admixture, because the final nuclei and the ground-state spins differ. Since the orbital-equality and multi-step conclusions depend on this point, the manuscript should either provide a quantitative estimate of the isomeric fraction (or an upper limit from the data) and its effect on the partial cross sections, or explicitly state that these interpretations are contingent on an unresolved systematic uncertainty. A concrete test would be to compute the isomeric fraction needed to reproduce the observed 6+1 cross section and compare it with the beam composition implied by the production and transport times.
  2. [Section III, first paragraph and abstract] The assignment of l=1,2,3,4 contributions and the claim that the spectroscopic strength lies lower in Se than in Ge rest on transferring spectroscopic factors from the 75As(d,3He)74Ge and 72Ge/74Se(d,3He) reactions at Ed=26 MeV (Refs. [69-71]) to intermediate-energy proton removal from 73,75Br beams. These are different reactions (normal kinematics, stable targets, different Q-values and distortions) and different initial nuclei (1/2- and 3/2- Br ground states versus 3/2- As and 0+ Ge/Se targets). The comparison is qualitative, and the authors acknowledge that firm conclusions require dedicated calculations. The abstract, however, states that the available data 'suggest indeed' that fp, sd, and 1g9/2 contribute. I recommend either including eikonal-plus-shell-model calculations for 73,75Br(p,2p), which the authors state are challenging but appear within reach given the schematic calculations mentioned in the acknowledgments, or rewording the abstract and conclusions so that the (d,3He) comparison is explicitly a qualitative benchmark rather than a quantitative transfer of spectroscopic factors.
  3. [Section III, first paragraph and abstract] The inference from equality of inclusive cross sections to 'the same single-particle orbitals contribute' is not logically forced: many different orbital mixtures can produce the same inclusive cross section, especially once the isomeric admixture and reaction-theory uncertainties are considered. The manuscript later says that this statement cannot be backed up without calculations, but the abstract and the opening of Section III present it as a suggestion without the same caveat. The abstract should be tempered to 'consistent with' rather than 'suggesting that the same orbitals contribute,' or the caveat should appear in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. The unplaced 2537-keV and 2900-keV transitions are assigned partial cross sections of 2.0(7) and 1.1(6) mb, but these values depend on their unobserved decay paths; please state explicitly that these are transition yields, not final-state partial cross sections, and give an upper limit on any direct ground-state feeding.
  2. The text says that 'no specific trend can be claimed' but then describes possible trends; I suggest moving the trend discussion to a clearly labeled speculative paragraph, or adding a sentence that these trends are not significant at the present precision.
  3. The paper does not give the time of flight from the production target to the LH2 target; for the 73Br isomer discussion, this time is essential, so please state the distance or time and explicitly estimate the surviving fraction of a state with an 800 ns lifetime.
  4. The abstract says the inclusive cross sections are 'identical'; the quantitative statement in Section III is that they 'agree within uncertainties,' which is more precise and should be used in the abstract.
  5. The summation symbol in 'P σpart. = 51(7) mb' appears to be a rendering error for the capital sigma; please correct the typography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured cross sections, external (d,3He) benchmarks, and explicitly hedged interpretations.

full rationale

This paper is a measurement paper: the inclusive and partial cross sections are derived directly from event counts, beam normalization, and target thickness, with no fitted parameter used to generate the central data claim. The LH2 target thickness used for absolute normalization is taken from earlier same-group work (Refs. [27,28]), but that value is an experimental calibration obtained by comparing measured kinetic-energy distributions to a geant4 simulation, not by fitting to the cross sections reported here. The gamma-ray yield extraction uses adopted level schemes and branching ratios from external data (ENSDF and published work), so the partial cross sections are not defined in terms of the conclusions. The comparison to (d,3He) spectroscopic factors from Rotbard et al. is an external benchmark used only to interpret the measured pattern as l=1,2,3,4 strength; those data are not inputs to the cross-section normalization. The equality of the two inclusive cross sections is a direct measurement, and the inference that the same single-particle orbitals contribute is explicitly hedged with 'might suggest' and, in the summary, with the statement that 'without detailed theoretical structure and reaction calculations this statement cannot be backed up.' The possible isomeric beam component is disclosed and addressed with a consistency argument rather than by renaming a fit as a prediction. No equation or derivation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation. The paper's conclusions are appropriately tentative and its data content is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard detector calibrations and adopted nuclear data. The interpretive claims rest on transferability of (d,3He) spectroscopic factors and on assumptions about beam purity and unobserved feeding, all acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (1)
  • LH2 target areal density = 69(3) mg/cm^2
    Inferred by matching measured outgoing kinetic-energy distribution to GEANT4 simulation in prior work (Ref. [64]); scales all absolute cross sections.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Adopted level schemes and gamma-decay branching ratios for 72,74Se from ENSDF and cited references are complete and correct.
    Used as fixed input in ucgretina simulations to extract gamma-ray yields and correct for feeders (Section II, Tables I and II). If branching ratios are wrong, partial cross sections shift.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic factors from normal-kinematics (d,3He) reactions on stable Ge/Se targets can be transferred to intermediate-energy proton removal on neutron-deficient Se isotopes.
    Basis for assigning l=1,2,3,4 contributions and lower-energy strength in Se (Section III, Figs. 4 and 5).
  • domain assumption Any isomeric component in the 73,75Br secondary beams is negligible for the observed cross sections.
    Authors argue half-lives less than 40 ns for known isomers and similar patterns for 75Br make isomeric influence minor (Section III).
  • domain assumption Unobserved feeding from unresolved excited states above 3 MeV is small enough not to alter partial cross sections.
    Based on residuals of the spectral fits and the claim that strongly populated states above 2.5 MeV would have been detected (Section III).
  • ad hoc to paper High-J state population arises from multi-step processes rather than direct one-nucleon removal.
    Proposed because direct knockout from J<5/2 ground states cannot easily populate J=6-8 states; no quantitative multi-step calculation is provided (Section III).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proton removal from $^{73,75}$Br to $^{72,74}$Se at intermediate energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPAW576Z

@misc{pith2026241109835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proton removal from $^73,75$Br to $^72,74$Se at intermediate energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPAW576Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09835}
}
abstract

We report new experimental data for excited states of $^{72,74}$Se obtained from proton removal from $^{73,75}$Br secondary beams on a proton target. The experiments were performed with the Ursinus-NSCL Liquid Hydrogen Target and the combined GRETINA+S800 setup at the Coupled Cyclotron Facility of the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. Within uncertainties, the inclusive cross sections for proton removal from $^{73,75}$Br on a proton target are identical suggesting that the same single-particle orbitals contribute to the proton-removal reaction. In addition, details of the partial cross section fragmentation are discussed. The data might suggest that $l = 1, 2, 3$, and 4 angular momentum transfers are important to understand the population of excited states of $^{72,74}$Se in proton removal. Available data for excited states of $^{74}$Ge populated through the $^{75}$As$(d,{}^{3}{\mathrm{He}}){}^{74}$Ge proton-removal reaction in normal kinematics suggest indeed that the $fp$ and $sd$ shell as well as the $1g_{9/2}$ orbital contribute. A comparison to data available for odd-$A$ nuclei supports that the bulk of the spectroscopic strengths could be found at lower energies in the even-even Se isotopes than in, for instance, the even-even Ge isotopes. In addition, the population of high-$J$ states seems to indicate that multi-step processes contribute to proton-removal reactions at intermediate energies in these collective nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Doppler-corrected, in-beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Partial cross sections for excited states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Spectroscopic factors for excited states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectroscopic factors for excited states of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lecomte, S

    R. Lecomte, S. Landsberger, P. Paradis, and S. Monaro, Phys. Rev. C 18, 2801 (1978)

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    Lecomte, M

    R. Lecomte, M. Irshad, S. Landsberger, P. Paradis, and S. Monaro, Phys. Rev. C 22, 1530 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    Eberth, R

    J. Eberth, R. A. Meyer, and K. Sistemich, eds., Nu- clear Structure of the Zirconium Region(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1988)

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    Kotli´ nski, T

    B. Kotli´ nski, T. Czosnyka, D. Cline, J. Srebrny, C. Y. Wu, A. B¨ acklin, L. Hasselgren, L. Westerberg, C. Bak- tash, and S. G. Steadman, Nuclear Physics A 519, 646 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    S. L. Tabor, P. D. Cottle, J. W. Holcomb, T. D. Johnson, P. C. Womble, S. G. Buccino, and F. E. Durham, Phys. Rev. C 41, 2658 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    P. D. Cottle, M. A. Kennedy, and K. A. Stuckey, Phys. Rev. C 42, 2005 (1990)

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    P. E. Garrett, M. Zieli´ nska, and E. Cl´ ement, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 124, 103931 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    A. Gade, D. Bazin, A. Becerril, C. M. Campbell, J. M. Cook, D. J. Dean, D.-C. Dinca, T. Glasmacher, G. W. Hitt, M. E. Howard, W. F. Mueller, H. Olliver, J. R. Terry, and K. Yoneda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 022502 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Cl´ ement, A

    E. Cl´ ement, A. G¨ orgen, W. Korten, E. Bouchez, A. Chatillon, J.-P. Delaroche, M. Girod, H. Goutte, A. H¨ urstel, Y. L. Coz, A. Obertelli, S. P´ eru, C. Theisen, J. N. Wilson, M. Zieli´ nska, C. Andreoiu, F. Becker, P. A. Butler, J. M. Casandjian, W. N. Catford, T. Czosnyka,...

    2007

  3. [11]

    Ljungvall, A

    J. Ljungvall, A. G¨ orgen, M. Girod, J.-P. Delaroche, A. Dewald, C. Dossat, E. Farnea, W. Korten, B. Melon, R. Menegazzo, A. Obertelli, R. Orlandi, P. Petkov, T. Pissulla, S. Siem, R. P. Singh, J. Srebrny, C. Theisen, C. A. Ur, J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, K. O. Zell, and M. Zieli´...

    2008

  4. [12]

    E. A. McCutchan, C. J. Lister, T. Ahn, R. J. Casperson, A. Heinz, G. Ilie, J. Qian, E. Williams, R. Winkler, and V. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 83, 024310 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Iwasaki, A

    H. Iwasaki, A. Lemasson, C. Morse, A. Dewald, T. Braunroth, V. M. Bader, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, J. S. Berryman, C. M. Campbell, A. Gade, C. Langer, I. Y. Lee, C. Loelius, E. Lunderberg, F. Recchia, D. Smalley, S. R. Stroberg, R. Wadsworth, C. Walz, D. Weisshaar, A. Westerberg, ...

    2014

  6. [14]

    G¨ orgen and W

    A. G¨ orgen and W. Korten, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 024002 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Wimmer, W

    K. Wimmer, W. Korten, T. Arici, P. Doornenbal, P. Aguilera, A. Algora, T. Ando, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Boso, S. Chen, A. Corsi, P. Davies, G. de Angelis, G. de France, D. T. Doherty, J. Gerl, R. Gernh¨ auser, D. Jenkins, S. Koyama, T. Motobayashi, S. Nagamine, M. Niikura, A. Ob...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Henderson, C

    J. Henderson, C. Y. Wu, J. Ash, P. C. Bender, B. Elman, A. Gade, M. Grinder, H. Iwasaki, E. Kwan, B. Longfel- low, T. Mijatovi´ c, D. Rhodes, M. Spieker, and D. Weis- shaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 082502 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Wimmer, T

    K. Wimmer, T. Arici, W. Korten, P. Doornenbal, J.- P. Delaroche, M. Girod, J. Libert, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, P. Aguilera, A. Algora, T. Ando, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Boso, S. Chen, A. Corsi, P. Davies, G. de Angelis, G. de France, D. T. Doherty, J. Gerl, R. Gernh¨ auser, T. Goigoux...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Wimmer, W

    K. Wimmer, W. Korten, P. Doornenbal, T. Arici, P. Aguilera, A. Algora, T. Ando, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Boso, S. Chen, A. Corsi, P. Davies, G. de Angelis, G. de France, J.-P. Delaroche, D. T. Doherty, J. Gerl, R. Gernh¨ auser, M. Girod, D. Jenkins, S. Koyama, T. Mo- tobayashi, S...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Mukherjee, S

    A. Mukherjee, S. Bhattacharya, T. Trivedi, R. P. Singh, S. Muralithar, D. Negi, R. Palit, S. Nag, S. Rajbanshi, M. K. Raju, S. Kumar, D. Choudhury, R. Kumar, R. K. Bhowmik, S. C. Pancholi, and A. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014322 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Bhattacharya, T

    S. Bhattacharya, T. Trivedi, A. Mukherjee, D. Negi, R. P. Singh, S. Muralithar, S. Jehangir, G. H. Bhat, N. Nazir, J. A. Sheikh, N. Rather, R. Palit, S. Nag, S. Rajbanshi, S. Chakraborty, S. Kumar, M. K. Raju, V. V. Parkar, D. Choudhury, R. Kumar, R. K. Bhowmik, S. C. Pan- cho...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Elekes, V

    Z. Elekes, V. Panin, T. Rodr ´ ıguez, K. Sieja, D. Ahn, A. Al-Adili, H. Baba, A. Stefanescu, K. Cook, C. D´ osa, N. Fukuda, J. Gao, J. Gibelin, K. Hahn, Z. Hal´ asz, S. Huang, T. Isobe, M. Juh´ asz, D. Kim, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, Z. Korkulu, A. Kurihara, I. Kuti, H. Miki, K. ...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Albers, K

    M. Albers, K. Nomura, N. Warr, A. Blazhev, J. Jolie, D. M¨ ucher, B. Bastin, C. Bauer, C. Bernards, L. Bet- termann, V. Bildstein, J. Butterworth, M. Cappellazzo, J. Cederk¨ all, D. Cline, I. Darby, S. Das Gupta, J. Dau- gas, T. Davinson, H. De Witte, J. Diriken, D. Fil- ipesc...

    2013

  15. [23]

    S. Chen, P. Doornenbal, A. Obertelli, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, G. Authelet, H. Baba, D. Calvet, F. Chˆ ateau, A. Corsi, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, V. Lapoux, T. Motobayashi, M. Niikura, N. Paul, J.- Y. Rouss´ e, H. Sakurai, C. Santamaria, D. Steppenbeck, R...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Litzinger, A

    J. Litzinger, A. Blazhev, A. Dewald, F. Didierjean, G. Duchˆ ene, C. Fransen, R. Lozeva, D. Verney, G. de An- gelis, D. Bazzacco, B. Birkenbach, S. Bottoni, A. Bracco, T. Braunroth, B. Cederwall, L. Corradi, F. C. L. Crespi, P. D´ esesquelles, J. Eberth, E. Ellinger, E. Farnea...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Gerst, A

    R.-B. Gerst, A. Blazhev, K. Moschner, P. Doornen- bal, A. Obertelli, K. Nomura, J.-P. Ebran, S. Hilaire, J. Libert, G. Authelet, H. Baba, D. Calvet, F. Chˆ ateau, S. Chen, A. Corsi, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, V. Lapoux, T. Motobayashi, M. Niikura, N. ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054318 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Spieker, L

    M. Spieker, L. A. Riley, P. D. Cottle, K. W. Kemper, D. Bazin, S. Biswas, P. J. Farris, A. Gade, T. Ginter, S. Giraud, J. Li, S. Noji, J. Pereira, M. Smith, D. Weis- shaar, and R. G. T. Zegers, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054305 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Spieker, S

    M. Spieker, S. Agbemava, D. Bazin, S. Biswas, P. Cot- tle, P. Farris, A. Gade, T. Ginter, S. Giraud, K. Kem- per, J. Li, W. Nazarewicz, S. Noji, J. Pereira, L. Riley, M. Smith, D. Weisshaar, and R. Zegers, Physics Letters B 841, 137932 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    L¨ uhmann, M

    L. L¨ uhmann, M. Debray, K. P. Lieb, W. Nazarewicz, B. W¨ ormann, J. Eberth, and T. Heck, Phys. Rev. C31, 828 (1985)

    1985

  22. [30]

    S. M. Fischer, T. Anderson, P. Kerns, G. Mesoloras, D. Svelnys, C. J. Lister, D. P. Balamuth, P. A. Haus- laden, and D. G. Sarantites, Phys. Rev. C 72, 024321 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    L. Guo, J. A. Maruhn, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C 76, 034317 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Girod, J.-P

    M. Girod, J.-P. Delaroche, A. G¨ orgen, and A. Obertelli, Physics Letters B 676, 39 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, Phys. Rev. C90, 034306 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Nikˇ si´ c, P

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. Marevi´ c, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044325 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    A. D. Ayangeakaa, R. V. F. Janssens, C. Y. Wu, J. M. Allmond, J. L. Wood, S. Zhu, M. Albers, S. Almaraz- Calderon, B. Bucher, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, D. Cline, H. L. Crawford, H. M. David, J. Harker, A. B. 9 Hayes, C. R. Hoffman, B. P. Kay, K. Kolos, A. Korichi, T. Laur...

    2016

  28. [36]

    Henderson, C

    J. Henderson, C. Y. Wu, J. Ash, B. A. Brown, P. C. Bender, R. Elder, B. Elman, A. Gade, M. Grinder, H. Iwasaki, B. Longfellow, T. Mijatovi´ c, D. Rhodes, M. Spieker, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Rev. C 99, 054313 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    A. D. Ayangeakaa, R. V. F. Janssens, S. Zhu, D. Lit- tle, J. Henderson, C. Y. Wu, D. J. Hartley, M. Albers, K. Auranen, B. Bucher, M. P. Carpenter, P. Chowd- hury, D. Cline, H. L. Crawford, P. Fallon, A. M. For- ney, A. Gade, A. B. Hayes, F. G. Kondev, Krishichayan, T. Laurits...

    2019

  30. [38]

    A. D. Ayangeakaa, R. V. F. Janssens, S. Zhu, J. M. All- mond, B. A. Brown, C. Y. Wu, M. Albers, K. Auranen, B. Bucher, M. P. Carpenter, P. Chowdhury, D. Cline, H. L. Crawford, P. Fallon, A. M. Forney, A. Gade, D. J. Hartley, A. B. Hayes, J. Henderson, F. G. Kondev, Kr- ishicha...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Marchini, A

    N. Marchini, A. Nannini, M. Rocchini, T. Rodr ´ ıguez, M. Ottanelli, N. Gelli, A. Perego, G. Benzoni, N. Blasi, G. Bocchi, D. Brugnara, A. Buccola, G. Carozzi, A. Goasduff, E. Gregor, P. John, M. Komorowska, D. Mengoni, F. Recchia, S. Riccetto, D. Rosso, A. Saltarelli, M. Sici...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Bender, P

    M. Bender, P. Bonche, and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 74, 024312 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Hinohara, K

    N. Hinohara, K. Sato, T. Nakatsukasa, M. Matsuo, and K. Matsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. C 82, 064313 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Sato and N

    K. Sato and N. Hinohara, Nuclear Physics A 849, 53 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    D. E. M. Hoff, A. M. Rogers, S. M. Wang, P. C. Bender, K. Brandenburg, K. Childers, J. A. Clark, A. C. Dom- bos, E. R. Doucet, S. Jin, R. Lewis, S. N. Liddick, C. J. Lister, Z. Meisel, C. Morse, W. Nazarewicz, H. Schatz, K. Schmidt, D. Soltesz, and S. K. S. . S. Waniganeththi,...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Henderson and S

    J. Henderson and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C 102, 031303 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    S. M. Lenzi, A. Poves, and A. O. Macchiavelli, Phys. Rev. C 104, L031306 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    C. G. Wang, R. Han, C. Xu, H. Hua, R. A. Bark, S. Q. Zhang, S. Y. Wang, T. M. Shneidman, S. G. Zhou, J. Meng, S. M. Wyngaardt, A. C. Dai, F. R. Xu, X. Q. Li, Z. H. Li, Y. L. Ye, D. X. Jiang, C. G. Li, C. Y. Niu, Z. Q. Chen, H. Y. Wu, D. W. Luo, S. Wang, D. P. Sun, C. Liu, Z. Q...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Vit´ ez-Sveiczer, A

    A. Vit´ ez-Sveiczer, A. Algora, A. Morales, B. Rubio, G. Kiss, P. Sarriguren, P. Van Isacker, G. de Angelis, F. Recchia, S. Nishimura, J. Agramunt, V. Guadilla, A. Montaner-Piz´ a, S. Orrigo, A. Horv´ ath, D. Napoli, S. Lenzi, A. Boso, V. Phong, J. Wu, P.-A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, T....

    2022

  40. [48]

    Gade and T

    A. Gade and T. Glasmacher, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 60, 161 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Aumann, C

    T. Aumann, C. Barbieri, D. Bazin, C. Bertulani, A. Bonaccorso, W. Dickhoff, A. Gade, M. G´ omez-Ramos, B. Kay, A. Moro, T. Nakamura, A. Obertelli, K. Ogata, S. Paschalis, and T. Uesaka, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 118, 103847 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    J. A. Tostevin and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054610 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Ekstr¨ om and L

    C. Ekstr¨ om and L. Robertsson, Physica Scripta 22, 344 (1980)

    1980

  44. [52]

    A. G. Griffiths, C. J. Ashworth, J. Rikovska, N. J. Stone, J. P. White, I. S. Grant, P. M. Walker, and W. B. Wal- ters, Phys. Rev. C 46, 2228 (1992)

    1992

  45. [53]

    Mieh´ e, P

    C. Mieh´ e, P. Dessagne, C. Pujol, G. Walter, B. Jonson, M. Lindroos, and the ISOLDE Collaboration, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal A - Hadrons and Nuclei 5, 143 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Waniganeththi, D

    S. Waniganeththi, D. E. M. Hoff, A. M. Rogers, C. J. Lister, P. C. Bender, K. Brandenburg, K. Childers, J. A. Clark, A. C. Dombos, E. R. Doucet, S. Jin, R. Lewis, S. N. Liddick, Z. Meisel, C. Morse, H. Schatz, K. Schmidt, D. Soltesz, and S. K. Subedi, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044317 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol- ume 2: Nuclear Deformations(World Scientific Publish- ing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Gade and B

    A. Gade and B. M. Sherrill, Physica Scripta 91, 053003 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    D. J. Morrissey, B. M. Sherrill, M. Steiner, A. Stolz, and I. Wiedenhoever, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 204, 90 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Bazin, J

    D. Bazin, J. A. Caggiano, B. M. Sherrill, J. Yurkon, and A. Zeller, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 204, 629 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    L. A. Riley, D. Weisshaar, H. L. Crawford, M. L. Agior- gousis, C. M. Campbell, M. Cromaz, P. Fallon, A. Gade, S. D. Gregory, E. B. Haldeman, L. R. Jarvis, E. D. Lawson-John, B. Roberts, B. V. Sadler, and C. G. Stine, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section...

    2021

  52. [60]

    Paschalis, I

    S. Paschalis, I. Y. Lee, A. O. Macchiavelli, C. M. Camp- bell, M. Cromaz, S. Gros, J. Pavan, J. Qian, R. M. Clark, H. L. Crawford, D. Doering, P. Fallon, C. Lionberger, T. Loew, M. Petri, T. Stezelberger, S. Zimmermann, D. C. Radford, K. Lagergren, D. Weisshaar, R. Winkler, T....

    2013

  53. [61]

    Weisshaar, D

    D. Weisshaar, D. Bazin, P. C. Bender, C. M. Camp- bell, F. Recchia, V. Bader, T. Baugher, J. Belarge, M. P. Carpenter, H. L. Crawford, M. Cromaz, B. Elman, P. Fallon, A. Forney, A. Gade, J. Harker, N. Kobayashi, 10 C. Langer, T. Lauritsen, I. Y. Lee, A. Lemasson, B. Longfellow...

    2017

  54. [62]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 389, 81 (1997), new Computing Techniques in Physics Research V

    1997

  55. [63]

    Minuit2 User Guide, https://root.cern.ch/root/ htmldoc/guides/minuit2/Minuit2.html (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    L. A. Riley, D. Bazin, J. Belarge, P. C. Bender, B. A. Brown, P. D. Cottle, B. Elman, A. Gade, S. D. Gre- gory, E. B. Haldeman, K. W. Kemper, B. R. Klybor, M. A. Liggett, S. Lipschutz, B. Longfellow, E. Lunder- berg, T. Mijatovic, J. Pereira, L. M. Skiles, R. Titus, A. Volya, ...

    2019

  57. [65]

    ENSDF, NNDC Online Data Service, ENSDF database, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/ (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Singh and A

    B. Singh and A. R. Farhan, Nuclear Data Sheets 107, 1923 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Abriola and A

    D. Abriola and A. Sonzogni, Nuclear Data Sheets 111, 1 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, L. Broglia, A. Brunengo, H. Burkhardt, S. Chauvie, J. Chuma, R. Chytracek, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, P. Degtyarenko, A. Del...

    2003

  61. [69]

    Rotbard, M

    G. Rotbard, M. Vergnes, G. La Rana, J. Vernotte, J. Kalifa, G. Berrier, F. Guilbault, R. Tamisier, and J. F. A. van Hienen, Phys. Rev. C 16, 1825 (1977)

    1977

  62. [70]

    Rotbard, G

    G. Rotbard, G. LaRana, M. Vergnes, G. Berrier, J. Kalifa, F. Guilbault, and R. Tamisier, Phys. Rev. C 18, 86 (1978)

    1978

  63. [71]

    Rotbard, M

    G. Rotbard, M. Vergnes, J. Vernotte, G. Berrier-Ronsin, J. Kalifa, and R. Tamisier, Nuclear Physics A 401, 41 (1983)

    1983

  64. [72]

    T. Pohl, Y. L. Sun, A. Obertelli, J. Lee, M. G´ omez- Ramos, K. Ogata, K. Yoshida, B. S. Cai, C. X. Yuan, B. A. Brown, H. Baba, D. Beaumel, A. Corsi, J. Gao, J. Gibelin, A. Gillibert, K. I. Hahn, T. Isobe, D. Kim, Y. Kondo, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kubota, P. Li, P. Liang, H. N. Liu, ...

    2023

  65. [73]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, M. Horoi, and B. Singh, Nu- clear Data Sheets 120, 112 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Spieker, S

    M. Spieker, S. Pascu, D. Bucurescu, T. M. Shneidman, T. Faestermann, R. Hertenberger, H.-F. Wirth, N.-V. Zamfir, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064319 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Bucurescu, S

    D. Bucurescu, S. Pascu, G. Graw, R. Hertenberger, H.- F. Wirth, T. Faestermann, R. Kr¨ ucken, M. Mahgoub, J. Jolie, P. von Brentano, S. Heinze, O. M¨ oller, R. F. Casten, and D. A. Meyer Brittingham, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014310 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Spieker, A

    M. Spieker, A. Gade, D. Weisshaar, B. A. Brown, J. A. Tostevin, B. Longfellow, P. Adrich, D. Bazin, M. A. Bent- ley, J. R. Brown, C. M. Campbell, C. A. Diget, B. Elman, T. Glasmacher, M. Hill, B. Pritychenko, A. Ratkiewicz, and D. Rhodes, Phys. Rev. C 99, 051304 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Jongile, A

    S. Jongile, A. Lemasson, O. Sorlin, M. Wiedeking, P. Papka, D. Bazin, C. Borcea, R. Borcea, A. Gade, H. Iwasaki, E. Khan, A. Lepailleur, A. Mutschler, F. Nowacki, F. Recchia, T. Roger, F. Rotaru, M. Stanoiu, S. R. Stroberg, J. A. Tostevin, M. Vandebrouck, D. Weis- shaar, and K...

    2020

  70. [78]

    Tostevin, arXiv:2104.03049 [nucl-th] (2021)

    J.A. Tostevin, arXiv:2104.03049 [nucl-th] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    H. Wang, M. Yasuda, Y. Kondo, T. Nakamura, J. Tostevin, K. Ogata, T. Otsuka, A. Poves, N. Shimizu, K. Yoshida, N. Achouri, H. Al Falou, L. Atar, T. Au- mann, H. Baba, K. Boretzky, C. Caesar, D. Cal- vet, H. Chae, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, H. Crawford, F. Delaunay, A. Delbart, Q. Des...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.