arxiv: 2605.10869 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: no theorem link

New perspective on cold fusion reactions: A microscopic description

Yinu Zhang , Bo Han , Yueping Fang , Long Zhu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th

keywords cold fusionsuperheavy nucleiHartree-Fock-Bogoliubovfusion by diffusionpotential energy surfaceshell effectsevaporation residue cross section

0 comments

The pith

A microscopic framework using Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov potential-energy surfaces in the fusion-by-diffusion model describes cold fusion reactions without phenomenological tuning at the fusion stage.

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

The paper develops a method that merges the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov approach with the fusion-by-diffusion model to study how superheavy nuclei form in cold fusion reactions. This combination lets the fusion injection point and the inner barrier be taken straight from the calculated potential-energy surface, bringing in nuclear structure effects automatically. Calculations for the reaction of calcium-48 with lead-208 give an evaporation-residue cross section that matches experimental results reasonably well. The approach also reveals a hyperasymmetric valley in the surface, shaped by shell effects, that links the colliding nuclei to the compound system and serves as a possible path for cluster decay. Similar calculations for other projectiles show the probability of forming the compound nucleus dropping nearly exponentially as the charge increases.

Core claim

The authors show that Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov potential-energy surfaces for cold-fusion reactions exhibit a hyperasymmetric valley anchored at lead-208 that connects the entrance channel to compound-nucleus formation. By feeding these surfaces directly into the fusion-by-diffusion model, the injection point and inner barrier can be extracted self-consistently, eliminating the need for phenomenological adjustments. This framework reproduces the experimental evaporation-residue cross section for 48Ca + 208Pb and yields a near-exponential decrease in compound-nucleus formation probability with increasing Z for the reactions 54Cr + 208Pb and 58Fe + 208Pb.

What carries the argument

The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov potential-energy surface, from which the fusion injection point and inner barrier are extracted self-consistently for use in the fusion-by-diffusion model.

Load-bearing premise

The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov potential-energy surfaces accurately represent the dynamical path from the entrance channel through the hyperasymmetric valley all the way to compound-nucleus formation.

What would settle it

If an independent calculation or measurement shows that the inner barrier height extracted from the HFB surface for 48Ca + 208Pb differs substantially from the value needed to match the observed evaporation-residue cross section, the self-consistent extraction would be called into question.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10869 by Bo Han, Long Zhu, Yinu Zhang, Yueping Fang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Landscape of the PES (a) of 256No as a function of quadrupole moment Q20 and octupole moment Q30. (b) Hyperasymmetric fusion-cluster decay path as functions of Q30 (bottom) and the corresponding relative distance R (top) between projectile and target nuclei. The red solid line denotes the total energy, the green dashed line denotes the pairing energy, and the red triangle marks the “injection point”. 10 5… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Nucleonic densities (in nucleons/fm3 , top row) for 208Pb + 48 Ca obtained from HFB calculations with SkM* for three configurations along the hyper-asymmetric fusion-cluster decay path. The corresponding quadrupole Q20 (b) and octupole moment Q30 (b3/2 ) are indicated in brackets. Proton (middle row) and neutron (bottom row) NLF profiles along the z axis (r = 0) for 256No (blue thick line), 208Pb (red line… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Calculated fusion probability PCN for different cold fusion systems at E ∗ = 15 MeV, approximately the optimal energy of 1n channel. To further validate the systematic applicability of the HFB+FBD framework, additional calculations were performed for the 54Cr + 208Pb and 58Fe + 208Pb reactions. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A microscopic framework that combines the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) approach with the fusion by diffusion (FBD) model is proposed to investigate the synthesis mechanism of superheavy nuclei (SHN). For the reaction $^{48}\text{Ca}+^{208}\text{Pb}$, the calculated evaporation-residue cross section (ERCS) reproduces the experimental data reasonably well. The method enables self-consistent extraction of the fusion injection point and inner barrier from HFB potential-energy surfaces (PES), thereby incorporating nuclear structure effects while eliminating phenomenological tuning at the fusion stage. For cold-fusion reactions, the PES features a hyperasymmetric valley driven by shell effects. This $^{208}$Pb anchored valley connects the entrance channel to compound nucleus formation and provides an exit channel for cluster decay. We further investigate the cold-fusion reactions $^{54}\text{Cr}+^{208}\text{Pb}$ and $^{58}\text{Fe}+^{208}\text{Pb}$, obtaining a near-exponential decrease of $P_{\text{CN}}$ with compound-nucleus charge $Z$, consistent with established systematics. This approach demonstrates a self-consistent framework that can reduce uncertainties in the fusion stage of SHN production.

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

They pull the fusion injection point and inner barrier straight from HFB potential energy surfaces into the fusion-by-diffusion model, cutting some tuning at that stage for cold fusion reactions.

read the letter

The main thing here is that the authors take the injection point and inner barrier directly from Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov potential energy surfaces and feed them into the fusion-by-diffusion model. This is meant to bring in nuclear structure effects while removing the usual phenomenological adjustments for the fusion step in cold fusion reactions leading to superheavy nuclei. For 48Ca + 208Pb they get an evaporation residue cross section that lines up reasonably with the measured value. They also look at 54Cr + 208Pb and 58Fe + 208Pb and recover the expected near-exponential drop in compound-nucleus formation probability with increasing Z, which matches established trends. The surfaces show a hyperasymmetric valley shaped by shell effects that runs from the entrance channel to the compound system, and they note it could also serve as an exit for cluster decay. This self-consistent extraction from the HFB surfaces is the clearest new element. Earlier hybrids often still tuned the fusion parameters by hand; here the claim is that the microscopic surfaces set those values without extra fitting at that stage. It does incorporate structure information more directly than purely phenomenological setups and gives a plausible account of the one main data point plus the probability trend. The soft spot is the leap from static HFB surfaces to the actual dynamical fusion path. Static constrained calculations do not include inertia, friction, or time-dependent evolution, so the identified valley may not be the minimum-action trajectory once neck formation and mass transfer are active. Without a check against time-dependent mean-field runs or a broader set of data, the agreement could partly reflect how the valley is chosen rather than a robust prediction. The fusion-by-diffusion model still carries its own parameters, and the paper shows only one direct experimental comparison without error estimates or side-by-side tests against other models. This is mainly for nuclear reaction theorists working on superheavy element production who want to see how microscopic potential energy surfaces can constrain the fusion stage. A reader already familiar with HFB and fusion-by-diffusion hybrids would get the most out of the extraction details. It deserves a serious referee. The central linkage is worth testing even if more dynamical validation is needed.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes combining Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) potential-energy surfaces with the fusion-by-diffusion (FBD) model to provide a microscopic description of cold fusion reactions for superheavy nuclei. For the benchmark reaction 48Ca+208Pb, the calculated evaporation-residue cross section is stated to reproduce experimental data reasonably well. The central claim is that the fusion injection point and inner barrier can be extracted self-consistently from the HFB PES, incorporating nuclear structure effects (including a hyperasymmetric valley driven by shell effects) while eliminating phenomenological tuning at the fusion stage. The approach is then applied to 54Cr+208Pb and 58Fe+208Pb, yielding a near-exponential decrease in P_CN with compound-nucleus charge Z that is consistent with established systematics.

Significance. If the mapping from static HFB surfaces to the FBD dynamical inputs proves robust, the framework could reduce uncertainties in the fusion stage of superheavy-element production by directly incorporating microscopic shell effects rather than adjustable parameters. The reported consistency with P_CN systematics for cold-fusion reactions is a modest positive indicator, but the absence of quantitative benchmarks and dynamical validation limits the assessed significance.

major comments (4)

[Abstract] The claim of eliminating phenomenological tuning at the fusion stage (abstract) is undercut by the continued use of the FBD model, whose parameters (diffusion coefficient, barrier penetration factors, etc.) are not specified or shown to be fixed independently of the reactions studied.
[PES analysis] No validation is provided that the hyperasymmetric valley identified in the static constrained HFB PES coincides with the actual collective fusion trajectory; static HFB calculations omit inertia, friction, and time-dependent mean-field evolution, so the valley may be an artifact of the chosen collective coordinates rather than the minimum-action path required by the FBD model.
[Results for 48Ca+208Pb] The reproduction of the 48Ca+208Pb ERCS is described only qualitatively as 'reasonably well' (abstract) without numerical values, experimental comparison with uncertainties, or side-by-side results from standard phenomenological FBD calculations.
[P_CN results] The near-exponential decrease of P_CN with Z for the Cr and Fe reactions is asserted to be consistent with systematics (abstract), yet no specific P_CN values, fitting details, or quantitative comparison to literature data are supplied.

minor comments (2)

A table listing the extracted injection points, inner barrier heights, and resulting P_CN for all three reactions would improve clarity and allow direct assessment of the self-consistency claim.
The collective coordinates and constraint scheme used to generate the HFB PES should be stated explicitly to permit evaluation of whether the hyperasymmetric valley is robust.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The claim of eliminating phenomenological tuning at the fusion stage (abstract) is undercut by the continued use of the FBD model, whose parameters (diffusion coefficient, barrier penetration factors, etc.) are not specified or shown to be fixed independently of the reactions studied.

Authors: We appreciate this clarification. The FBD model serves as the dynamical framework, but the fusion-specific inputs—the injection point and inner barrier—are extracted directly from the HFB PES without reaction-dependent phenomenological fitting. Other FBD parameters are drawn from standard literature values and held fixed. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly tabulate all FBD parameters used and state that no additional tuning was performed for the reactions considered. revision: partial
Referee: [PES analysis] No validation is provided that the hyperasymmetric valley identified in the static constrained HFB PES coincides with the actual collective fusion trajectory; static HFB calculations omit inertia, friction, and time-dependent mean-field evolution, so the valley may be an artifact of the chosen collective coordinates rather than the minimum-action path required by the FBD model.

Authors: We acknowledge the limitation of static calculations. The hyperasymmetric valley arises from constrained HFB energy minimization and is driven by shell effects near 208Pb. While full dynamical confirmation would require time-dependent microscopic evolution, the present framework uses the static PES to supply microscopically grounded inputs to the FBD model. We will add a paragraph in the revised manuscript explicitly discussing this assumption and the scope of the static approach. revision: partial
Referee: [Results for 48Ca+208Pb] The reproduction of the 48Ca+208Pb ERCS is described only qualitatively as 'reasonably well' (abstract) without numerical values, experimental comparison with uncertainties, or side-by-side results from standard phenomenological FBD calculations.

Authors: We agree that quantitative detail is needed. The revised manuscript will include a table of calculated evaporation-residue cross sections with direct numerical comparison to experimental data (including uncertainties) and a side-by-side comparison against standard phenomenological FBD results for the same system. revision: yes
Referee: [P_CN results] The near-exponential decrease of P_CN with Z for the Cr and Fe reactions is asserted to be consistent with systematics (abstract), yet no specific P_CN values, fitting details, or quantitative comparison to literature data are supplied.

Authors: We will revise the text to report the explicit P_CN values obtained for 54Cr+208Pb and 58Fe+208Pb, describe the exponential fit, and provide a quantitative comparison with published systematics for cold-fusion reactions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: HFB PES computed independently then fed into standard FBD

full rationale

The derivation begins with standard HFB calculations of potential-energy surfaces (independent of the fusion outcome), followed by extraction of injection point and inner barrier from those surfaces for input to the established fusion-by-diffusion model. No step reduces the final ERCS or P_CN to a fit of the same quantity, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem that forces the result, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work by the same authors. The reported agreement with 48Ca+208Pb data is presented as a consistency check rather than a definitional input, leaving the framework self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of HFB for fusion-relevant PES and the direct applicability of the FBD model to those surfaces. No new particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations yield potential-energy surfaces that correctly locate the fusion injection point and inner barrier for cold-fusion entrance channels.
Invoked when the paper states that injection point and barrier are extracted self-consistently from HFB PES.
ad hoc to paper The fusion-by-diffusion model remains valid when its inputs are taken directly from microscopic PES without additional phenomenological adjustment.
The proposed combination assumes the FBD framework can be used unchanged once the microscopic quantities are supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5509 in / 1584 out tokens · 42877 ms · 2026-05-12T03:45:56.387600+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

O. R. Smits, C. E. Düllmann, P. Indelicato, W. Nazarewicz, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Nature Re- views Physics6, 86 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

Schwerdtfeger, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 011001 (2019)

S.A.Giuliani, Z.Matheson, W.Nazarewicz, E.Olsen, P.- G.Reinhard, J.Sadhukhan, B.Schuetrumpf, N.Schunck, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 011001 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

B. Back, H. Esbensen, C. Jiang, and K. Rehm, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 317 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

Hofmann and G

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

work page 2000
[5]

Oganessian, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Parti- cle Physics34, R165 (2007)

Y. Oganessian, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Parti- cle Physics34, R165 (2007)

work page 2007
[6]

Morita, K

K. Morita, K. Morimoto, D. Kaji, H. Haba, K. Ozeki, Y. Kudou, T. Sumita, Y. Wakabayashi, A. Yoneda, K.Tanaka,et al.,JournalofthePhysicalSocietyofJapan 81, 103201 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker, M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, Yu. V. Lobanov, A. N. Mezentsev, K. J. Moody, S. L. Nelson, A. N. Polyakov, C. E. Porter, A. V. Ramayya, F. D. Ri- ley, J. B. Roberto, M. A. Ryabinin, K. P. Rykaczewski, R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughness...

work page 2010
[8]

Zhu, Physical Review Research5, L022030 (2023)

L. Zhu, Physical Review Research5, L022030 (2023)

work page 2023
[9]

J. M. Gates, R. Orford, D. Rudolph, C. Appleton, B. M. Barrios, J. Y. Benitez, M. Bordeau, W. Botha, C. M. Campbell, J. Chadderton, A. T. Chemey, R. M. Clark, H. L. Crawford, J. D. Despotopulos, O. Dorvaux, N. E. Esker, P. Fallon, C. M. Folden, B. J. P. Gall, F. H. Gar- cia, P. Golubev, J. A. Gooding, M. Grebo, K. E. Gre- gorich, M. Guerrero, R. A. Hender...

work page 2024
[10]

Y. Fang, Z. Gao, Y. Zhang, Z. Liao, Y. Yang, J. Su, and L. Zhu, Physics Letters B858, 139069 (2024)

work page 2024
[11]

X. J. Bao, Y. Gao, J. Q. Li, and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C91, 064612 (2015)

work page 2015
[12]

Zhu and J

L. Zhu and J. Su, Phys. Rev. C104, 044606 (2021)

work page 2021
[13]

Świątecki, K

W. Świątecki, K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, and J. Wilczyński, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics71, 014602 (2005)

work page 2005
[14]

T. Cap, K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, and J. Wilczyński, Phys. Rev. C83, 054602 (2011)

work page 2011
[15]

Hagino, Phys

K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C98, 014607 (2018)

work page 2018
[16]

T. Cap, M. Kowal, and K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, Phys. Rev. C105, L051601 (2022)

work page 2022
[17]

T. Cap, M. Kowal, and K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A58, 231 (2022)

work page 2022
[18]

Möller, D

P. Möller, D. Madland, A. Sierk, and A. Iwamoto, Nature 409, 785 (2001)

work page 2001
[19]

Sekizawa and K

K. Sekizawa and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C99, 051602 (2019)

work page 2019
[20]

Sun and L

X.-X. Sun and L. Guo, Phys. Rev. C105, 054610 (2022)

work page 2022
[21]

Sun and L

X.-X. Sun and L. Guo, Phys. Rev. C107, 064609 (2023)

work page 2023
[22]

D. N. Poenaru, Y. Nagame, R. A. Gherghescu, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C65, 054308 (2002)

work page 2002
[23]

D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062503 (2011)

work page 2011
[24]

D. N. Poenaru, R. A. Gherghescu, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C85, 034615 (2012)

work page 2012
[25]

X. J. Bao, H. F. Zhang, J. M. Dong, J. Q. Li, and H. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C89, 067301 (2014)

work page 2014
[26]

Warda, A

M. Warda, A. Zdeb, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 98, 041602 (2018)

work page 2018
[27]

Matheson, S

Z. Matheson, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, J. Sad- hukhan,andN.Schunck,Phys.Rev.C99,041304(2019)

work page 2019
[28]

Armbruster, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)110, 1111 (1997)

P. Armbruster, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996)110, 1111 (1997)

work page 1971
[29]

Ring and P

P. Ring and P. Schuck,The nuclear many-body problem (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

work page 2004
[30]

Phys.75, 121 (2003)

M.Bender, P.-H.Heenen,andP.-G.Reinhard,Rev.Mod. Phys.75, 121 (2003). 7

work page 2003
[31]

A. Zdeb, M. Warda, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 104, 014610 (2021)

work page 2021
[32]

Simenel, P

C. Simenel, P. McGlynn, A. Umar, and K. Godbey, Physics Letters B822, 136648 (2021)

work page 2021
[33]

Warda and L

M. Warda and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C84, 044608 (2011)

work page 2011
[34]

S.A.GiulianiandL.M.Robledo,TheEuropeanPhysical Journal A59, 301 (2023)

work page 2023
[35]

B. Wang, K. Wen, W.-J. Zhao, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables114, 281 (2017)

work page 2017
[36]

F. Li, L. Zhu, Z.-H. Wu, X.-B. Yu, J. Su, and C.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. C98, 014618 (2018)

work page 2018
[37]

H. Lü, D. Boilley, Y. Abe, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 94, 034616 (2016)

work page 2016
[38]

Boilley, H

D. Boilley, H. Lü, C. Shen, Y. Abe, and B. G. Giraud, Physical Review C84, 054608 (2011)

work page 2011
[39]

Bartel, P

J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. Håkansson, Nuclear Physics A386, 79 (1982)

work page 1982
[40]

M.V.Stoitsov, J.Dobaczewski, W.Nazarewicz, S.Pittel, and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C68, 054312 (2003)

work page 2003
[41]

Marević, N

P. Marević, N. Schunck, E. Ney, R. Navarro Pérez, M. Verriere, and J. O’Neal, Computer Physics Commu- nications276, 108367 (2022)

work page 2022
[42]

Zhao, J.-P

J. Zhao, J.-P. Ebran, L. Heitz, E. Khan, F. Mercier, T. Nikšić, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C107, 034311 (2023)

work page 2023
[43]

Zhang, L

Y. Zhang, L. Zhu, C. Yuan, and Z. Gao, Physics Letters B873, 140155 (2026)

work page 2026
[44]

Magierski, K

P. Magierski, K. Sekizawa, and G. Wlazłowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 042501 (2017)

work page 2017
[45]

Scamps and Y

G. Scamps and Y. Hashimoto, Phys. Rev. C100, 024623 (2019)

work page 2019
[46]

Tong and S

L. Tong and S. Yan, Phys. Rev. C105, 014613 (2022)

work page 2022
[47]

A. Zdeb, A. Baran, S. A. Giuliani, L. M. Robledo, and M. Warda, Phys. Rev. C112, 044602 (2025)

work page 2025
[48]

Su, Z.-Y

Y. Su, Z.-Y. Li, L.-L. Liu, G.-X. Dong, X.-B. Wang, and Y.-J. Chen, Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 62 (2024)

work page 2024
[49]

Reinhard, J

P.-G. Reinhard, J. A. Maruhn, A. S. Umar, and V. E. Oberacker, Phys. Rev. C83, 034312 (2011)

work page 2011
[50]

Scamps and C

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

work page 2018
[51]

C. L. Zhang, B. Schuetrumpf, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C94, 064323 (2016)

work page 2016
[52]

Sadhukhan, C

J. Sadhukhan, C. Zhang, W. Nazarewicz, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. C96, 061301 (2017)

work page 2017
[53]

Sadhukhan, S

J. Sadhukhan, S. A. Giuliani, Z. Matheson, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C101, 065803 (2020)

work page 2020
[54]

Schuetrumpf and W

B. Schuetrumpf and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C96, 064608 (2017)

work page 2017
[55]

Prokhorova, A

E. Prokhorova, A. Bogachev, M. Itkis, I. Itkis, G. Knyazheva, N. Kondratiev, E. Kozulin, L. Krupa, Y. T. Oganessian, I. Pokrovsky,et al., Nuclear Physics A802, 45 (2008)

work page 2008
[56]

Gäggeler, D

H. Gäggeler, D. Jost, A. Türler, P. Armbruster, W. Brüchle, H. Folger, F. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, G. Münzenberg, V. Ninov,et al., Nuclear Physics A502, 561 (1989)

work page 1989
[57]

A. J. Sierk, Phys. Rev. C33, 2039 (1986)

work page 2039
[58]

Y. G. Huang, F. C. Gu, Y. J. Feng, H. Wang, E. X. Xiao, X. Lei, L. Zhu, and J. Su, Phys. Rev. C109, 034609 (2024)

work page 2024
[59]

Loveland, Physical Review C76, 014612 (2007)

W. Loveland, Physical Review C76, 014612 (2007)

work page 2007
[60]

Siwek-Wilczyńska, I

K. Siwek-Wilczyńska, I. Skwira-Chalot, and J. Wilczyński, International Journal of Modern Physics E16, 483 (2007)

work page 2007
[61]

Adamian, N

G. Adamian, N. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Nuclear Physics A678, 24 (2000)

work page 2000
[62]

Feng, G.-M

Z.-Q. Feng, G.-M. Jin, J.-Q. Li, and W. Scheid, Physical Review C76, 044606 (2007)

work page 2007
[63]

Zhu, W.-J

L. Zhu, W.-J. Xie, and F.-S. Zhang, Physical Review C 89, 024615 (2014)

work page 2014