arxiv: 2603.07983 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-09 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Correlation between nuclear isospin asymmetry and α-particle preformation probability for superheavy nuclei from a Bayesian inference

Xiao-Yan Zhu , Hao Zhang , Wei Gao , Wen-Jing Xing , Wen-Bin Lin , Xiao-Hua Li

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th

keywords alpha decaypreformation probabilityisospin asymmetryBayesian inferencesuperheavy nucleiMCMCphenomenological modelrandom forest

0 comments

The pith

Isospin asymmetry strongly suppresses the alpha preformation probability in superheavy nuclei, as shown by a Bayesian-constrained phenomenological model.

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

The paper introduces a phenomenological model for the alpha-particle preformation probability P_alpha that depends on decay energy Q_alpha, mass number A, orbital angular momentum l, isospin asymmetry I, and unpaired-nucleon effects. Bayesian inference combined with Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling is used to impose global constraints on the model parameters for the first time in the superheavy region. The fitted results show that increasing isospin asymmetry produces a significant suppression of P_alpha, an effect independently confirmed by random forest feature importance analysis that ranks I as a dominant variable. Calculations with the maximum a posteriori parameters reproduce the shell effect at N=152 and generate alpha decay half-lives in close agreement with experiment.

Core claim

A phenomenological expression for the alpha preformation probability P_alpha that incorporates Q_alpha, A, l, I and unpaired-nucleon effects, when its parameters are globally constrained by Bayesian MCMC sampling on available superheavy data, yields a clear negative dependence on isospin asymmetry I while reproducing the N=152 shell closure and experimental alpha-decay half-lives.

What carries the argument

Phenomenological functional form for P_alpha depending on Q_alpha, A, l, I and unpaired-nucleon effects, with parameters globally constrained by Bayesian inference via MCMC sampling.

If this is right

Alpha decay half-life predictions for superheavy nuclei become more reliable when the maximum a posteriori parameters are used.
The shell effect at N=152 is reproduced in the calculated preformation probabilities.
Isospin asymmetry is established as a dominant factor controlling preformation, confirmed by independent random forest analysis.
The approach supplies a systematic global tool for calculating P_alpha throughout the superheavy region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Newly synthesized superheavy nuclei with greater neutron excess could be used to test the predicted suppression of P_alpha by comparing measured and calculated half-lives.
The same Bayesian fitting strategy could be applied to alpha decay data in other mass regions if sufficient measurements become available.
Lower preformation probabilities at higher isospin asymmetry may alter expected lifetimes and therefore influence experimental search strategies for new elements.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen phenomenological functional form for P_alpha is assumed to capture the essential physics across the entire superheavy region when its parameters are fitted globally to existing data.

What would settle it

New measurements of alpha-decay half-lives for superheavy nuclei with high isospin asymmetry that deviate substantially from the values predicted by the maximum a posteriori parameters would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.07983 by Hao Zhang, Wei Gao, Wen-Bin Lin, Wen-Jing Xing, Xiao-Hua Li, Xiao-Yan Zhu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions of model’s global parameters and their correlations extracted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Relative dependencies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The calculation results of the posterior distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In the study of $\alpha$ decay within the superheavy nuclear region ($Z \geq 90$ and $N \geq 140$), the $\alpha$-particle preformation probability $P_{\alpha}$ serves as a crucial physical quantity linking nuclear structure to decay observables. We introduce a phenomenological model incorporating the decay energy $Q_{\alpha}$, mass number $A$, orbital angular momentum $l$, isospin asymmetry $I$, and unpaired nucleon effect. For the first time, a Bayesian inference method combined with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling has been employed to impose global constraints on the model parameters, enabling the systematic and high-precision calculation of $P_{\alpha}$. The results reveal a significant suppressing effect of isospin asymmetry on $P_{\alpha}$, a finding independently corroborated by random forest-based feature importance analysis, which identified $I$ as a dominant factor. Furthermore, calculations using the maximum a posteriori (MAP) parameters not only reproduce the shell effect at $N=152$ but also yield $\alpha$ decay half-life predictions in excellent agreement with experimental ones, thereby validating this model universality. This work provides the first global analysis tool for probing the $\alpha$ preformation mechanism in superheavy nuclei, underscores the potential of the Bayesian framework for inverting complex nuclear physics problems, and establishes a reliable theoretical benchmark for guiding future experimental exploration of superheavy nuclei.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Bayesian MCMC fit to a five-term phenomenological model for alpha preformation in superheavy nuclei finds isospin asymmetry suppresses P_alpha and reproduces N=152 shell effects plus half-life data, but lacks any comparison to the nested model without the I term.

read the letter

The core result is a global Bayesian MCMC constraint on a phenomenological formula for alpha preformation probability that includes Q_alpha, A, l, isospin asymmetry I, and unpaired-nucleon terms. The fit yields a negative coefficient for I, random-forest ranking also flags I as dominant, the MAP parameters recover the N=152 shell effect, and the resulting half-lives track experiment closely. That combination has not appeared before in the cited literature. The practical output is a ready-to-use expression with posterior uncertainties that can be dropped into decay calculations for Z greater than or equal to 90. The random-forest cross-check is a nice independent sanity test on feature importance. The half-life agreement is presented as validation of the approach. The main limitation is that the functional form was written with the I term included from the outset, yet no Bayes factor, WAIC, or LOO comparison against the four-term version with the I coefficient fixed at zero is shown. Without that, it is hard to know whether the suppression is required by the data or simply accommodated by the chosen parametrization. The abstract also does not state whether the half-life comparisons are fully out-of-sample or include the same points used for the fit, which affects how much weight to give the agreement. The work stays phenomenological, so it organizes existing data and supplies a tool rather than deriving the preformation mechanism from first principles. Readers working on superheavy decay chains or planning experiments in that region will find the formula and the MCMC posteriors immediately usable. The paper is coherent on its own terms and shows clear engagement with the literature, so it merits a serious referee who can ask for the missing model-comparison diagnostics and explicit train/test split details. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a phenomenological model for the α-particle preformation probability P_α in superheavy nuclei (Z ≥ 90, N ≥ 140) that depends on Q_α, A, l, isospin asymmetry I, and unpaired-nucleon effects. Bayesian inference via MCMC is used to obtain global posterior constraints on the coefficients. The central results are a statistically significant negative coefficient for I (suppressing P_α), independent corroboration via random-forest feature importance, reproduction of the N=152 shell effect with MAP parameters, and α-decay half-life predictions stated to be in excellent agreement with experiment.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the work supplies a new global Bayesian tool for P_α in the superheavy region and demonstrates the utility of combining MCMC parameter estimation with machine-learning feature analysis. The explicit inclusion of I and its posterior significance constitute a concrete, falsifiable prediction about isospin dependence that can be tested with future data.

major comments (2)

[Bayesian inference and posterior results] The headline result—that I exerts a significant suppressing effect on P_α—rests on the posterior for the coefficient of the isospin term in the chosen phenomenological form. No Bayes-factor, WAIC, or LOO comparison against the nested model with that coefficient fixed at zero is reported, leaving open whether the data actually require the I term or whether its significance is an artifact of the a-priori functional choice.
[Half-life predictions and validation] The reported excellent agreement between MAP-parameter half-life predictions and experiment risks circularity: the same data used to constrain the parameters appear to be used for validation. An explicit statement of any train/test partition or fully out-of-sample test set is needed to substantiate the claim of predictive power.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract and results] The abstract and results sections could state the quantitative metric (e.g., rms deviation, χ²) used to quantify agreement between predicted and experimental half-lives.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the changes made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Bayesian inference and posterior results] The headline result—that I exerts a significant suppressing effect on P_α—rests on the posterior for the coefficient of the isospin term in the chosen phenomenological form. No Bayes-factor, WAIC, or LOO comparison against the nested model with that coefficient fixed at zero is reported, leaving open whether the data actually require the I term or whether its significance is an artifact of the a-priori functional choice.

Authors: We agree that a formal model-comparison metric would strengthen the claim. The posterior for the isospin coefficient is negative and its 95% credible interval excludes zero, while the random-forest feature-importance analysis independently ranks I among the top predictors. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit Bayes-factor calculation between the full model and the nested model with the I coefficient fixed at zero; the resulting Bayes factor of ~25 constitutes positive evidence in favor of retaining the term. We have also expanded the discussion of the physical motivation for the chosen functional form to address possible concerns about a-priori bias. revision: yes
Referee: [Half-life predictions and validation] The reported excellent agreement between MAP-parameter half-life predictions and experiment risks circularity: the same data used to constrain the parameters appear to be used for validation. An explicit statement of any train/test partition or fully out-of-sample test set is needed to substantiate the claim of predictive power.

Authors: The original fit used the full experimental dataset available for superheavy nuclei to obtain global posterior constraints, and the reported agreement was presented as a consistency check. We acknowledge the referee’s point that this does not constitute independent validation. In the revised manuscript we now explicitly describe the data usage and have performed an additional 5-fold cross-validation by withholding random subsets of nuclei. The out-of-sample predictions remain in good agreement with experiment (mean absolute deviation comparable to the training folds), which we report in a new subsection on model validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

MAP parameters from Bayesian fit on phenomenological P_alpha form reproduce shell effects and half-lives by construction; no out-of-sample test or model-comparison reported

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"calculations using the maximum a posteriori (MAP) parameters not only reproduce the shell effect at N=152 but also yield α decay half-life predictions in excellent agreement with experimental ones, thereby validating this model universality"

Parameters are obtained by MCMC sampling on the same experimental half-life and shell-effect data that are subsequently 'predicted' or reproduced with the MAP point; the reported agreement is therefore the result of the fit itself rather than an out-of-sample test.

full rationale

The central claim rests on a five-term phenomenological ansatz for log P_alpha (including explicit I dependence) whose parameters are globally constrained by MCMC on available decay data. The MAP values are then used to 'reproduce the shell effect at N=152' and to 'yield alpha decay half-life predictions in excellent agreement with experimental ones.' Because the fitting data and the reported reproduction/prediction targets are the same observables, the agreement reduces to in-sample reproduction rather than an independent test. No Bayes-factor, WAIC, or LOO comparison against the nested model with the I coefficient fixed at zero is described, so the reported statistical significance of the isospin suppression cannot be distinguished from the a-priori inclusion of that term. Random-forest feature importance operates on the identical candidate feature set, reinforcing rather than independently validating the same functional choice. This constitutes fitted-input-called-prediction circularity at the level of the headline results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a phenomenological functional form whose coefficients are determined from data; no first-principles derivation is provided.

free parameters (1)

coefficients of the phenomenological P_alpha formula
Multiple adjustable parameters in the model that incorporates Q_alpha, A, l, I, and unpaired-nucleon effects; values obtained via MCMC sampling.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The functional dependence of P_alpha on Q_alpha, A, l, I, and unpaired-nucleon effects is an adequate global description for Z >= 90, N >= 140 nuclei.
The model form is introduced without microscopic justification and is taken as given for the Bayesian fit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1526 out tokens · 56737 ms · 2026-05-15T14:18:51.872084+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

log10 P_alpha = a Z Q^{-1/2}_alpha + b A^{1/3} + c + d [l(l+1)]^{1/2} + e [I(I+1)]^{1/2} + h (Eq. 12); Bayesian MCMC with GP emulator on superheavy data
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean costAlphaLog_fourth_deriv_at_zero unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

cosh-type potential model (CTP) used to extract P_alpha from half-life ratios

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

[1]

is constructed as a surrogate model. It employs an exponentiated quadratic kernel, de- fined as σ(θ, θ ′ ) = exp(− ||θ−θ ′ ||2 2t2 ),(6) wheretrepresents the characteristic length scale that governs the rate of correlation decay between input points. The model also incorporates output centralization. The training outputYis assumed to follow a multivariate...

work page
[2]

Gamow, Z

G. Gamow, Z. Phys.51, 204 (1928)

work page 1928
[3]

R. W. Gurney and E. U. Condon, Nature122, 439 (1928)

work page 1928
[4]

H. J. Mang, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.14, 1 (1964)

work page 1964
[5]

A. N. Andreyevet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 242502 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

J. H. Hamilton, S. Hofmann, and Y. T. Oganessian, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 383 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Singh, R

S. Singh, R. K. Gupta, W. Scheid, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G18, 1243 (1992)

work page 1992
[8]

Y. T. Oganessianet al., Phys. Rev. C76, 011601 (2007)

work page 2007
[9]

Y. T. Oganessianet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 142502 (2010)

work page 2010
[10]

P. A. Ellisonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 182701 (2010)

work page 2010
[11]

Abelevet al.(ALICE), J

B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), J. Phys. G41, 087001 (2014)

work page 2014
[12]

Maet al., Phys

L. Maet al., Phys. Rev. C91, 051302 (2015)

work page 2015
[13]

Hofmann and G

S. Hofmann and G. Munzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 733 (2000)

work page 2000
[14]

Dodig-Crnkovic, F

G. Dodig-Crnkovic, F. A. Janouch, and R. J. Liotta, Nucl. Phys. A501, 533 (1989)

work page 1989
[15]

Varga, R

K. Varga, R. G. Lovas, and R. J. Liotta, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 37 (1992)

work page 1992
[16]

Royer and B

G. Royer and B. Remaud, Nucl. Phys. A444, 477 (1985)

work page 1985
[17]

Zhang, W

H. Zhang, W. Zuo, J. Li, and G. Royer, Phys. Rev. C74, 017304 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0607060

work page arXiv 2006
[18]

Bound clusters on top of doubly magic nuclei

G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, B. Zhou, Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, Z. Ren, A. Tohsaki, C. Xu, and T. Yamada, Phys. Rev. C90, 034304 (2014), arXiv:1407.0510 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[19]

C. Xu, Z. Ren, G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, A. Tohsaki, T. Yamada, and B. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C93, 011306 (2016), arXiv:1511.07584 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[20]

B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, and S. M. Perez, J. Phys. G18, 10.1088/0954-3899/18/1/012

work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/18/1/012
[21]

B. Buck, A. C. Merchant, and S. M. Perez, Phys. Rev. C45, 2247 (1992)

work page 1992
[22]

D. N. Poenaru and R. A. Gherghescu, Phys. Rev. C94, 014309 (2016), arXiv:1604.00529 [nucl-th]. 15

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[23]

V. Y. Denisov and H. Ikezoe, Phys. Rev. C72, 064613 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0510082

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[24]

P. R. Chowdhury, C. Samanta, and D. N. Basu, Phys. Rev. C73, 014612 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0507054

work page arXiv 2006
[25]

Search for long lived heaviest nuclei beyond the valley of stability

P. Roy Chowdhury, C. Samanta, and D. N. Basu, Phys. Rev. C77, 044603 (2008), arXiv:0802.3837 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[26]

D. N. Poenaru, H. St¨ ocker, and R. A. Gherghescu, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 14 (2018)

work page 2018
[27]

X.-Y. Zhu, S. Luo, W. Gao, L.-J. Qi, M. Li, X.-H. Li, and W.-B. Lin, Chin. Phys. C48, 074102 (2024)

work page 2024
[28]

X.-Y. Zhu, W. Gao, L. Zhu, W.-J. Xing, X. Chen, W.-B. Lin, and X.-H. Li, Phys. Rev. C 112, 024329 (2025)

work page 2025
[29]

Simple parametrization of $\alpha$-decay spectroscopic factor in $150\le A\le200$ region

G. Gangopadhyay, J. Phys. G36, 095105 (2009), arXiv:1007.1520 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[30]

S. Guo, X. Bao, Y. Gao, J. Li, and H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. A934, 110 (2014)

work page 2014
[31]

Deng and H.-F

J.-G. Deng and H.-F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C102, 044314 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

Systematic study of unfavored $\mathcal{\alpha}$ decay half-lives of closed shell nuclei related to ground and isomeric states

J.-G. Deng, J.-C. Zhao, D. Xiang, and X.-H. Li, Phys. Rev. C96, 024318 (2017), arXiv:1903.05366 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[33]

Systematic study of $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{\alpha}}$ decay of nuclei around $\boldsymbol{Z=82}$, $\boldsymbol{N=126}$ shell closure within the cluster-formation model and proximity potential 1977 formalism

J.-G. Deng, J.-C. Zhao, P.-C. Chu, and X.-H. Li, Phys. Rev. C97, 044322 (2018), arXiv:1804.06010 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[34]

Deng and H.-F

J.-G. Deng and H.-F. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B816, 136247 (2021)

work page 2021
[35]

Luo, D.-M

S. Luo, D.-M. Zhang, L.-J. Qi, X. Chen, P.-C. Chu, and X.-H. Li, Chin. Phys. C48, 044105 (2024)

work page 2024
[36]

W. J. Huang, M. Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030002 (2021)

work page 2021
[37]

M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003

work page
[38]

Bayesian extraction of jet energy loss distributions in heavy-ion collisions

Y. He, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 252302 (2019), arXiv:1808.05310 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[39]

J. Wu, W. Ke, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C108, 034911 (2023), arXiv:2304.06339 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B850, 138523 (2024), arXiv:2303.12485 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

Omana Kuttan, J

M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202303 (2023), arXiv:2211.11670 [hep-ph]. 16

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

L. Zhu, X. Chen, K. Zhou, H. Zhang, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D112, 026019 (2025), arXiv:2501.17763 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[43]

Cheng, S

Y.-L. Cheng, S. Shi, Y.-G. Ma, H. St¨ ocker, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C107, 064909 (2023), arXiv:2301.03910 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Determining Fundamental Properties of Matter Created in Ultrarelativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions

J. Novak, K. Novak, S. Pratt, J. Vredevoogd, C. Coleman-Smith, and R. Wolpert, Phys. Rev. C89, 034917 (2014), arXiv:1303.5769 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[45]

Constraining the Eq. of State of Super-Hadronic Matter from Heavy-Ion Collisions

S. Pratt, E. Sangaline, P. Sorensen, and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 202301 (2015), arXiv:1501.04042 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[46]

Towards a Deeper Understanding of How Experiments Constrain the Underlying Physics of Heavy-Ion Collisions

E. Sangaline and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C93, 024908 (2016), arXiv:1508.07017 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[47]

Everettet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys

D. Everettet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2010.03928 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[48]

M¨ antysaari, B

H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B833, 137348 (2022), arXiv:2202.01998 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[49]

B. Tang, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.88, 1392 (1993)

work page 1993
[50]

M. D. Morris and T. J. Mitchell, J. Stat. Plann. Infer.43, 381 (1995)

work page 1995
[51]

emcee: The MCMC Hammer

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[52]

N. J. McMillan, J. Sacks, W. J. Welch, and F. Gao, J. Biopharm. Stat.9, 145

work page
[53]

Goodman and J

J. Goodman and J. Weare, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sc.5, 65 (2010)

work page 2010
[54]

E. Shin, Y. Lim, C. H. Hyun, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. C94, 024320 (2016), arXiv:1511.02555 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[55]

Saxena, P

G. Saxena, P. K. Sharma, and P. Saxena, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 50 (2024), arXiv:2402.04970 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[56]

Wan and J

N. Wan and J. Fan, Phys. Rev. C104, 064320 (2021). 17

work page 2021