Deformation effects on reaction observables of beryllium nuclei from ab initio densities

Qi Lu; Rui-Feng Tian; Shihang Shen; Shi-Sheng Zhang; Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Deformation effects on reaction observables of beryllium nuclei from ab initio densities

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Retaining orientation-dependent intrinsic densities from ab initio nuclear lattice calculations in a deformed Glauber model lowers the calculated reaction cross section of 11Be by about 50 mb and reproduces the 10Be–11Be halo step for both

desk verdict A first coupling of NLEFT intrinsic densities to deformed Glauber, with a promising but insufficiently validated valence-neutron selection rule that deserves referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01131 v1 pith:DVQNJNQQ submitted 2026-08-02 nucl-th

Qi Lu , Rui-Feng Tian , Shi-Sheng Zhang , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner , Shihang Shen This is my paper

classification nucl-th

keywords nucleardeformationGlaubermodelreactioncrosssectionhalonuclei11Beabinitiodensitieslatticeeffectivefieldtheorymomentumdistributions

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

This paper argues that high-energy reaction cross sections carry measurable information about the intrinsic shape of a projectile nucleus, not just its size. It combines three-dimensional intrinsic densities from ab initio nuclear lattice effective field theory with a deformed Glauber model for 7–12Be projectiles on 12C and 9Be targets. The central quantitative result is that explicit averaging over nuclear orientations lowers the computed reaction cross section of 11Be by up to about 50 mb relative to using a spherically averaged density, and only the deformed calculation gives the measured sharp rise from 10Be to the one-neutron halo 11Be. The paper also computes the longitudinal momentum distribution of one-neutron removal residues, matching the measured shape at 63 MeV/A and predicting it at 790 MeV/A. If true, this gives a way to probe deformation and weak binding in exotic nuclei through reaction experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orientation-dependent core-plus-neutron Glauber S-matrix $S_{c+n,T}(b_c;\Omega)=\langle\varphi_\Omega|S_{cT}(b_c;\Omega)S_{nT}(b_c+s)|\varphi_\Omega\rangle$, with the reaction cross section averaged over orientations, $\sigma_R=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d\Omega\int db\,[1-|S_{PT}(b;\Omega)|^2]$. The valence-neutron wave function $\varphi_\Omega$ is not a single-particle orbital; it is accumulated from the coordinates of the outermost valence neutron after a two-cluster grouping of each sampled pinhole configuration, so intrinsic core deformation and the extended halo tail enter the reaction together. Spherical averaging removes $\Omega$ before the S-matrix is evaluate

What would settle it

Measure the reaction cross section of 11Be on 12C (and on 9Be) near 790 MeV/A with precision well below 50 mb: the deformed calculation sits about 50 mb below the spherical one, so such a measurement would separate the two. The predicted 790 MeV/A longitudinal momentum distribution of 10Be residues is a second, independent check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that orientation dependence of the intrinsic density must be kept in Glauber reaction calculations: after rotating each sampled NLEFT configuration into the α-α symmetry frame, the projectile-target S-matrix depends on orientation Ω, and only after computing the reaction probability for each Ω and then averaging is the result compatible with data. For 11Be this lowers σ_R by up to roughly 50 mb compared with spherical averaging, making the 10Be-to-11Be jump in σ_R a clear halo signature for both 12C and 9Be targets. For odd-A projectiles, the core-plus-neutron S-matrix uses an orientation-dependent valence wave function built from the spatially outermost neutron of each

Load-bearing premise

The whole deformation effect rests on identifying the halo neutron as the one found farthest from the center of mass in each sampled many-body configuration; if that identification is wrong, the orientation-dependent wave function and the roughly 50 mb shift change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If deformation is retained, reaction cross sections of 7–12Be at 790 MeV/A shift downward—by about 50 mb for 11Be—improving agreement with measured values that spherical-average calculations overestimate.
The 10Be-to-11Be rise in σ_R appears as a pronounced step only in the deformed calculation, so the halo signal in high-energy reactions encodes nuclear shape, not just radius.
The longitudinal momentum distribution of 10Be residues after one-neutron removal from 11Be matches the measured shape at 63 MeV/A and is predicted at 790 MeV/A.
Elastic scattering of 11Be+12C is predicted to show a distinct diffraction pattern with the first minimum shifted to lower momentum transfer relative to p+12C, reflecting the extended valence neutron distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper, the same orientation-averaged treatment could be applied to deformed one-neutron halo candidates such as 31Ne or 37Mg, where a similar tens-of-mb suppression would change how radii are extracted from interaction cross sections.
A direct test of the outermost-neutron rule would compare the orientation-dependent φ_Ω with one-neutron overlap densities obtained from independent ab initio methods; disagreement would shift the size of the deformation effect without necessarily removing it.
The 790 MeV/A momentum distribution is a falsifiable prediction: if future data show a wider distribution than the calculation, the asymptotic matching of the halo tail would need revision.
The roughly 50 mb orientation effect implies that radius extractions from interaction cross sections of deformed nuclei may carry an unquantified shape systematic; the paper's controlled comparison provides a way to quantify it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. This Letter does something genuinely new: it takes 3D intrinsic densities from NLEFT and feeds them, orientation-resolved, into a Glauber reaction calculation for 7–12Be. The internal comparison is clean—same densities, same reaction inputs, only the orientation averaging is changed—so the reported ~50 mb reduction for 11Be and the reproduction of the 10Be→11Be halo step for both targets are real within the model. The p+12C elastic test is a sensible validation of the inputs, and the momentum distribution shape agreement at 63 MeV/A is encouraging, even though it uses the same valence wave function.

The soft spot is the one the stress test identifies. The configuration-resolved valence neutron—defined as the farthest valence neutron in each pinhole configuration—is an extreme-order statistic, not a single-particle orbital. It biases the effective wave function toward the tail, and because the neutron S-matrix is exponentially sensitive to that tail, the magnitude of the deformation effect could be inflated. The paper gives no independent check of this prescription beyond the final comparison with measured cross sections, which themselves carry no theoretical error bars. That's a genuine gap, but it doesn't sink the work. The prescription is physically motivated, and the overall agreement with data is suggestive. I'd want the referee to ask for a robustness test—say, an alternative selection rule or a comparison with one-nucleon overlap—and for uncertainty estimates on the central cross sections.

The OLA's neglect of two-body densities inside core and target is mentioned but not quantified; given Horiuchi et al.'s findings, a short sensitivity statement would strengthen the paper. The visible 10Be discrepancy is also left dangling.

The reader's conditional verdict is fair. I would send this to peer review, not desk-reject it. It's a solid, readable contribution that connects ab initio structure to reaction observables, and the issues are addressable with reasonable effort. Good reading-group material.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines ab initio NLEFT three-dimensional intrinsic densities with a deformed Glauber model to calculate elastic scattering, reaction cross sections, and one-neutron-removal momentum distributions for 7-12Be projectiles on 12C and 9Be targets. To connect correlated many-body configurations to a core-plus-neutron formalism, the authors introduce a configuration-resolved prescription that identifies, for odd-A projectiles, the spatially outermost neutron after a two-cluster decomposition as the valence neutron. They report that explicit orientation averaging lowers the calculated reaction cross section of 11Be by up to about 50 mb relative to spherically averaged densities, reproducing the experimental 10Be-to-11Be step for both targets. They also compare the longitudinal momentum distribution of 10Be residues from 11Be+9Be with data at 63 MeV/A and provide a prediction at 790 MeV/A.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper demonstrates that high-energy reaction observables can carry quantitative information about intrinsic nuclear deformation and weak binding, directly connecting ab initio structure to reactions. The controlled comparison—identical inputs except for orientation averaging—is a clean way to isolate the deformation effect. The p+12C elastic-scattering validation in Fig. 1 and the momentum-distribution calculation provide useful checks of the framework. The paper also benefits from using fully microscopic NLEFT densities rather than phenomenological shapes, and from giving a falsifiable prediction for the 790 MeV/A momentum distribution. However, the load-bearing configuration-resolved valence-neutron prescription in Eq. (5) is not independently validated, and the absence of theoretical uncertainties in Fig. 2 weakens the quantitative claim.

major comments (4)

[The deformed Glauber model, paragraph preceding Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines the orientation-dependent valence wave function φ_Ω by selecting, among valence neutrons identified by the two-cluster grouping, the one farthest from the total center of mass. This is an extreme-order statistic, not necessarily the physically relevant halo neutron that dominates the one-nucleon asymptotic tail. Because SnT(bc+s) is exponentially sensitive to the tail of the valence density, an over-broad φ_Ω from repeatedly selecting the farthest instantaneous neutron will directly increase the absorption probability and lower σR, potentially by tens of mb. The paper provides no cross-check of this prescription against, e.g., the known one-neutron separation energy, one-nucleon overlaps, or an alternative valence-neutron definition. This is load-bearing for the headline ~50 mb deformation effect and for the 10Be→11Be step. Please provide an explicit validation or at
[Results and discussion, Fig. 2 and Eq. (8)] The reaction cross sections in Fig. 2 are shown as single points with no theoretical uncertainty. The valence-neutron density used in Eq. (5) is continued beyond the NLEFT box using Eq. (8) with a matching radius r_m = 6 fm and a separation energy Sn that, for 11Be, ranges from S_exp=0.5 MeV to S_NLEFT=1.9 MeV. It is not stated whether the cross sections in Fig. 2 use this matched density and how sensitive σR is to r_m and Sn. Given the strong dependence of tail-sensitive observables on these parameters, the claim of agreement with measured cross sections cannot be fully assessed without this information. In addition, 10Be remains a visible exception to the otherwise good agreement; the paper should discuss possible reasons.
[Results and discussion, paragraph beginning 'This reduction is consistent...'] The text acknowledges that the OLA used here neglects two-body-density contributions within the core and target, citing Horiuchi et al. (Refs. [22,23]) for their importance in nucleus-nucleus scattering. This is a known systematic limitation of the reaction model. Since the absolute σR values are compared directly with experimental interaction cross sections in Fig. 2, the missing two-body-density contributions could shift all calculated points. Please quantify this uncertainty (even roughly) or argue explicitly that the deformation effect—the difference between the spherical and deformed calculations—is insensitive to this omission. As written, the 'markedly better description' claim may partly reflect the OLA offset rather than deformation alone.
[General, reproducibility of the configuration-resolved prescription] The two-cluster grouping procedure and the definition of 'valence neutrons identified by the grouping procedure above' are only described by reference to prior work (Refs. [15,28]) and a brief phrase in the structure-input section. Since the configuration-resolved prescription is a new element of this paper and is central to Eq. (5), the manuscript should provide enough algorithmic detail (or an explicit definition) for the reader to reproduce the selection of the outermost neutron, the construction of the intrinsic frame, and the accumulated φ_Ω. Without this, the central calculation is not independently reproducible.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The figure text in the provided manuscript contains garbled symbols (e.g., '/s48/s46/s48'); please ensure the final figures are typeset correctly. Also, the caption of Fig. 2 should clarify the difference between interaction cross sections (measured) and reaction cross sections (calculated), and state that the theoretical points have no uncertainty bars by design.
[Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), notation] The notation for the core-target S matrix is inconsistent: Eq. (5) uses ScT, while Eq. (7) uses Sc. Also, in Eq. (6) the argument of SnT is bn, but Eq. (5) uses bc+s; please unify notation. Define all symbols (e.g., K, η) at first use.
[Introduction and Eq. (1), reference style] Ref. [15] is cited for the NLEFT spectra and densities, but the text also says 'our recent ab initio NLEFT study'—please explicitly state which quantities are taken from Ref. [15] and which are newly computed here. The Euclidean-time projection formula in Eq. (1) is standard but could be abbreviated with a reference.
[Abstract and summary, 'up to approximately 50 mb'] The abstract says 'up to approximately 50 mb' while the summary repeats 'up to ∼50 mb'. Please specify the target (12C vs 9Be) for which this maximum occurs, and whether this is the difference at the maximum or an average. This will help readers interpret the magnitude.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reaction observables are computed from independent ab initio NLEFT densities and controlled Glauber inputs, with no parameter fitted to the compared data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that retaining orientation-dependent intrinsic NLEFT densities in a deformed Glauber model lowers the 11Be reaction cross section by ~50 mb relative to spherical averaging. The structure inputs come from the authors' prior NLEFT calculations (Refs. [15,28]), but those ab initio calculations are not fitted to the reaction data used here; they independently reproduce spectra, electromagnetic observables, and deformation properties. The Glauber reaction calculation itself uses fixed inputs (projectile NLEFT densities, target densities, and the NN profile function), and the deformed-versus-spherical comparison changes only the treatment of orientation, so the ~50 mb effect is a controlled model comparison rather than a fitted quantity. The new 'outermost valence neutron' prescription defining phi_Omega in Eq. (5) is an unvalidated modeling assumption, but it is not derived from the reaction observables and is not adjusted to reproduce them; any concern about its physical fidelity is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. The separation-energy band in Eq. (8) uses experimental and NLEFT values as an uncertainty estimate rather than as a fit to momentum data. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument rests solely on a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'outermost valence neutron' is an algorithmic selection, not a new entity. The paper does introduce one hand-chosen numerical parameter (r_m) and several domain assumptions inherited from NLEFT structure calculations and Glauber reaction theory.

free parameters (1)

r_m (matching radius) = 6 fm
Chosen by hand in Eq. (8) as the radius where the sampled NLEFT valence neutron density is switched to the asymptotic Whittaker form. The value affects the tail continuation and hence the computed momentum distribution, though the paper shows a band over separation energy rather than over r_m.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The optical-limit approximation (OLA), Eq. (3), with the standard nucleon-nucleon profile function, accurately describes nucleus-nucleus reactions at 63 and 790 MeV/A.
Invoked in Eqs. (2)-(4) and used for all cross section and momentum calculations. The paper itself states it neglects two-body density contributions.
domain assumption The NLEFT intrinsic densities from Refs. [15,28] correctly represent the ground-state density and deformation of 7-12Be, including the two-cluster (alpha-alpha) structure.
Used as the structure input; the pinhole algorithm and intrinsic-frame rotation are taken from prior work by overlapping authors.
ad hoc to paper The valence neutron can be identified as the spatially outermost neutron after the two-cluster decomposition, and the remaining A-1 nucleons form the residual core.
This is the new 'configuration-resolved prescription' introduced in the deformed Glauber model section. There is no independent validation of the selection rule beyond the final comparison with data.
domain assumption The tail of the valence neutron density beyond r_m=6 fm is described by the Whittaker asymptotic form, Eq. (8), with separation energy Sn.
Needed to compute the longitudinal momentum distribution in Eq. (7). The paper varies Sn between experimental and NLEFT values to form an uncertainty band.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformation effects on reaction observables of beryllium nuclei from ab initio densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVQNJNQQ

@misc{pith2026260801131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformation effects on reaction observables of beryllium nuclei from ab initio densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVQNJNQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01131}
}

read the original abstract

We combine three-dimensional intrinsic densities from ab initio nuclear lattice effective field theory with a deformed Glauber model to study high-energy reactions of {7-12}Be. To connect the correlated many-body configurations to the core-plus-neutron reaction formalism without imposing a single-particle orbital, we introduce a configuration-resolved prescription that identifies the spatially outermost valence neutron after the two-cluster decomposition. For Be projectiles on 12C and 9Be targets at 790 MeV/A, explicit orientation averaging lowers the calculated reaction cross section of 11Be by up to approximately 50 mb relative to a calculation with the spherically averaged density. The deformed calculation reproduces the pronounced increase from 10Be to the established one-neutron halo nucleus 11Be for both targets. We further calculate the momentum distribution of the fragments after the one-neutron removal reaction of 11Be + 9Be , finding good agreement in shape with the measurement at 63 MeV/A and providing a prediction at 790 MeV/A. These results quantify how intrinsic deformation and weak binding are transmitted from microscopic many-body densities to reaction observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01131 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Elastic differential cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Longitudinal momentum distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Tanihata, H

I. Tanihata, H. Savajols, and R. Kanungo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 215 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Nakamura, N

T. Nakamura, N. Kobayashi, Y . Kondo, Y . Satou, N. Aoi, H. Baba, S. Deguchi, N. Fukuda, J. Gibelin, N. Inabe, M. Ishihara, D. Kameda, Y . Kawada, T. Kubo, K. Kusaka, A. Mengoni, T. Motobayashi, T. Ohnishi, M. Ohtake, N. A. Orr, H. Otsu, T. Otsuka, A. Saito, H. Sakurai, S. Shi- moura, T. Sumikama, H. Takeda, E. Takeshita, M. Takechi, S. Takeuchi, K. Tanak...

work page 2009
[3]

Kobayashi, T

N. Kobayashi, T. Nakamura, Y . Kondo, J. A. Tostevin, Y . Utsuno, N. Aoi, H. Baba, R. Barthelemy, M. A. Fami- ano, N. Fukuda, N. Inabe, M. Ishihara, R. Kanungo, S. Kim, T. Kubo, G. S. Lee, H. S. Lee, M. Mat- sushita, T. Motobayashi, T. Ohnishi, N. A. Orr, H. Otsu, T. Otsuka, T. Sako, H. Sakurai, Y . Satou, T. Sumikama, H. Takeda, S. Takeuchi, R. Tanaka, Y...

work page 2014
[4]

J. A. Tostevin and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. C 90, 057602 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

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

work page 2021
[6]

Tanihata, H

I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y . Shida, N. Y oshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2676 (1985)

work page 1985
[7]

Fukuda, T

M. Fukuda, T. Ichihara, N. Inabe, T. Kubo, H. Kumagai, T. Nakagawa, Y . Yano, I. Tanihata, M. Adachi, K. Asahi, M. Kouguchi, M. Ishihara, H. Sagawa, and S. Shimoura, Phys. Lett. B 268, 339 (1991)

work page 1991
[8]

Tanihata, T

I. Tanihata, T. Kobayashi, O. Yamakawa, S. Shimoura, K. Ekuni, K. Sugimoto, N. Takahashi, T. Shimoda, and H. Sato, Physics Letters B 206, 592 (1988)

work page 1988

Show all 45 references

[9]

Nakamura, S

T. Nakamura, S. Shimoura, T. Kobayashi, T. Teranishi, K. Abe, N. Aoi, Y . Doki, M. Fujimaki, N. Inabe, M. Ishi- hara, N. Iwasa, T. Kubo, A. Mengoni, T. Motobayashi, A. Ozawa, H. Sakurai, Y . X. Watanabe, and Y . Watanabe, Phys. Lett. B 331, 296 (1994)

1994
[10]

Fauerbach, M

M. Fauerbach, M. Chromik, T. Glasmacher, P . G. Hansen, R. Ibbotson, D. J. Morrissey, H. Scheit, I. J. Thomp- son, J. A. Tostevin, A. Tucholski, and A. Vinciquerra, Phys. Rev. C 56, R1 (1997)

1997
[11]

Hansen and B

P . Hansen and B. Jonson, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 4, 409 (1987)

1987
[12]

Jensen, K

A. Jensen, K. Riisager, D. Fedorov, and E. Garrido, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 215 (2004)

2004
[13]

Z. H. Yang, Y . Kubota, A. Corsi, K. Y oshida, X.-X. Sun, J. G. Li, M. Kimura, N. Michel, K. Ogata, C. X. Y uan, Q. Y uan, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Cal- vet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavigny, J.-M. Gheller, J. Gibelin, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, K. Hasegaw...

2021
[14]

Freer, H

M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y . Kanada-En’yo, D. Lee, and U.-G . Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018)

2018
[15]

S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 162503 (2025), arXiv:2411.14935 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[16]

Takechi, S

M. Takechi, S. Suzuki, D. Nishimura, M. Fukuda, T. Oht- subo, M. Nagashima, T. Suzuki, T. Yamaguchi, A. Ozawa, T. Moriguchi, H. Ohishi, T. Sumikama, H. Geissel, N. Aoi, R.- J. Chen, D.-Q. Fang, N. Fukuda, S. Fukuoka, H. Furuki, N. In- abe, Y . Ishibashi, T. Itoh, T. Izumikawa,...

2014
[17]

S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P . Ring, and E.-G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301(R) (2010)

2010
[18]

L. Li, J. Meng, P . Ring, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024312 (2012)

2012
[19]

Zhang, M.-K

K. Zhang, M.-K. Cheoun, Y .-B. Choi, P . S. Chong, J. Dong, L. Geng, E. Ha, X. He, C. Heo, M. C. Ho, E. J. In, S. Kim, Y . Kim, C.-H. Lee, J. Lee, Z. Li, T. Luo, J. Meng, M.-H. Mun, Z. Niu, C. Pan, P . Papakonstantinou, X. Shang, C. Shen, G. Shen, W. Sun, X.-X. Sun, C. K. Tam,...

2020
[20]

Pan, M.-K

C. Pan, M.-K. Cheoun, Y .-B. Choi, J. Dong, X. Du, X.-H. Fa n, W. Gao, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, J. Huang, K. Huang, S. Kim, Y . Kim, C.-H. Lee, J. Lee, Z. Li, Z.-R. Liu, Y . Ma, J. Meng, M.-H. Mun, Z. Niu, P . Papakonstantinou, X. Shang, C. Shen, G. Shen, W. Sun, X.-X. Sun, J...

2022
[21]

An, K.-Y

J.-L. An, K.-Y . Zhang, Q. Lu, S.-Y . Zhong, and S.-S. Zhan g, Physics Letters B 849, 138422 (2024)

2024
[22]

Horiuchi, Y

W. Horiuchi, Y . Suzuki, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 202501 (2026)

2026
[23]

Horiuchi, Y

W. Horiuchi, Y . Suzuki, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 113, 064601 (2026), arXiv:2512.20100 [nucl-th]

2026
[24]

M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Nature 635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Giacalone et al., Phys

G. Giacalone et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 012302 (2025), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (A TLAS), Phys. Rev. C 113, 045205 (2026), arXiv:2509.05171 [nucl-ex]

2026 arXiv
[27]

I. J. Abualrob et al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2509.06428 [nucl-ex]

2025 arXiv
[28]

S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren , Particles 9, 25 (2026), arXiv:2603.06978 [nucl-th]

2026
[29]

J. A. Christley and J. A. Tostevin, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2309 (1999)

1999
[30]

Abu-Ibrahim, Y

B. Abu-Ibrahim, Y . Ogawa, Y . Suzuki, and I. Tanihata, Computer Physics Communications 151, 369 (2003)

2003
[31]

Horiuchi, T

W. Horiuchi, T. Inakura, T. Nakatsukasa, and Y . Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024614 (2012)

2012
[32]

Urata, K

Y . Urata, K. Hagino, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044613 (2012)

2012
[33]

E. C. Simpson and J. A. Tostevin, 6 Phys. Rev. C 86, 054603 (2012)

2012
[34]

J. Hong, C. A. Bertulani, and A. T. Kruppa, Phys. Rev. C 96, 064603 (2017)

2017
[35]

Elhatisari et al., Nature 630, 59 (2024), arXiv:2210.17488 [nucl-th]

S. Elhatisari et al., Nature 630, 59 (2024), arXiv:2210.17488 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Elhatisari, E

S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-n. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222505 (2017), arXiv:1702.05177 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[37]

B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134863 (2019), arXiv:1812.10928 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Glauber, Lectures in theoretical physics (Interscience Pub- lishers, New Y ork, 1959)

R. Glauber, Lectures in theoretical physics (Interscience Pub- lishers, New Y ork, 1959)

1959
[39]

G. S. Blanpied, G. W. Hoffmann, M. L. Barlett, J. A. McGil l, S. J. Greene, L. Ray, O. B. V an Dyck, J. Amann, and H. A. Thiessen, Phys. Rev. C 23, 2599 (1981)

1981
[40]

Kohama, K

A. Kohama, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Phys. Rev. C 78, 061601 (2008), arXiv:0803.0187 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[41]

Rashdan and S

M. Rashdan and S. M. Sewailem, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 28, 1950014 (2019)

2019
[42]

Z. H. Liu, X. Z. Zhang, and H. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024305 (2003)

2003
[43]

Esbensen, Phys

H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. C 53, 2007 (1996)

2007
[44]

Hebborn and P

C. Hebborn and P . Capel, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054607 (2019)

2019
[45]

J. H. Kelley, S. M. Austin, R. A. Kryger, D. J. Morrissey, N. A. Orr, B. M. Sherrill, M. Thoennessen, J. S. Winﬁeld, J. A. Winger, and B. M. Y oung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 30 (1995)

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tanihata, H

I. Tanihata, H. Savajols, and R. Kanungo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 215 (2013)

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Nakamura, N

T. Nakamura, N. Kobayashi, Y . Kondo, Y . Satou, N. Aoi, H. Baba, S. Deguchi, N. Fukuda, J. Gibelin, N. Inabe, M. Ishihara, D. Kameda, Y . Kawada, T. Kubo, K. Kusaka, A. Mengoni, T. Motobayashi, T. Ohnishi, M. Ohtake, N. A. Orr, H. Otsu, T. Otsuka, A. Saito, H. Sakurai, S. Shi- moura, T. Sumikama, H. Takeda, E. Takeshita, M. Takechi, S. Takeuchi, K. Tanak...

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Kobayashi, T

N. Kobayashi, T. Nakamura, Y . Kondo, J. A. Tostevin, Y . Utsuno, N. Aoi, H. Baba, R. Barthelemy, M. A. Fami- ano, N. Fukuda, N. Inabe, M. Ishihara, R. Kanungo, S. Kim, T. Kubo, G. S. Lee, H. S. Lee, M. Mat- sushita, T. Motobayashi, T. Ohnishi, N. A. Orr, H. Otsu, T. Otsuka, T. Sako, H. Sakurai, Y . Satou, T. Sumikama, H. Takeda, S. Takeuchi, R. Tanaka, Y...

work page 2014

[4] [4]

J. A. Tostevin and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. C 90, 057602 (2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

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

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Tanihata, H

I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y . Shida, N. Y oshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2676 (1985)

work page 1985

[7] [7]

Fukuda, T

M. Fukuda, T. Ichihara, N. Inabe, T. Kubo, H. Kumagai, T. Nakagawa, Y . Yano, I. Tanihata, M. Adachi, K. Asahi, M. Kouguchi, M. Ishihara, H. Sagawa, and S. Shimoura, Phys. Lett. B 268, 339 (1991)

work page 1991

[8] [8]

Tanihata, T

I. Tanihata, T. Kobayashi, O. Yamakawa, S. Shimoura, K. Ekuni, K. Sugimoto, N. Takahashi, T. Shimoda, and H. Sato, Physics Letters B 206, 592 (1988)

work page 1988