Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

The Q value for single beta decay of 48Ca is measured directly as 279.14(50) keV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 07:41 UTC pith:Q27XXV3O

load-bearing objection First direct Penning-trap Q-value for 48Ca beta decay at 279.14(50) keV, ten times tighter than the prior AME value. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.03146 v2 pith:Q27XXV3O submitted 2026-06-02 nucl-ex

First direct measurement of ⁴⁸Ca single β-decay Q value with the TITAN Penning trap

S. Kakkar , D. Perera , J. Ash , B. Ashrafkhani , J. D. Cardona , C. Chambers , A. Czihaly , G. Gwinner
show 14 more authors
Z. Hockenbery M. Horoi A. Kwiatkowski E. Leistenschneider E. M. Lykiardopoulou F. Maldonado Millan A. Mollaebrahimi S. Paul W. S. Porter D. Ray M. Redshaw R. Ringle C. Walls A. Weaver
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex
keywords 48Cabeta decayQ valuePenning trapmass measurementhalf-lifedouble beta decay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes the first direct Penning-trap measurement of the energy released in the single beta decay of calcium-48. The result improves the previous value from the 2020 Atomic Mass Evaluation by a factor of ten. With the new Q value the partial beta-decay half-life is calculated to 1 percent precision, a factor of 30 better than before. The improved half-life sits five times above the existing experimental lower limit and ten times above the known two-neutrino double-beta half-life. These numbers matter because 48Ca is both a single-beta emitter and a candidate for neutrinoless double-beta decay, so the single-beta rate supplies a benchmark for the nuclear matrix elements used in both processes.

Core claim

Cyclotron frequency ratios of 48Ca+ to 48Sc+ and 48Sc+ to 48Ti+ were measured with the time-of-flight ion-cyclotron-resonance technique in the TITAN Penning trap. The resulting atomic mass difference fixes the 48Ca beta-decay Q value at 279.14(50) keV. Inserting this Q value into the phase-space factor yields a partial half-life T1/2^β = 5.09(5) × 10^20 (gA^{-2}) y.

What carries the argument

Cyclotron frequency ratio measurements by TOF-ICR on the ion pairs 48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+ that convert directly into the atomic mass difference.

Load-bearing premise

The measured frequency ratios equal the true mass differences with no significant unaccounted shifts from trap fields, ion interactions, or electron binding energies.

What would settle it

An independent high-precision mass measurement of any of the three nuclides that produces a Q value lying outside 279.14(50) keV.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The beta-decay half-life is now known to 1 percent instead of the previous 30 percent uncertainty.
  • The calculated half-life remains a factor of five longer than the experimental lower limit of 1.1 × 10^20 y.
  • The single-beta half-life is a factor of ten longer than the measured two-neutrino double-beta half-life.
  • Future experiments may reach the sensitivity needed to observe the single beta decay of 48Ca.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same frequency-ratio method can be applied to other double-beta candidates to tighten their single-beta half-life estimates.
  • A confirmed single-beta observation would supply an experimental anchor for the axial-vector quenching factor gA that enters both beta and double-beta calculations.
  • The factor-of-ten gain in Q-value precision directly reduces the dominant uncertainty in any future theoretical prediction of the 48Ca single-beta rate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first direct Penning-trap measurement of the 48Ca single beta-decay Q value. Cyclotron frequency ratios of 48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+ were measured with the TOF-ICR technique at TITAN; the resulting atomic mass difference yields Q = 279.14(50) keV, a factor-of-10 improvement over the 2020 AME. This Q value is inserted into the beta-decay rate formula to obtain a partial half-life T1/2^beta = 5.09(5) x 10^20 (g_A^{-2}) y at 1% precision, which is compared with the experimental lower limit and the measured 2nuBB half-life.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainty fully captures all contributions, the result supplies a substantially more precise Q value for an important 0nuBB candidate. The factor-of-30 improvement in the calculated half-life precision and the direct experimental route (rather than an indirect evaluation) strengthen the basis for theoretical benchmarking of beta and 2beta matrix elements and for assessing the feasibility of observing single beta decay in 48Ca.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental method and results sections] The central Q-value extraction rests on the assumption that the two measured frequency ratios equal the inverse ionic mass ratios to within 50 eV after all differential systematics are removed. The manuscript must therefore supply a quantitative error budget (magnetic-field inhomogeneity, electric-field imperfections, space-charge shifts, relativistic corrections, image-charge effects) evaluated specifically for the 48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+ pairs; any species-dependent residual that does not cancel between the two ratios directly shifts the reported 279.14(50) keV value.
  2. [Data analysis] Conversion from ionic to atomic masses requires subtraction of the electron-binding-energy difference between Ca+ (19 electrons) and Sc+ (20 electrons). The paper should state the binding-energy values adopted, their sources, and the uncertainty assigned to this correction, because an error at the 10-20 eV level would be comparable to the quoted total uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results] The abstract states that the half-life retains g_A as an external parameter; this should be repeated explicitly in the results section when the numerical value is quoted.
  2. [Results] Table or figure presenting the individual frequency ratios, their statistical and systematic uncertainties, and the final mass difference would improve traceability of the 0.50 keV uncertainty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental method and results sections] The central Q-value extraction rests on the assumption that the two measured frequency ratios equal the inverse ionic mass ratios to within 50 eV after all differential systematics are removed. The manuscript must therefore supply a quantitative error budget (magnetic-field inhomogeneity, electric-field imperfections, space-charge shifts, relativistic corrections, image-charge effects) evaluated specifically for the 48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+ pairs; any species-dependent residual that does not cancel between the two ratios directly shifts the reported 279.14(50) keV value.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit, pair-specific error budget improves transparency. The TOF-ICR measurements at TITAN employ well-characterized procedures in which many systematics (magnetic-field inhomogeneity, electric-field imperfections) largely cancel for ions of nearly identical m/q. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection and accompanying table that quantifies the residual contributions from magnetic-field inhomogeneity, electric-field imperfections, space-charge shifts, relativistic corrections, and image-charge effects for each of the two frequency ratios. The table demonstrates that the net species-dependent residual after cancellation is <25 eV, comfortably within the quoted 50 eV total uncertainty, which remains statistics-dominated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Data analysis] Conversion from ionic to atomic masses requires subtraction of the electron-binding-energy difference between Ca+ (19 electrons) and Sc+ (20 electrons). The paper should state the binding-energy values adopted, their sources, and the uncertainty assigned to this correction, because an error at the 10-20 eV level would be comparable to the quoted total uncertainty.

    Authors: We have added the requested information in the data-analysis section of the revised manuscript. The ionic-to-atomic mass conversion uses the electron binding energies for Ca+ (19 electrons) and Sc+ (20 electrons) taken from the NIST Atomic Spectra Database and the compilation of Kramida et al. (2022). The difference is 18.3 eV; we assign a conservative 4 eV uncertainty to this correction based on the spread among tabulated values. This uncertainty has been propagated into the final Q-value uncertainty and is now stated explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct experimental frequency-ratio measurement; no circular derivation

full rationale

The paper reports a direct experimental determination of the 48Ca β-decay Q value from measured cyclotron frequency ratios (48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+) via the standard TOF-ICR relation Q = [m(48Ca) - m(48Sc)]c² after ionic-to-atomic conversion. This chain uses only the measured ratios and known constants; no parameter is fitted to the target Q value, no self-definitional loop exists, and the half-life expression retains g_A as an external parameter. No load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked for the primary result. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard Penning-trap mass spectrometry assumptions rather than new free parameters or invented entities. The half-life result carries the conventional g_A scaling but introduces no additional fitted constants.

free parameters (1)
  • g_A
    Half-life is reported scaled by g_A^{-2}; g_A is taken from nuclear theory and not fitted in this work.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cyclotron frequency ratio of singly charged ions equals the inverse atomic mass ratio (neglecting small electron binding corrections).
    Invoked when converting measured frequency ratios of 48Ca+/48Sc+ and 48Sc+/48Ti+ to the beta-decay Q value.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6124 in / 1444 out tokens · 27840 ms · 2026-06-28T07:41:09.228827+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Neutrinoless double $\beta$-decay (0$\nu\beta\beta$), if observed, would provide unequivocal evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. $^{48}$Ca is an interesting candidate system to study because it has the largest Q value among all 2$\beta$ transitions and is also unstable against single $\beta$-decay. The observation of both $\beta$ and 2$\beta$-decay in the same isotope would provide a unique opportunity to benchmark theoretical calculations of $\beta$ and 2$\beta$-decay matrix elements and could provide insight on the quenching of the axial vector coupling constant, g$_A$. We performed a precise measurement of the $^{48}$Ca $\beta$-decay Q value using the TITAN Penning trap mass spectrometer at the TRIUMF facility. This was achieved through cyclotron frequency ratio measurements of $^{48}$Ca$^{+}$/$^{48}$Sc$^{+}$ and $^{48}$Sc$^{+}$/$^{48}$Ti$^{+}$ using the Time-of-Flight Ion Cyclotron Resonance technique. The $^{48}$Ca $\beta$-decay Q value was determined to be 279.14(50) keV, a factor of 10 more precise than the previous value given in the 2020 Atomic Mass Evaluation [Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)]. This Q value was used to determine the $^{48}$Ca $\beta$-decay partial half-life, with the result $T_{1/2}^{\beta}$ = 5.09(5) x 10$^{20}$ ($g_{A}^{-2}$) y. Our $^{48}$Ca $\beta$-decay half-life was determined to a precision of 1%, a factor of 30 improvement compared to calculations with the previous Q value. Our result is marginally closer to the experimental lower limit $T_{1/2}^{\beta}$ > 1.1 x 10$^{20}$ y, but still a factor 5 longer. It is also a factor of 10 longer than the observed 2$\nu\beta\beta$ decay mode with $T_{1/2}^{2\nu\beta\beta} = 5.96^{+1.39}_{-1.08}$ x 10$^{19}$ y. Hence, it could be possible to observe $^{48}$Ca $\beta$-decay in future experiments, strengthening the potential importance of $^{48}$Ca to benchmark nuclear structure and 2$\beta$-decay studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03146 by A. Czihaly, A. Kwiatkowski, A. Mollaebrahimi, A. Weaver, B. Ashrafkhani, C. Chambers, C. Walls, D. Perera, D. Ray, E. Leistenschneider, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, F. Maldonado Millan, G. Gwinner, J. Ash, J. D. Cardona, M. Horoi, M. Redshaw, R. Ringle, S. Kakkar, S. Paul, W. S. Porter, Z. Hockenbery.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Decay scheme for 48Ca ββ-decay, as yet unob￾served 48Ca single-β-decay, and 48Sc β-decay. The ground￾state to ground-state Q values are obtained using data from the AME2020 [14]. Energy levels are given in units of keV. = 5.3 ×1020 y [12], a factor of 5 larger than the current experimental lower limit [8]. Nevertheless, the question remains: could 48Ca single β-decay be experimentally ob￾served? If so, com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the TITAN-TRIUMF beamline. Ions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) Time-of-flight single resonance curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Time-of-flight simultaneous double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Individual measurements of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Q value measurements for 48Ca single β-decay obtained from the alternating (Alt) and simultaneous (Sim) 48Ca+/ 48Sc+ measurements, and from the 48Sc+/ 48Ti+ measurement combined with the precisely determined 48Ca – 48Ti 2β-decay Q value from AME2020 [14], as listed in Ta￾ble II. three results are plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Ab initio calculations of two-neutrino and neutrinoless double-$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ decay of $^{48}$Ca and related Gamow-Teller strength distributions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Enlarging the model space in ab initio calculations of 48Ca makes the two-neutrino double-beta matrix element agree with experiment and doubles the neutrinoless-decay matrix element.

  2. Ab initio calculations of two-neutrino and neutrinoless double-$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ decay of $^{48}$Ca and related Gamow-Teller strength distributions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Enlarging the VS-IMSRG valence space from pf to d3/2pf for 48Ca brings the 2 uetaeta NME into agreement with experiment and roughly doubles the 0 uetaeta NME.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. S. Barabash, Universe6, 159 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Barabash, Universe9, 290 (2023)

    A. Barabash, Universe9, 290 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Pritychenko and V

    B. Pritychenko and V. Tretyak, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables161, 101694 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Balysh, A

    A. Balysh, A. De Silva, V. I. Lebedev, K. Lou, M. K. Moe, M. A. Nelson, A. Piepke, A. Pronskiy, M. A. Vient, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 5186 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    V. B. Brudanin, N. I. Rukhadze, C. Brian¸ con, V. G. Egorov, V. E. Kovalenko, A. Kovalik, A. V. Sala- matin, I. ˇStekl, V. V. Tsoupko-Sitnikov, T. Vylov, and P. ˇCerm´ ak, Physics Letters B495, 63 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Arnold, C

    R. Arnold, C. Augier, A. M. Bakalyarov, J. D. Baker, A. S. Barabash, A. Basharina-Freshville, S. Blondel, S. Blot, M. Bongrand, V. Brudanin,et al.(NEMO-3 Col- laboration), Phys. Rev. D93, 112008 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    D. E. Alburger and J. B. Cumming, Phys. Rev. C32, 1358 (1985)

    1985

  8. [8]

    Bakalyarov, A

    A. Bakalyarov, A. Balysh, A. Barabash, C. Brian¸ con, V. Brudanin, V. Egorov, F. Hubert, P. Hubert, A. Ko- val´ ık, V. Lebedev, N. Rukhadze, I. ˇStekl, V. Umatov, and T. Vylov, Nuclear Physics A700, 17–24 (2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    Bernabei, P

    R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, F. Mon- tecchia, F. Nozzoli, A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, C. Dai, V. Tretyak, Y. Zdesenko, and O. Ponkratenko, Nuclear Physics A705, 29 (2002)

    2002

  10. [10]

    E. K. Warburton, Phys. Rev. C31, 1896 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    Aunola, J

    M. Aunola, J. Suhonen, and T. Siiskonen, Europhysics Letters46, 577 (1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    Haaranen, M

    M. Haaranen, M. Horoi, and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034315 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Kostensalo and J

    J. Kostensalo and J. Suhonen, Physics Letters B802, 135192 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    McMurray, M

    W. McMurray, M. Peisach, R. Pretorius, P. Van Der Merwe, and I. van Heerden, Nuclear Physics A99, 6 (1967)

    1967

  16. [16]

    W. J. McDonald, J. T. Sample, D. M. Sheppard, G. M. Stinson, and K. W. Jones, Phys. Rev.171, 1254 (1968)

    1968

  17. [17]

    van Nooijen, J

    B. van Nooijen, J. Konijn, A. Heyligers, J. van der Brugge, and A. Wapstra, Physica23, 753 (1957)

    1957

  18. [18]

    G. C. Ball, G. Hackman, and R. Kr¨ ucken, Physica Scripta91, 093002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Mostamand, R

    M. Mostamand, R. Li, J. Romans, F. Ames, P. Kunz, A. Mjøs, and J. Lassen, Hyperfine Interactions241, 36 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Brunner, M

    T. Brunner, M. Smith, M. Brodeur, S. Ettenauer, A. Gal- lant, V. Simon, A. Chaudhuri, A. Lapierre, E. Man´ e, R. Ringle, M. Simon, J. Vaz, P. Delheij, M. Good, M. Pearson, and J. Dilling, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 676, 32 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Jesch, T

    C. Jesch, T. Dickel, W. R. Plaß, D. Short, S. A. S. An- dres, J. Dilling, H. Geissel, F. Greiner, J. Lang, K. G. Leach,et al., inTCP 2014: Proceedings of the 6th Inter- national Conference on Trapped Charged Particles and Fundamental Physics, held in Takamatsu, Japan, 1-5, December 2014(Springer, 2017) pp. 175–184

    2014

  22. [22]

    Reiter, S

    M. Reiter, S. A. S. Andr´ es, J. Bergmann, T. Dickel, J. Dilling, A. Jacobs, A. Kwiatkowski, W. Plaß, C. Schei- 7 denberger, D. Short, C. Will, C. Babcock, E. Dunling, A. Finlay, C. Hornung, C. Jesch, R. Klawitter, B. Kootte, D. Lascar, E. Leistenschneider, T. Murb¨ ock, S. Paul, and M. Yavor, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:...

    2021

  23. [23]

    Brodeur, V

    M. Brodeur, V. Ryjkov, T. Brunner, S. Ettenauer, A. Gallant, V. Simon, M. Smith, A. Lapierre, R. Ringle, P. Delheij, M. Good, D. Lunney, and J. Dilling, Inter- national Journal of Mass Spectrometry310, 20 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    W. S. Porter, B. Ashrafkhani, J. Bergmann, C. Brown, T. Brunner, J. D. Cardona, D. Curien, I. Dedes, T. Dickel, J. Dudek, E. Dunling, G. Gwinner, Z. Hock- enbery, J. D. Holt, C. Hornung, C. Izzo, A. Jacobs, A. Javaji, B. Kootte, G. Kripk´ o-Koncz, E. M. Lykiar- dopoulou, T. Miyagi, I. Mukul, T. Murb¨ ock, W. R. Plaß, M. P. Reiter, J. Ringuette, C. Scheide...

    2022

  25. [25]

    L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Rev. Mod. Phys.58, 233 (1986)

    1986

  26. [26]

    Blaum, Physics Reports425, 1 (2006)

    K. Blaum, Physics Reports425, 1 (2006)

    2006

  27. [27]

    Gabrielse, International Journal of Mass Spectrome- try279, 107 (2009)

    G. Gabrielse, International Journal of Mass Spectrome- try279, 107 (2009)

    2009

  28. [28]

    Gabrielse, Phys

    G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 172501 (2009)

    2009

  29. [29]

    Leistenschneider,Dawning of nuclear magic- ity inN= 32 seen through precision mass spec- trometry, Ph.D

    E. Leistenschneider,Dawning of nuclear magic- ity inN= 32 seen through precision mass spec- trometry, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (2019), available athttps://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/ collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0383355

    2019

  30. [30]

    E. M. Lykiardopoulou,Resurrecting theN= 20 shell closure and upgrades to the TITAN mea- surement Penning trap, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (2023), avail- able athttps://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/ collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0438028

    2023

  31. [31]

    Kakkar,A high-precision mass measurement of 48Sc in support of neutrinoless doubleβ-decay searches, Ph.D

    S. Kakkar,A high-precision mass measurement of 48Sc in support of neutrinoless doubleβ-decay searches, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada (2026), available athttps://mspace.lib.umanitoba. ca/items/a83218a1-ce0a-4d3a-9281-64e2ebe426c6

    2026

  32. [32]

    Graeff, H

    G. Graeff, H. Kalinowsky, and J. Traut, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei297, 35 (1980)

    1980

  33. [33]

    K¨ onig, G

    M. K¨ onig, G. Bollen, H.-J. Kluge, T. Otto, and J. Sz- erypo, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes142, 95 (1995)

    1995

  34. [34]

    Ringle, G

    R. Ringle, G. Bollen, A. Prinke, J. Savory, P. Schury, S. Schwarz, and T. Sun, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry263, 38 (2007)

    2007

  35. [35]

    Ketter, T

    J. Ketter, T. Eronen, M. H¨ ocker, S. Streubel, and K. Blaum, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 358, 1 (2014)

    2014

  36. [36]

    Kellerbauer, K

    A. Kellerbauer, K. Blaum, G. Bollen, F. Herfurth, H.- J. Kluge, M. Kuckein, E. Sauvan, C. Scheidenberger, and L. Schweikhard, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics22, 53 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 025002 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Redshaw, G

    M. Redshaw, G. Bollen, M. Brodeur, S. Bustabad, D. L. Lincoln, S. J. Novario, R. Ringle, and S. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. C86, 041306 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    Bustabad, G

    S. Bustabad, G. Bollen, M. Brodeur, D. L. Lincoln, S. J. Novario, M. Redshaw, R. Ringle, S. Schwarz, and A. A. Valverde, Phys. Rev. C88, 022501 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    A. A. Kwiatkowski, T. Brunner, J. D. Holt, A. Chaud- huri, U. Chowdhury, M. Eibach, J. Engel, A. T. Gallant, A. Grossheim, M. Horoi, A. Lennarz, T. D. Macdonald, M. R. Pearson, B. E. Schultz, M. C. Simon, R. A. Senkov, V. V. Simon, K. Zuber, and J. Dilling, Phys. Rev. C89, 045502 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    K¨ ohler, K

    F. K¨ ohler, K. Blaum, M. Block, S. Chenmarev, S. Eliseev, D. A. Glazov, M. Goncharov, J. Hou, A. Kracke, D. A. Nesterenko, Y. N. Novikov, W. Quint, E. Minaya Ramirez, V. M. Shabaev, S. Sturm, A. V. Volotka, and G. Werth, Nature Communications7, 10246 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    M. T. Mustonen, M. Aunola, and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C73, 054301 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    G. Audi, F. Kondev, M. Wang, B. Pfeiffer, X. Sun, J. Bla- chot, and M. MacCormick, Chinese Physics C36, 1157 (2012)

    2012