Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Two-particle two-hole excitations in semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper provides the first fully microscopic, relativistic calculation of the two-particle two-hole (2p2h) contribution to semi-inclusive charged-current neutrino-nucleus scattering, specifically the (νμ, μ−p) channel on carbon.

desk verdict First semi-inclusive 2p2h neutrino cross section with Delta MEC is a real advance, but the validation covers a reduced form-factor version of the model, not the full current used for the predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08786 v1 pith:L7DAOKSR submitted 2025-09-10 nucl-th hep-exhep-ph

Valerio Belocchi , Maria Benedetta Barbaro , Arturo De Pace , Marco Martini This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-ph
keywords two-particletwo-holeexcitationssemi-inclusiveneutrinoscatteringmeson-exchangecurrentsrelativisticFermigasneutrino-nucleuscrosssectionsdeltaresonancecharged-currentinteractionsT2K
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 extends a relativistic Fermi gas model with meson-exchange currents to compute, for the first time, the full two-particle two-hole (2p2h) contribution to semi-inclusive charged-current neutrino-carbon scattering (νμ, μ−p). It validates the calculation against inclusive neutrino response functions, then produces proton momentum and angle dependent cross sections at fixed energies and folded with the T2K flux. The main message is that a fully microscopic semi-inclusive 2p2h calculation is feasible and differs from the approximations currently used in event generators, both in peak position and strength. A reader should care because semi-inclusive measurements are sensitive to exactly these differences, and a reliable 2p2h model is needed to interpret them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semi-inclusive 2p2h nuclear tensor built from a two-body meson-exchange current operator. The current includes pion-in-flight, seagull, pion-pole, and Δ forward/backward contributions, with hadronic and weak form factors. The nuclear tensor integrates over Fermi-gas hole states with Pauli blocking and an energy shift, and the nine-dimensional phase-space integral is reduced analytically to five dimensions. Because azimuthal symmetry is broken in the semi-inclusive process, the cross section is expressed in terms of ten response functions instead of the five used in inclusive scattering.

What would settle it

A measurement of the T2K 1μCC0πNp cross section as a function of leading proton momentum would settle the matter: if the data follow the inclusive-based Monte Carlo extraction rather than this calculation's peak position and strength, or if the measured pp/pn ratio departs strongly from the predicted value of about 4, the central claim would lose support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to be the first to evaluate the 2p2h impact on semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus scattering from a fully microscopic, relativistic, semi-inclusive computation. Using the relativistic Fermi gas with an energy shift, it builds the two-body nuclear tensor from meson-exchange currents including pion-in-flight, seagull, pion-pole, and Δ forward/backward terms. The model is first checked against inclusive 2p2h response functions, then applied to the semi-inclusive (νμ, μ−p) cross section on 12C. The resulting proton spectra, decomposed into pp and pn channels and into pionic, Δ, and interference contributions, show that the pp channel dominates and the π−Δ interference can change si

Load-bearing premise

The calculation's reliability rests on the assumption that the relativistic Fermi gas with a constant energy shift—fitted to inclusive electron scattering—faithfully represents the initial two-nucleon system for semi-inclusive 2p2h kinematics, even though the same model is known to be inadequate for semi-inclusive one-body knockout.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the calculation is correct, event generators should adopt a fully microscopic semi-inclusive 2p2h model rather than extracting exclusive predictions from inclusive results, since the two approaches give visibly different peak positions and strengths.
  • The predicted dominance of the pp final-state channel, with a pp/pn ratio of about 4, provides a concrete, testable signature in proton-tagged measurements.
  • The Δ contribution accounts for roughly 80% of the total semi-inclusive 2p2h strength, and the π−Δ interference is non-negligible and can change sign with kinematics, so models omitting either piece are likely to be inaccurate.
  • The computation is efficient enough for practical use in event generators: for a given four-momentum transfer, the differential cross section can be evaluated to 1% numerical accuracy in about one minute of CPU time.
  • The model gives a baseline for understanding final-state interactions: since FSI are not included, comparison with data that include FSI should reveal the size of those effects on the proton momentum distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constant energy shift fitted to inclusive electron-scattering data may need to be re-fitted once semi-inclusive 2p2h data become available; the formalism allows this without structural changes, and the resulting shift would quantify medium effects in the two-body channel.
  • The sign-changing π−Δ interference at backward proton angles is a distinctive prediction that dedicated angular measurements could confirm or rule out, providing a sharper test than momentum-integrated cross sections.
  • If the pp/pn ratio is measured and departs strongly from the predicted value of about 4, that would indicate missing physics—likely short-range correlations—beyond the Fermi-gas basis, as the paper itself suggests when comparing with other models.
  • The same formalism could be extended to exclusive (νμ, μ−NN) observables, where the two final nucleons are detected together; the leading-proton variable used here is a natural bridge to that more exclusive phase space.
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 paper presents a calculation of the two-particle two-hole (2p2h) contribution to charged-current semi-inclusive neutrino-carbon scattering, (ν_μ, μ^- p), in the relativistic Fermi gas model. The two-body current includes pion-in-flight, seagull, pion-pole, and Δ forward/backward terms. The formalism is adapted from the authors' earlier (e,e'p) study, and the paper validates the inclusive 2p2h response functions against previous results from the same group. It then presents six-fold differential semi-inclusive cross sections, their decomposition into Δ, pionic, interference, and isospin channels, and flux-folded T2K 1μCC0πNp predictions compared with the GENIE/SuSAv2-MEC implementation. The authors claim the first fully microscopic, relativistic, semi-inclusive 2p2h computation, and argue that event generators should move from inclusive-based 2p2h extraction to such a model.

Significance. If the numerical results are reliable, this is a useful and timely contribution: event generators currently implement semi-inclusive 2p2h by making uncontrolled assumptions on top of inclusive calculations. The paper's strengths are the detailed treatment of the ten semi-inclusive response functions, a clear discussion of the leading-proton versus detected-proton observables, and a documented reduction of the nine-dimensional phase space to five dimensions. The claim of novelty appears justified, since previous semi-inclusive 2p2h studies either omitted Δ currents or computed different exclusive observables. However, the quantitative support for the headline predictions is thinner than the word 'validated' suggests: the inclusive check is performed with a reduced form-factor set, while the semi-inclusive results use the full set; and the final comparison is against another model, not against data or an independent calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figs. 3-5 and text after Fig. 5] The inclusive validation is performed with a reduced current: 'only the dominant form factors C3V, C5A, consistently with Ref. [31]'. The text immediately after Fig. 5 states that the subdominant form factors have a non-negligible effect, especially in the CC, CL and LL responses. Yet the semi-inclusive results in Eq. (9) and Figs. 6-10 are computed with all form factors. Thus the model that is validated is not the model used for the headline semi-inclusive predictions. At minimum, the authors should show an inclusive benchmark with the full form-factor set, or quantify the effect of the omitted form factors on the semi-inclusive observables. Without this, the GENIE comparison in Fig. 10 lacks a demonstrated quantitative anchor.
  2. [Section 4.2, Fig. 10] The comparison with GENIE is not a validation. The GENIE/SuSAv2-MEC curve is itself an approximate extraction from an inclusive 2p2h model, supplemented with FSI, and the paper explicitly attributes the observed discrepancies to FSI and to the inclusive-to-exclusive extraction assumptions. The statement that event generators should adopt the present model is therefore a plausible proposal rather than a conclusion supported by the comparison. The authors should either compare their full-model 2p2h contribution with the T2K 1μCC0πNp data (including uncertainties) or with an independent microscopic calculation; otherwise the central practical claim is undersupported.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (24)] The energy-shift prescription is ambiguous. The text defines ω~ = ω - E_shift, then states that for 12C the chosen values are pF = 225 MeV, E_shift = 20 MeV, and E_2p2h_shift = 2 E_shift = 40 MeV. It is not stated explicitly whether Eq. (24) is used with E_shift or with E_2p2h_shift when evaluating the 2p2h tensor in Eq. (10). This distinction changes the phase space and the resulting cross sections. Please state explicitly which effective energy transfer enters the 2p2h calculation and justify the factor of two.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 and Section 5] The caption of Fig. 5 says the comparison is with the computation of Ref. [5], while the main text says the comparison is with responses presented in Ref. [31]; Section 5 again refers to Ref. [5]. Please harmonize the references.
  2. [Section 1] Typo: 'As a results' should be 'As a result'.
  3. [Eq. (10)] The theta functions contain a typographical imbalance: θ(|p1| - pF|) should presumably be θ(|p1| - pF). Please correct.
  4. [Section 4.2] The text says 'To make contact with experimental data', but no T2K data are shown. The current Figs. 9-10 show only the present calculation and the GENIE prediction. Either overlay the T2K data with uncertainties or reword the claim.
  5. [Section 4.2, claim of 'first'] The novelty claim should be scoped carefully: since Ref. [18] already presents semi-inclusive 2p2h results, the phrase 'first fully microscopic, relativistic, semi-inclusive computation' should explicitly distinguish the inclusion of Δ currents and the relativistic treatment from Ref. [18], to avoid an easily contested priority statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the semi-inclusive 2p2h cross section is computed directly from the MEC matrix elements and RFG phase space; no fitted input or self-cited result forces the headline prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The semi-inclusive tensor W_{A(N),2p2h} is computed from Eq. (10) using the RFG phase space and the MEC matrix elements of Eq. (12), with the current operators, couplings, and form factors taken from Refs. [27,28]. The only model parameters, p_F and E_shift, are fixed by electron-scattering data and the de Forest prescription, not by the neutrino semi-inclusive observable being predicted. No semi-inclusive datum is fitted, and the GENIE comparison in Fig. 10 is an external, non-fitted check. The inclusive validation in Sec. 4.1 is an internal consistency check: Eq. (26) defines the inclusive tensor as the integral of the semi-inclusive tensor, so comparing with the authors' earlier inclusive results in Refs. [5]/[31] verifies the phase-space integration and computation but does not enter as an input into the semi-inclusive calculation. This is self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for the central derivation. The one flagged limitation is in Sec. 4.1 after Fig. 5: "In these results the ∆ interaction vertex is described using only the dominant form factors, to be consistent with Ref. [31]. Note, however, that in the other results presented in this work all the ∆ form factors ... are included. The effect of the subdominant form factors is not negligible..." That is a validation gap for the full-current predictions, not a circular step: the full MEC prediction is still computed from the model rather than extracted from the reduced-form-factor benchmark. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard RFG+MEC framework with two fitted parameters (pF, Eshift) and several input form factors from prior literature. No new particles or interactions are postulated. The main modeling assumptions are the truncation to 1p1h+2p2h and the adequacy of RFG with an energy shift for semi-inclusive 2p2h kinematics.

free parameters (2)
  • Fermi momentum p_F = 225 MeV
    Fixed by the target nucleus and fitted to the width of the quasielastic peak in (e,e') data [30]; central to the RFG phase space.
  • Energy shift E_shift = 20 MeV
    Phenomenological constant accounting for nucleon binding and FSI, extracted from electron-nucleus scattering; the 2p2h shift is E_2p2h_shift = 2*E_shift = 40 MeV, chosen from e,e'p comparison in Ref. [24].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nuclear tensor is approximated as the sum of 1p1h and 2p2h contributions, omitting many-body currents beyond two-body and medium corrections to self-energy.
    Section 2, Eq. (8); the paper explicitly retains only one- and two-body currents. This is standard in the field but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The relativistic Fermi gas with a constant energy shift provides an adequate framework for 2p2h semi-inclusive responses.
    Section 3, paragraph after Eq. (10); the paper argues that the two-body current introduces dynamical correlations beyond the RFG, but this is an unproven modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The MEC is given by the chiral Lagrangian of Ref. [27] with the form factors and Delta propagator of Ref. [28].
    Section 3, Eqs. (15)-(23); the validity of the MEC parametrization and the numerical values of couplings and cutoffs are assumed.
  • standard math The de Forest prescription is applied: form factors are evaluated at the exact omega, while other terms in the hadronic tensor use the energy-shifted omega.
    Section 3, Eq. (24) and following, from Ref. [29]; a standard prescription in nuclear response calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-particle two-hole excitations in semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7DAOKSR

@misc{pith2026250908786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-particle two-hole excitations in semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7DAOKSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08786}
}
abstract

A calculation of the two-particle two-hole contribution to the semi-inclusive $(\nu_\mu,\mu^-N)$ cross section on carbon is performed in the framework of the relativistic Fermi gas model. The process is driven by meson-exchange currents encompassing all contributions involving the exchange of a single pion and the excitation of a $\Delta$ resonance. The calculation is validated against the inclusive $(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)$ response functions already existing in the literature, and then extended for the first time to the semi-inclusive channel. Results are presented both at fixed neutrino energy and folded with the T2K neutrino flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Lepton-nucleus scattering in which a final nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: First row: ∆-MEC diagrams, forward (a,c) and backward (b,d). The ∆ resonance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Weak 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Weak 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Weak nuclear inclusive responses evaluated at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Semi-inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Weak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Weak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Differential 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith

  1. [31]

    P. R. Casale, J. E. Amaro, V. Belocchi, M. B. Barbaro, and M. Martini (2025), 2507.20246

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    INTRODUCTION Understanding and accurately describing the properties of neutrinos is one of the primary and most challenging goals of the neutrino physics community, nowadays especially focused in the precise determination of the PMNS oscillation parameters. Particular attention is paid to the CP violating Dirac phase, the main purpose of the current long-...

    2009

  3. [2]

    [24] for semi-inclusive electron-nucleus scattering is extended to describe the charged-current (CC) semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus interactions

    FORMALISM In this Section, the formalism developed in Ref. [24] for semi-inclusive electron-nucleus scattering is extended to describe the charged-current (CC) semi-inclusive neutrino-nucleus interactions. In a semi-inclusive process one or more hadrons in the final state are detected in coin- cidence with the outgoing lepton. We focus here on the specifi...

  4. [3]

    effective

    MODEL To compute the 2p2hhadronic tensor, we adopt as wave-function basis the Relativistic Fermi Gas (RFG) model, which treats the nucleus as a system of non-interacting nucleons described by Dirac spinors, correlated only by the Pauli exclusion principle. It is worth mentioning that, in the QE channel, the RFG model is inadequate to provide semi-inclusiv...

  5. [4]

    parallel kinematics

    RESUL TS In this section we present the numerical results of the calculation illustrated above. Before showing the semi-inclusive 2p2hcross sections, we validate our calculation by evaluating the inclusive weak 2p2hresponse functions and comparing the results with the ones published in Ref. [31]. The values of the parameters used in this work are listed i...

  6. [5]

    Planes Complementarios de I+D+i

    CONCLUSIONS Motivated by the promising results presented in [24] for the 2p2hcontribution to the electromagnetic (e, e′p) process, in this work we have extended the calculation to the weak sector and made predictions for neutrino-carbon semi-inclusive (ν µ, µ−p) observables. The weak model has been first validated by comparing with the inclusive results o...

    2022

  7. [6]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D81, 092005 (2010), 1002.2680

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C80, 065501 (2009), 0910.2622

    arXiv 2009

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C81, 045502 (2010), 1002.4538

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Nieves, I

    J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C83, 045501 (2011), 1102.2777

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ruiz Simo, J

    I. Ruiz Simo, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, J. Phys. G44, 065105 (2017), 1604.08423

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Van Cuyck, N

    T. Van Cuyck, N. Jachowicz, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, J. Ryckebusch, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. C95, 054611 (2017), 1702.06402

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Rocco, C

    N. Rocco, C. Barbieri, O. Benhar, A. De Pace, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. C99, 025502 (2019), 1810.07647

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Lovato, J

    A. Lovato, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, N. Rocco, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. X10, 031068 (2020), 2003.07710

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), Phys. Rev. D98, 032003 (2018), 1802.05078

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    X. G. Lu et al. (MINERvA), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 022504 (2018), 1805.05486

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cai et al

    T. Cai et al. (MINERvA), Phys. Rev. D101, 092001 (2020), 1910.08658

    2020

  10. [17]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 201803 (2020), 2006.00108

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D102, 112013 (2020), 2010.02390

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 101802 (2023), 2301.03706

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Moreno, T

    O. Moreno, T. W. Donnelly, J. W. Van Orden, and W. P. Ford, Phys. Rev. D90, 013014 34 (2014), 1406.4494

    2014 arXiv

  14. [21]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, S. Dolan, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. D106, 113005 (2022), 2207.02086

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, S. Dolan, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and G. D. Megias, Phys. Rev. D109, 013004 (2024), 2304.01916

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Van Cuyck, N

    T. Van Cuyck, N. Jachowicz, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. Martini, V. Pandey, J. Ryckebusch, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. C94, 024611 (2016), 1606.00273

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    V. L. Martinez-Consentino, A. M. Cantizani, and J. E. Amaro, Phys. Rev. C109, 015502 (2024), 2310.12642

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    V. L. Martinez-Consentino and J. E. Amaro, Symmetry16(2024), ISSN 2073-8994, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/16/2/247

    2024

  19. [26]

    Dolan, G

    S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D101, 033003 (2020), 1905.08556

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4469 (2021), 2106.15809

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Khachatryan et al

    M. Khachatryan et al. (CLAS, e4v), Nature599, 565 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Belocchi, M

    V. Belocchi, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, and M. Martini, Phys. Rev. C109, 065502 (2024), 2401.13640

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    P. R. Casale, J. E. Amaro, V. Belocchi, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, and M. Martini, Phys. Rev. C112, 024603 (2025), 2503.08391

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Scherer and M

    S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Hernandez, J

    E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. D76, 033005 (2007), hep-ph/0701149

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    De Forest, Nuclear Physics A392, 232 (1983), ISSN 0375-9474, URLhttps://www

    T. De Forest, Nuclear Physics A392, 232 (1983), ISSN 0375-9474, URLhttps://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947483901240

    1983

  27. [35]

    Maieron, T

    C. Maieron, T. W. Donnelly, and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C65, 025502 (2002), nucl-th/0109032

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ruiz Simo, J

    I. Ruiz Simo, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Lett. B762, 124 (2016), 1607.08451

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Belocchi, Ph.D

    V. Belocchi, Ph.D. thesis, Universit` a degli Studi di Torino, Italy (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Niewczas, Ph.D

    K. Niewczas, Ph.D. thesis, U. Gent (main) (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, J. Gonzalez-Rosa, J. A. Caballero, and M. B. Barbaro, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064626 (2020), 2010.14937

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. J. Dekker, P. J. Brussaard, and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C49, 2650 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    E. E. van Faassen and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C28, 2354 (1983). 35

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.