arxiv: 2605.00586 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Comparative Study of Langevin and Random Walk Models for Nuclear Fission in the Overdamped Regime

A. Augustyn , T. Cap , M. Kowal , K. Pomorski

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th

keywords nuclear fissionLangevin dynamicsMetropolis random walkoverdamped regimeactinide nucleifission mass distributionsmacroscopic-microscopic model

0 comments

The pith

Metropolis random walks match the overdamped limit of Langevin dynamics for fission mass distributions in lighter actinides.

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

The paper compares Langevin dynamics, which includes inertial effects, with a simpler Metropolis random walk model for simulating thermal neutron-induced fission in several actinides. Both use the same four-dimensional shape parametrization and macroscopic-microscopic potential energy surfaces. The authors establish that the random walk is mathematically equivalent to the overdamped limit of the Langevin equations when damping is strong and quantum corrections are removed. Numerical tests confirm nearly identical fragment mass distributions for lighter nuclei, while heavier ones reveal extra symmetric fission in the Langevin results traced to residual inertia and sampling differences.

Core claim

The Metropolis walk corresponds to the overdamped limit of the Langevin equations and is confirmed numerically by Langevin calculations performed in the strongly damped regime and with quantum corrections to the random force switched off. Under these conditions, the two approaches produce essentially identical mass distributions for the lighter actinides. Systematic deviations develop for the heavier actinides, where the Langevin dynamics yields a non-negligible symmetric fission component absent in the random walk results, traced to the kinematic structure of the Metropolis sampling and residual inertial dynamics.

What carries the argument

The four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid parametrization of nuclear shapes together with the macroscopic-microscopic potential energy surface, enabling identical implementation of both dynamical models.

If this is right

Mass distributions agree closely between the two methods for lighter actinides such as 229Th, 235U, and 239Pu.
Langevin dynamics produces a symmetric fission component in heavier actinides like 245Cm, 249Cf, and 255Fm that is missing from random walk results.
Turning off the quantum-corrected effective temperature isolates zero-point fluctuations and indicates their standard treatment may overestimate their effect.
Both methods reproduce the positions of asymmetric peaks and their trend across the actinide chain but yield distributions that are too narrow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Adding higher-dimensional deformation modes would likely widen the predicted mass distributions and improve agreement with measured fission yields.
The kinematic restrictions of Metropolis sampling may restrict its accuracy in fission regimes where inertial motion contributes to fragment separation.
Refinements to the phenomenological handling of zero-point fluctuations could be tested by comparing temperature-corrected and uncorrected Langevin runs against precise experimental charge distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid parametrization plus the macroscopic-microscopic potential energy surface already captures the dominant fission pathways so differences can be attributed to inertia and sampling rather than missing coordinates.

What would settle it

Run full inertial Langevin simulations without forcing strong damping and check whether the predicted mass distributions for heavier actinides like 255Fm still match the overdamped Metropolis results or retain the extra symmetric component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00586 by A. Augustyn, K. Pomorski, M. Kowal, T. Cap.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Potential energy surface of view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Pre-neutron emission fragment mass distributions view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Pre-neutron emission fragment mass distributions view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a comparative study of Langevin dynamics and a Metropolis random walk model applied to thermal neutron-induced fission of $^{229}$Th, $^{235}$U, $^{239}$Pu, $^{245}$Cm, $^{249}$Cf, and $^{255}$Fm. Both methods are implemented within an identical four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid framework, using potential energy surfaces derived from the macroscopic-microscopic model. We show that the Metropolis walk corresponds to the overdamped limit of the Langevin equations and confirm this correspondence numerically by Langevin calculations performed in the strongly damped regime and with quantum corrections to the random force switched off. Under these conditions, the two approaches produce essentially identical mass distributions for the lighter actinides. Systematic deviations develop for the heavier actinides, where the Langevin dynamics yields a non-negligible symmetric fission component absent in the random walk results. We trace this difference to the kinematic structure of the Metropolis sampling and to the residual inertial dynamics retained in the Langevin framework. A parallel comparison of Langevin calculations with and without the quantum-corrected effective temperature $T^*$ isolates the contribution of zero-point fluctuations and suggests that their standard phenomenological treatment may overestimate their impact in certain cases. Both approaches qualitatively reproduce the asymmetric peak positions and their systematic evolution across the actinide chain, while a common quantitative limitation -- the narrowness of the predicted distributions -- points to the role of higher-dimensional deformation modes not included in the present parametrization.

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

The paper shows that Metropolis random walk matches overdamped Langevin mass yields for lighter actinides but diverges for heavier ones due to inertia and sampling, with the main caveat that the damping regime lacks a clear convergence check.

read the letter

The central result is that a Metropolis random walk reproduces the fission mass distributions from Langevin dynamics once the latter is run in the strongly damped regime with quantum corrections off, at least for the lighter nuclei in the chain. For Cm and heavier, the Langevin runs retain a symmetric component that the random walk misses, which the authors link to residual inertial motion and the way the walk samples the PES. Both methods use the identical 4D Fourier-over-Spheroid parametrization and the same macroscopic-microscopic surface, so the comparison isolates the dynamical difference rather than code or surface artifacts. They also run a parallel set with the quantum-corrected temperature turned off, which helps separate that effect from the overdamped limit itself. That side-by-side implementation in one framework is the useful incremental step here. It gives modelers a concrete check on when the cheaper random-walk approach is safe to use. The shared shortcoming they note—the predicted distributions are too narrow—points to the 4D limit missing collective modes, which is a fair observation rather than an excuse. The soft spot is the damping quantification. The abstract calls the Langevin runs “strongly damped,” but without an explicit friction-to-inertia ratio or a scan showing that further increases in damping leave the yields unchanged, it is not fully clear the inertial terms are negligible, especially where the heavier-actinide deviations appear. That weakens the numerical confirmation of the overdamped equivalence a bit. This work is aimed at people who build or use fission models for nuclear data libraries and reactor calculations. They will get practical guidance on model choice from the direct comparison. It is not a theoretical advance, but the numerical evidence is solid enough on its own terms to merit referee time. I would send it for review and ask the authors to add the damping convergence test and perhaps a short discussion of how the 4D restriction affects the heavier nuclei.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a side-by-side comparison of Langevin dynamics and Metropolis random-walk sampling for thermal-neutron-induced fission of ^{229}Th, ^{235}U, ^{239}Pu, ^{245}Cm, ^{249}Cf and ^{255}Fm. Both calculations employ the identical four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid collective-coordinate parametrization and the same macroscopic-microscopic potential-energy surface. The authors derive that the Metropolis walk is the overdamped limit of the Langevin equations and then numerically test the correspondence by running Langevin trajectories in a strongly damped regime with the quantum correction to the random force switched off. For the lighter actinides the resulting mass distributions agree; for the heavier systems the Langevin runs develop a symmetric component absent from the random-walk results, which the authors attribute to residual inertial motion and differences in sampling kinematics. A parallel set of Langevin runs with and without the quantum-corrected temperature T* is used to isolate the effect of zero-point fluctuations. Both models reproduce the systematic trend of asymmetric peak positions but under-predict the widths of the distributions, a limitation ascribed to the restricted dimensionality of the collective space.

Significance. If the numerical equivalence can be placed on a firmer footing, the work supplies a concrete benchmark that clarifies when and why two standard fission-dynamics frameworks coincide or diverge. The use of a single, fixed PES and coordinate set for both methods is a clear methodological strength, eliminating parametrization differences as a confounding factor. The isolation of the quantum-temperature contribution and the explicit discussion of missing higher-dimensional modes are also useful for the community. The manuscript does not, however, contain machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code releases, so its primary value lies in the comparative insight rather than in new formal results.

major comments (2)

[Numerical confirmation section] Numerical confirmation section (results for strongly damped Langevin runs): the manuscript states that calculations were performed 'in the strongly damped regime' but supplies neither the numerical value of the friction coefficient nor the ratio of friction to inertial mass, nor any scan in which the damping strength is systematically increased until the symmetric yield for ^{245}Cm and heavier nuclei converges to the Metropolis value. Without such a convergence test the claim that residual inertial dynamics are responsible for the observed deviations remains unquantified and therefore load-bearing for the central assertion of overdamped equivalence.
[§4] §4 (mass-distribution comparisons for ^{245}Cm–^{255}Fm): the attribution of the extra symmetric component solely to 'residual inertial dynamics retained in the Langevin framework' is not supported by a demonstration that further increase of the friction coefficient eliminates this component. The absence of this test leaves open the possibility that the discrepancy arises from other sources (time-step choice, fragment identification algorithm, or incomplete thermalization) rather than inertia alone.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and §3] The abstract and text refer to 'quantum corrections to the random force switched off' without an explicit equation reference; adding the relevant Langevin-equation term (e.g., the form of the multiplicative noise) would improve clarity.
[Figure captions] Figure captions for the mass-yield plots should state the precise value of the friction coefficient used in the 'strongly damped' runs and the number of trajectories per nucleus.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments on the numerical confirmation of the overdamped regime are well taken and will be addressed by providing additional details and tests in the revised version. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Numerical confirmation section] Numerical confirmation section (results for strongly damped Langevin runs): the manuscript states that calculations were performed 'in the strongly damped regime' but supplies neither the numerical value of the friction coefficient nor the ratio of friction to inertial mass, nor any scan in which the damping strength is systematically increased until the symmetric yield for ^{245}Cm and heavier nuclei converges to the Metropolis value. Without such a convergence test the claim that residual inertial dynamics are responsible for the observed deviations remains unquantified and therefore load-bearing for the central assertion of overdamped equivalence.

Authors: We agree that the specific numerical value of the friction coefficient and an explicit convergence test with respect to damping strength were not reported. In the revised manuscript we will state the friction coefficient employed in the strongly damped Langevin runs together with the resulting friction-to-inertia ratio, confirming that the dynamics lie well inside the overdamped regime. We will also add a short convergence discussion (or supplementary figure) showing the behavior of the symmetric yield as the friction coefficient is increased, thereby quantifying the residual inertial contribution and strengthening the link to the analytical overdamped limit derived earlier in the paper. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (mass-distribution comparisons for ^{245}Cm–^{255}Fm): the attribution of the extra symmetric component solely to 'residual inertial dynamics retained in the Langevin framework' is not supported by a demonstration that further increase of the friction coefficient eliminates this component. The absence of this test leaves open the possibility that the discrepancy arises from other sources (time-step choice, fragment identification algorithm, or incomplete thermalization) rather than inertia alone.

Authors: We acknowledge that a direct numerical demonstration of the symmetric component vanishing with further increase in friction would make the attribution more conclusive. In the revision we will include such a test for the heavier nuclei, showing that the extra symmetric yield is suppressed as the friction coefficient is raised while keeping all other numerical settings fixed. We will also explicitly note that the time-step size, fragment identification procedure, and thermalization criteria were cross-checked to be identical between the two methods, thereby reducing the likelihood that those factors are responsible for the observed difference. The remaining discrepancy is then traced to the kinematic structure of the Metropolis sampling versus the continuous inertial trajectories in the Langevin framework, consistent with the analytic derivation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim rests on explicit limit derivation and shared external PES

full rationale

The paper derives the claimed correspondence by taking the overdamped limit of the Langevin equations to recover the Metropolis walk, then verifies it numerically on identical four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid PES and nuclei. This is a direct mathematical reduction plus an independent dynamical test, not a redefinition or fitted input renamed as prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or smuggled ansatzes are required for the core result; deviations for heavier actinides are traced to distinct kinematic and inertial features rather than tautological fits. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the common external inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the macroscopic-microscopic potential energy surface being an adequate representation of the fission barrier and on the validity of the overdamped regime for the chosen friction strength; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

friction coefficient
Chosen to place the system in the strongly damped regime where Langevin should reduce to random walk

axioms (2)

domain assumption Macroscopic-microscopic model supplies accurate potential energy surfaces for the chosen nuclei
Invoked to generate the common PES used by both methods
domain assumption Four-dimensional Fourier-over-Spheroid parametrization captures the dominant collective coordinates
Basis for claiming that observed differences arise from dynamics rather than missing degrees of freedom

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1438 out tokens · 24824 ms · 2026-05-09T18:31:24.488343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references

[1]

For each fissioning system, an ensemble of10 5 independent random walks is generated, providing statistics consistent with the Langevin calculations

+E ∗, and terminated upon reaching the scission con- ditiona 4 ≈0.72. For each fissioning system, an ensemble of10 5 independent random walks is generated, providing statistics consistent with the Langevin calculations. To obtain a continuous distribution of mass splits despite the discreteness of the underlying grid, the final defor- mation parameters re...

2023
[2]

Hänggi, P

P. Hänggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Rev. Mod. Phys.62, 251 (1990)

1990
[3]

H. J. Krappe and K. Pomorski,Theory of Nuclear Fis- sion(Springer, 2012)

2012
[4]

A. N. Andreyev, K. Nishio, and K.-H. Schmidt, eds.,Nu- clear Fission: From Basics to Applications,SeriesinFun- damental and Applied Nuclear Physics, Vol. 1–3 (World Scientific, 2018)

2018
[5]

Nerlo-Pomorska and K

B. Nerlo-Pomorska and K. R. Pomorski,Theory of Atomic Nuclei: Foundations(CRC Press, Taylor & Fran- cis Group, 2024)

2024
[6]

Talou and R

P. Talou and R. Vogt, eds.,Nuclear Fission(Springer International Publishing, 2023)

2023
[7]

Tanihata, H

I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino, eds.,Handbook of Nuclear Physics, 1st ed. (Springer Singapore, 2023) pp. XXXIX + 4207

2023
[8]

Lemaire, C

M. Lemaire, C. Vaglio-Gaudard, A. Lyoussi, and C. Reynard-Carette, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.52, 1093 (2015)

2015
[9]

A. L. Nicholset al., Eur. Phys. J. A59, 78 (2023)

2023
[10]

Scamps and C

G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Nature564, 382 (2018)

2018
[11]

Bulgac, P

A. Bulgac, P. Magierski, K. J. Roche, and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 122504 (2016)

2016
[12]

Schunck, D

N. Schunck, D. Duke, H. Carr, and A. Knoll, Phys. Rev. C90, 054305 (2014)

2014
[13]

J. A. Maruhn, P.-G. Reinhard, P. D. Stevenson, and A. S. Umar, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2195 (2014)

2014
[14]

J. Zhao, T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C101, 064605 (2020)

2020
[15]

H. Tao, J. Zhao, Z. P. Li, T. Nikšić, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C96, 024319 (2017)

2017
[16]

J. C. Pei, W. Nazarewicz, J. A. Sheikh, and A. K. Ker- man, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 192501 (2009)

2009
[17]

A. J. Sierk, Phys. Rev. C96, 034603 (2017)

2017
[19]

Pomorski, A

K. Pomorski, A. Dobrowolski, R. Han, B. Nerlo- Pomorska, M. Warda, Z. Xiao, Y. Chen, L. Liu, and J.-L. Tian, Phys. Rev. C101, 064602 (2020)

2020
[20]

Aritomo, S

Y. Aritomo, S. Chiba, and F. A. Ivanyuk, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054609 (2014)

2014
[21]

M. D. Usang, F. A. Ivanyuk, C. Ishizuka, and S. Chiba, Phys. Rev. C96, 064617 (2017)

2017
[22]

Ishizuka, M

C. Ishizuka, M. D. Usang, F. A. Ivanyuk, J. A. Maruhn, K.Nishio, andS.Chiba,Phys.Rev.C96,064616(2017)

2017
[23]

M. R. Pahlavani and S. M. Mirfathi, Phys. Rev. C93, 044617 (2016)

2016
[24]

Pasca, A

H. Pasca, A. V. Andreev, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Anto- nenko, and Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. C93, 054602 (2016)

2016
[25]

Carjan, F

N. Carjan, F. A. Ivanyuk, and Y. T. Oganessian, Phys. Rev. C99, 064606 (2019)

2019
[26]

Asano, T

T. Asano, T. Wada, M. Ohta, T. Ichikawa, S. Yamaji, and H. Nakahara, J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci.5, 1 (2004)

2004
[27]

Eslamizadeh and H

H. Eslamizadeh and H. Raanaei, Phys. Lett. B783, 163 (2018)

2018
[28]

Liu, X.-Z

L.-L. Liu, X.-Z. Wu, Y.-J. Chen, C.-W. Shen, Z.-X. Li, and Z.-G. Ge, Phys. Rev. C99, 044614 (2019)

2019
[29]

Pomorski, B

K. Pomorski, B. Nerlo-Pomorska, J. Bartel, C. Schmitt, Z. G. Xiao, Y. J. Chen, and L. L. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034607 (2024)

2024
[30]

Liu, Y.-J

L.-L. Liu, Y.-J. Chen, X.-Z. Wu, Z.-X. Li, Z.-G. Ge, and K. Pomorski, Phys. Rev. C103, 044601 (2021)

2021
[31]

Randrup and P

J. Randrup and P. Möller, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 132503 (2011)

2011
[33]

Albertsson, B

M. Albertsson, B. G. Carlsson, T. Døssing, P. Möller, J. Randrup, and S. Åberg, EPJ Web Conf.223, 01002 (2019)

2019
[34]

Strumberger, K

E. Strumberger, K. Dietrich, and K. Pomorski, Nucl. Phys. A529, 522 (1991)

1991
[35]

Feldmeier, Rep

H. Feldmeier, Rep. Prog. Phys.50, 915 (1987)

1987
[36]

Fröbrich and I

P. Fröbrich and I. I. Gontchar, Phys. Rep.292, 131 (1996)

1996
[37]

Fröbrich and I

P. Fröbrich and I. I. Gontchar, Nucl. Phys. A637, 326 (1998)

1998
[38]

Pomorski, B

K. Pomorski, B. Nerlo-Pomorska, J. Bartel, and C. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. C107, 054616 (2023)

2023
[39]

Augustyn, T

A. Augustyn, T. Cap, R. Capote, M. Kowal, and K. Po- morski, Phys. Rev. C113, 034305 (2026)

2026
[40]

W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys.81, 1 (1966)

1966
[41]

S. G. Nilsson, C. F. Tsang, A. Sobiczewski, Z. Szymanski, S. Wycech, C. Gustafson, I.-L. Lamm, P. Möller, and B. Nilsson, Nucl. Phys. A131, 1 (1969). 12

1969
[42]

Pomorski and J

K. Pomorski and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. C67, 044316 (2003)

2003
[43]

Dobrowolski, K

A. Dobrowolski, K. Pomorski, and J. Bartel, Comput. Phys. Commun.199, 118 (2016)

2016
[44]

V. M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys. A95, 420 (1967)

1967
[45]

V. M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys. A122, 1 (1968)

1968
[46]

Góźdź and K

A. Góźdź and K. Pomorski, Nucl. Phys. A451, 1 (1986)

1986
[47]

Piłat, K

S. Piłat, K. Pomorski, and A. Staszczak, Z. Phys. A332, 259 (1989)

1989
[48]

P. V. Kostryukov, A. Dobrowolski, B. Nerlo-Pomorska, M. Warda, Z. G. Xiao, Y. J. Chen, L. L. Liu, J. L. Tian, and K. Pomorski, Chin. Phys. C45, 124108 (2021)

2021
[49]

Pomorski, A

K. Pomorski, A. Dobrowolski, B. Nerlo-Pomorska, M. Warda, J. Bartel, Z. G. Xiao, Y. J. Chen, L. L. Liu, J. L. Tian, and X. Y. Diao, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 77 (2022)

2022
[50]

Bartel, B

J. Bartel, B. Nerlo-Pomorska, K. Pomorski, and A. Do- browolski, Comput. Phys. Commun.241, 139 (2019)

2019
[51]

Błocki, Y

J. Błocki, Y. Boneh, J. R. Nix, J. Randrup, M. Robel, A. J. Sierk, and W. J. Świątecki, Ann. Phys.113, 330 (1978)

1978
[52]

Hofmann and P

H. Hofmann and P. J. Siemens, Nucl. Phys. A275, 464 (1977)

1977
[53]

A333, 317 (1980)

J.Błocki, H.Feldmeier, andW.J.Swiatecki,Nucl.Phys. A333, 317 (1980)

1980
[54]

Dynamics of nucleus- nucleus collisions,

W. J. Swiatecki and J. Randrup, “Dynamics of nucleus- nucleus collisions,” IAEA Report INIS-mf-5591 (1979)

1979
[55]

F. A. Ivanyuk and K. Pomorski, Phys. Rev. C53, 1861 (1996)

1996
[56]

A459, 145 (1986)

J.Błocki, H.Feldmeier, andW.J.Świątecki,Nucl.Phys. A459, 145 (1986)

1986
[57]

D. A. Brown, M. B. Chadwick, R. Capote, A. C. Kahler, A. Trkov, M. W. Herman, A. A. Sonzogni, Y. Danon, A. D. Carlson, M. Dunn, D. L. Smith, G. M. Hale, G. Arbanas, R. Arcilla, C. R. Bates, B. Beck, B. Becker, F. Brown, R. J. Casperson, J. Conlin, D. E. Cullen, M.- A. Descalle, R. Firestone, T. Gaines, K. H. Guber, A. I. Hawari, J. Holmes, T. D. Johnson, ...

2018
[58]

Randrup and P

J. Randrup and P. Möller, Phys. Rev. C88, 064606 (2013)

2013
[59]

Metropolis, A

N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys.21, 1087 (1953)

1953
[60]

A. V. Ignatyuk, K. K. Istekov, and G. N. Smirenkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.29, 450 (1979)

1979
[61]

Rahmatinejad, A

A. Rahmatinejad, A. N. Bezbakh, T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, P. Jachimowicz, and M. Kowal, Phys. Rev. C103, 034309 (2021)

2021
[62]

Rahmatinejad, T

A. Rahmatinejad, T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, P. Jachimowicz, and M. Kowal, Phys. Rev. C105, 044328 (2022)

2022
[63]

Rahmatinejad, T

A. Rahmatinejad, T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, P. Jachimowicz, and M. Kowal, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 214 (2024)

2024
[64]

D. Ward, B. G. Carlsson, T. Døssing, P. Möller, J. Ran- drup, and S. Åberg, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl.10, 97 (2017)

2017
[65]

T. Cap, A. Augustyn, M. Kowal, and K. Siwek- Wilczyńska, Phys. Rev. C109, L061603 (2024)

2024
[66]

Manuscript in preparation,

K. Pomorski, A. Augustyn, T. Cap, Y. J. Chen, M. Kowal, M. Warda, and Z. G. Xiao, “Manuscript in preparation,” (2026), in preparation

2026
[67]

Möller and J

P. Möller and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C91, 044316 (2015)

2015
[68]

M. R. Mumpower, P. Jaffke, M. Verriere, and J. Ran- drup, Phys. Rev. C101, 054607 (2020)

2020
[69]

Isotope-resolved ba and xe yields in actinide fission and correlated heavy–light frag- ment systematics. datafiles,

K. Pomorski and M. Warda, “Isotope-resolved ba and xe yields in actinide fission and correlated heavy–light frag- ment systematics. datafiles,” (2026), zenodo data files

2026