The reported strengths of newly discovered resonances in original Letter were affected by an error in the analysis. The energy straggling of the ion beam was erroneously neglected. When taking this effect into account, 18-19% higher values are found for the resonance strengths. The astrophysical implications are unchanged. The astrophysical consequences shown in original Letter and [2] used a previous calculation [8] and remain valid. For newer astrophysical work, see Ref. [9], which is also unaffected by the present correction. (Formula Presented). (Table Presented)
© 2020, The Author(s). A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2]...
The various RPV coefficients of the six-quark operators for the non-EW cases need to be re-scaled by...
There is an error on page 5 of the original paper,1 in the last equation before Eq. (16), where the ...
An error was discovered in the calculation of the statistical spin factor gs , which was used for de...
his Erratum replaces incorrect plots shown in Fig. 7 with the corrected ones. In the publication, th...
In Section “Eigenchannel R-matrix approach and formula for rate coefficient” of the article, there a...
Here we correct a factor of 2 missed in one of figures and the corresponding sentence in the text. I...
A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2] cross-sections, which ...
A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2] cross-sections, which ...
A minus sign must be added in Eq. (2.3) of the original paper: M. Schwarzer and J. P. Toennies, J. C...
In a recent email, K. Heng informed us that the curves he provided, which were used for Figure 2 of ...
The Lagrangian in eq. (2.1) of JHEP11 (2020) 005 has an erroneous factor of 1/2. The analysis code u...
In Fig. 5 of our original article, we compared measurements and predictions of the charge yield Qy. ...
For a complete list of authors, please look at article.The Lagrangian in eq. (2.1) of JHEP 11 (2020)...
© 2020, The Author(s). A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2]...
The various RPV coefficients of the six-quark operators for the non-EW cases need to be re-scaled by...
There is an error on page 5 of the original paper,1 in the last equation before Eq. (16), where the ...
An error was discovered in the calculation of the statistical spin factor gs , which was used for de...
his Erratum replaces incorrect plots shown in Fig. 7 with the corrected ones. In the publication, th...
In Section “Eigenchannel R-matrix approach and formula for rate coefficient” of the article, there a...
Here we correct a factor of 2 missed in one of figures and the corresponding sentence in the text. I...
A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2] cross-sections, which ...
A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2] cross-sections, which ...
A minus sign must be added in Eq. (2.3) of the original paper: M. Schwarzer and J. P. Toennies, J. C...
In a recent email, K. Heng informed us that the curves he provided, which were used for Figure 2 of ...
The Lagrangian in eq. (2.1) of JHEP11 (2020) 005 has an erroneous factor of 1/2. The analysis code u...
In Fig. 5 of our original article, we compared measurements and predictions of the charge yield Qy. ...
For a complete list of authors, please look at article.The Lagrangian in eq. (2.1) of JHEP 11 (2020)...
© 2020, The Author(s). A mistake was identified for the paper [1] in the treatment of the radion [2]...
The various RPV coefficients of the six-quark operators for the non-EW cases need to be re-scaled by...
There is an error on page 5 of the original paper,1 in the last equation before Eq. (16), where the ...