Magnetic-field induced superconductor-antiferromagnet transition in lightly doped RBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x} (R = Lu, Y) crystals

Abstract: The remarkable sensitivity of the c-axis resistivity and magnetoresistance in cuprates to the spin ordering is used to clarify the doping-induced transformation from an antiferromagnetic (AF) insulator to a superconducting (SC) metal in RBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x} (R = Lu, Y) single crystals. The established phase diagram demonstrates that the AF and SC regions apparently overlap: the superconductivity in RBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}, in contrast to La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4, sets in before the long-range AF order is completely destroyed by hole doping. Magnetoresistance measurements of superconducting crystals with low T_c<15-20 K give a clear view of the magnetic-field induced superconductivity suppression and recovery of the long-range AF state. What still remains to be understood is whether the AF order actually persists in the SC state or just revives when the superconductivity is suppressed, and, in the former case, whether the antiferromagnetism and superconductivity reside in nanoscopically separated phases or coexist on an atomic scale.

\section{Introduction}

The transformation, upon charge doping, of an antiferromagnetic (AF)
Mott insulator into a superconducting (SC) metal and the role of AF
correlations in the appearance of superconductivity have challenged
researchers since the discovery of high-$T_c$ superconductivity in
cuprates. Is the AF order an indispensable component or a competitor for
the high-$T_c$ phenomenon? In a prototype high-$T_c$ cuprate
La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$, the long-range AF order is destroyed by doped
holes way before the superconductivity sets in \cite{RMP_LSCO}, which
has led to a general belief that the spin frustration is a prerequisite
for metallic conduction and superconductivity. The destructive impact of
static spin order on superconductivity was further supported by the
observation of SC suppression at a peculiar 1/8 doping in
La$_{2-x}$Ba$_x$CuO$_4$ \cite{1_8}. On the other hand, spin excitations
are often suggested to provide glue for SC pairing, implying the
ultimate importance of AF correlations, be they static or dynamic.
Besides, the incompatibility of static AF order and SC may be not
necessarily a general feature of cuprates. In $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
($R$ is a rare-earth element), for instance, the long-range AF order
survives up to much higher doping levels than in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$
\cite{YBCO_AF, diagram2, AF_SC, anis, diagram3}, though the possibility
of its coexistence with superconductivity still remains to be clarified.

In strongly anisotropic high-$T_c$ cuprates, the $c$-axis charge
transport appears to be remarkably sensitive to the spin ordering in
CuO$_2$ planes. In $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals, for example, the
$c$-axis resistivity $\rho_c(T)$ exhibits a steep increase at the
N\'{e}el temperature $T_N$ \cite{AF_SC, anis, ourmag}. Even relatively
weak modifications of the spin structure such as spin-flop or
metamagnetic transitions result in surprisingly large changes---by up to
an order of magnitude---in the $c$-axis resistivity of both hole-doped
La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ \cite{MR_WF, LSCO_MR} and electron-doped
Pr$_{1.3-x}$La$_{0.7}$Ce$_{x}$CuO$_4$ \cite{PLCCO_MR} and
Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_{x}$CuO$_4$ crystals \cite{NCCO_MR}. This sensitivity of
the interplane charge transport in cuprates to the spin order can be,
and actually is, employed for tracing the evolution of the spin state
with doping, temperature, or magnetic fields \cite{MR_WF, AF_SC, anis,
ourmag, PLCCO_MR}.

While electrical resistivity measurements have proved to be a very
convenient tool for mapping the magnetic phase diagrams in cuprates,
their usage has an obvious limitation; namely, they fail as the
superconductivity sets in. Because of this limitation, previous
resistivity studies of $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals \cite{AF_SC,
anis} could not clarify whether the long-range AF order vanishes by the
onset of superconductivity, or extends further, intervening the SC
region. It sounds tempting to employ strong magnetic fields to suppress
the superconductivity and to use the $c$-axis resistivity technique of
detecting the spin order in otherwise inaccessible regions of the phase
diagram. In the present paper, we use this approach to study the very
region of the AF-SC transformation in LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ and
YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ single crystals.

\section{Experiment}

$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ single crystals with nonmagnetic rare-earth
elements $R$$\,=\,$Lu and Y were grown by the flux method and their
oxygen stoichiometry was tuned to the required level by high-temperature
annealing with subsequent quenching \cite{AF_SC, whisk}. In order to
ensure that no oxygen-enriched layer was formed at the crystal surface
during the quenching process, one of the crystals was dissolved in acid
in several steps; resistivity measurements detected no considerable
change in the SC transition upon the crystal's surface destruction. The
$c$-axis resistivity $\rho_c(T)$ was measured using the ac four-probe
technique. To provide a homogeneous current flow along the $c$-axis, two
current contacts were painted to almost completely cover the opposing
$ab$-faces of the crystal, while two voltage contacts were placed in
small windows reserved in the current ones \cite{AF_SC}. The
magnetoresistance (MR) was measured by sweeping temperature at fixed
magnetic fields up to 16.5 T applied along the $c$ axis of the crystals.

\section {Results and Discussion}

A representative $\rho_c(T)$ curve obtained for a
LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ single crystal with a doping level slightly
lower than required for the onset of superconductivity is shown in
Fig.~1. In general, the $c$-axis resistivity in $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
crystals of non-SC composition exhibits two peculiar features upon
cooling below room temperature, both of which can be seen in Fig.~1. The
first one is a pronounced crossover at $T_m$ ($T_m \,$$\approx
\,$$120\,$K for the particular composition in Fig.~1), indicating a
change---with decreasing temperature---of the dominating conductivity
mechanism from some kind of thermally activated hopping to a coherent
transport \cite{AF_SC, anis, ourmag, whisk, Trunin}. It is worth noting
that a similar coherent-incoherent crossover was observed in other
layered oxides as well \cite{Valla}. The second feature is a sharp
growth of the resistivity associated with the long-range AF ordering
\cite{AF_SC, anis, ourmag}. If the crystals were less homogeneous, the
low-temperature resistivity upturn would be easy to confuse with a usual
disorder-induced charge localization. However, this sharp resistivity
anomaly with a characteristic negative peak in the derivative (inset in
Fig.~1) is definitely related to the spin ordering at the N\'{e}el
temperature $T_N$: it has been traced from the parent compositions
$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6}$ with well-known $T_N$ to avoid any doubt in its
origin.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics*[width=7.6cm]{Stripes08_Fig1.eps}
\caption{Out-of-plane resistivity, $\rho_c(T)$, of a
LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.36}$ single crystal. The sharp growth of the
resistivity upon cooling below $\approx \,$$25 \,$K is caused by
the AF ordering. Inset: anomaly in the normalized derivative
$(d\rho_c/dT)/\rho_c$ associated with the N\'{e}el transition.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

In carefully prepared crystals, the AF transitions remain sharp for all
compositions, including crystals with very low
$T_N\,$$\approx$$\,20\,$K, that is $\sim\,$20 times lower than original
$T_{N0}\,$$\approx \,$$420\,$K in parent $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6}$. It is
important to emphasize that the transitions at $T_N\,$$\approx$$\,20\,$K
remain virtually as sharp as in undoped parent crystals even though spin
freezing into a spin-glass state is usually expected for such low
temperatures and high hole concentrations \cite{SG}. Moreover, the
impact of the AF ordering on $\rho_c(T)$ does not weaken with decreasing
N\'{e}el temperature; as can be seen in Fig.~1, the resistivity of the
crystal with $T_N\,$$\approx$$\,24\,$K increases by more than 50\% upon
cooling below $T_N$, while in crystals with $T_N\,$$>$$\,100\,$K the
corresponding $\rho_c$ growth does not exceed 15-20\% \cite{AF_SC,
ourmag}.

What do these observations tell about the impact of doped holes on
copper spins? Apparently, the sharp AF transitions are hard to reconcile
with strongly frustrated spin states and disordered spin textures in
CuO$_2$ planes that are usually expected to emerge in cuprates with
doping \cite{Gooding}. Besides, a strong frustration-induced reduction
of the staggered magnetization $M^{\dag}$ required to account for the
decrease in $T_N$ would necessarily diminish the impact of the
interplane spin ordering on $\rho_c$, which again disagrees with
observations. On the other hand, if the role of mobile doped holes is
not to introduce a uniform spin frustration, but simply to break the
long-range AF order into two-dimensional domains in CuO$_2$ planes, the
observed behavior is easier to understand. In this case, it is the AF
domains in CuO$_2$ planes that become the elementary magnetic units and
the long-range AF state should develop through ordering of their phases,
which can occur rather abruptly. Correspondingly, the $T_N$ evolution
with doping should be governed by the decreasing AF domain size, rather
than $M^{\dag}$. In turn, the ordering of AF domains whose local
staggered magnetization does nor change appreciably with hole doping
leaves room for large changes in the $c$-axis resistivity even at low
$T_N$.

The $T_N$ and $T_c$ values determined from the $c$-axis resistivity of
$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals have been used to establish the
doping-temperature phase diagram in Fig.~2. A peculiarity of
$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals is that their doping level is
determined both by the oxygen content and by the degree of its ordering
\cite{AF_SC, anis}. For characterizing the doping level, we use
therefore the in-plane conductivity $\sigma_{ab}(280 K)$ instead of the
oxygen content; the former is a good measure of the hole density given
that the hole mobility stays almost constant in the doping region under
discussion \cite{mobility}.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics*[width=8.65cm]{Stripes08_Fig2.eps}
\caption{Phase diagram of $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ ($R$ = Lu, Tm,
Y) crystals near the AF-SC transformation. The AF and SC transition
temperatures, $T_N$ and $T_c$, are presented as a function of the
in-plane conductivity $\sigma_{ab}(280 K)$ which is a good measure of
the hole density in the shown doping region \cite{mobility}. The
N\'{e}el temperature was determined either at the position of the jump
(middle point) in the derivative $d\rho_c/dT$ (open circles), or at the
position of the negative peak in $d\rho_c/dT$ (solid circles).}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

As can be seen in Fig.~2, the long-range AF order in
$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ appears to be much more stable than in
La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ where it vanishes well in advance before the
onset of superconductivity. In $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$, the AF phase
boundary flattens upon approaching the SC compositions and hits the SC
region, crossing the $T_c$ line at $\approx \,$$15\,$K. The observed
overlap of the SC and AF regions is very close to the area where $\mu$SR
studies of YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ ceramics revealed the coexistence of
superconductivity with spontaneous static magnetism \cite{diagram2,
diagram3}. Given that the $c$-axis resistivity studied here is sensitive
to the {\it interlayer} spin ordering, the static magnetism detected by
$\mu$SR \cite{diagram2, diagram3} should in fact be related to the
three-dimensional AF order. The superconductivity in
$R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ thus develops directly from the AF-ordered
state without any intervening paramagnetic or spin-glass region.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics*[width=8.65cm]{Stripes08_Fig3.eps}
\caption{Out-of-plane resistivity of one and the same
LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ single crystal for two oxygen
concentrations near the AF-SC transformation. For the
superconducting composition $x=0.38$, the data were taken at
several magnetic fields--from zero up to 16.5 T--applied along the
$c$ axis. The sharp upturn in the resistivity associated with the
N\'{e}el transition shows up as the superconductivity is
suppressed with the magnetic field.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

According to the established phase diagram (Fig.~2), an increase of the
hole density in CuO$_2$ planes by $\sim \,$1\% per Cu (from $\approx
\,$5\% to $\approx \,$6\%, assuming the onset of superconductivity at
$\approx \,$5\% doping) turns an AF $R$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystal
without any sign of superconductivity into a bulk superconductor with
$T_c \,$$\sim \,$$15 \,$K. What happens with the AF order upon entering
the SC region, does it vanish abruptly? Zero-field $\rho_c(T)$ curves
measured on the same LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystal for two hole doping
levels (that differ by $\approx \,$0.5-0.6\% per Cu) indeed demonstrate
a switch from an AF state with $\rho_c(T)$ sharply growing below $T_N$
to a SC state (Fig.~3). However, when the superconductivity is
suppressed with the magnetic field ${\bf H}$$\,\parallel\,$${\bf c}$,
the steep increase in $\rho_c$ associated with the AF ordering is
recovered back (Fig.~3). Moreover, the recovered N\'{e}el temperature is
merely several Kelvin lower than for the non-SC composition (upper curve
in Fig.~3) and the resistivity increase is not reduced appreciably
either. As long as the SC in LuBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ and
YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals is weak enough to be killed by the
16.5-T field, the unveiled $\rho_c(T)$ curves keep demonstrating the
anomalous growth below 15-20$\,$K associated with the N\'{e}el
transition. This behavior indicates that, at least when
superconductivity is suppressed with magnetic fields, the AF order
extends to considerably higher doping levels than the SC onset.
Consequently, at zero magnetic field the AF and SC orders either coexist
with each other in a certain range of doping, or the AF order is
frustrated in the SC state but revives as the superconductivity is
destroyed with the magnetic field. A switching between the AF and SC
orders was indeed suggested based on early $\mu$SR studies
\cite{diagram2}, yet no further proofs were collected. The close
location and even overlapping of the AF and SC orders on the phase
diagram raise another question of whether the AF and SC orders reside in
nanoscopically separated phases in CuO$_2$ planes or coexist on the
unit-cell scale, which calls for local microscopic tools to be
clarified.

\subsection{Acknowledgments}

We thank V. F. Gantmakher for fruitful discussions and acknowledge
support by RFBR (grants 05-02-16973 and 06-02-17098) and the integration
project SB RAS No.81.

Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con); Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)


Statistical theory of light nucleus reaction and application to $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction

Abstract: A statistical theory of light nucleus reaction (STLN) is proposed to describe both neutron and light charged particle induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved. The dynamic of STLN is described by the unified Hauser-Feshbach and exciton model, of which the angular momentum and parity conservations are considered in equilibrium and pre-equilibrium processes. The Coulomb barriers of the incident and outgoing charged particles, which seriously influence the open reaction channels, could be reasonably considered in the incident channel and the different outgoing channels. In kinematics, the recoiling effects in various emission processes are taken strictly into account. Taking $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction as an example, we calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons and charged particles using PUNF code in the frame of STLN. The calculated results agree very well with the existing experimental neutron double-differential cross sections at $E_p=18$ MeV, and indicate that PUNF code is a powerful tool to set up file-6 in the reaction data library for the light charged particle induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved.

\section{\label{sect1}Introduction}

The 1p-shell light elements (Li, Be, B, C, N and O) had long been selected as the most important materials for improving neutron economy in thermal and fast fission reactors and in design of the accelerators driven spallation neutron sources, such as a candidate for target material in the intense neutron source of International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) \cite{Garin2011}, the plasma facing material of the first wall in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) \cite{Marder2008}, the neutron multiplier in the fusion blanket \cite{Kawamura2002}, the neutron protection layer of Molten Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR) \cite{Yu2015}, the material of the accelerator based neutron source with a Fixed Field Alternating Gradient (FFAG) \cite{Mori2006} and the accelerator driven advanced nuclear energy system (ADANES) \cite{ZWL2015}. Additionally, some 1p-shell light elements are the materials in the determination of radiation shielding requirements for radiation protection purposes, optimization of dose delivery to a treatment volume, decisions on biological effectiveness of different therapy beams, and so on \cite{Sun2008kerma}. For these accurate designs of the target system, neutron shielding and nuclear medicine, the double-differential cross sections of the reaction products are very important as a source term for light particles (including neutron and charged particles) induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved.

For neutron induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved, the model calculations of the double-differential cross sections of reaction products have been successfully performed \cite{Zhang2015}. And file-6 has been established in CNDEL-3.1 library based on the theoretical calculation below 20 MeV incident energy \cite{Zhang2011}. File-6 is one of the most important files of nuclear reaction database and is recommended when the energy and angular distributions of the emitted particles must be coupled, when it is important to give a concurrent description of neutron scattering and particle emission, when so many reaction channels are open that it is difficult to provide separate reactions, or when accurate charged particle or residual nucleus distributions are required for particle transport, heat deposition, or radiation damage calculations \cite{Trkov2011}.

However, the double-differential cross sections of reaction products for light charged particle induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved are lack or not satisfactory till now, especially below 20 MeV incident energies. Taking p+$^9$Be reaction as an example, there are some coarse double-differential cross sections of reaction products only in ENDF/B-VII.1 \cite{Chadwick2011} and TENDL-2012 \cite{Koning2012}, and there are only some measured double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons at several incident energies. Several peaks of the measured double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons are observed for $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction. These peaks come mainly from the transitions between the discrete energy levels of the residual nuclei. The double-differential neutron-product cross sections of ENDF/B-VII.1, obtained by the Intranuclear-Cascade-Evaporation (ICE) model \cite{Young1990}, can not appropriately reproduce these experimental peaks (including positions and quantities), although ICE model are most applicable to a few hundreds MeV incident energies. The data of TENDL-2012, based on a software system built around the nuclear model code TALYS \cite{Koning2007}, can also not reasonably reproduce the double-differential cross sections for $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction. In addition, Monte Carlo calculation using Particle and Heavy Ion Transport System (PHITS) code is performed by the method combined the evaluated nuclear data files of ENDF/B-VII, the Bertini/GEM model and the JQMD/GEM model \cite{Iwamoto2009}. The calculated results can not also very well reproduce the experimental double-differential cross sections for $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction at 10 MeV incident energy. Recently, S. Hashimoto et al. proposed a new nuclear reaction model, which is a combination of the intranuclear cascade model and the distorted wave Born approximation, and used PHITS to estimate neutron spectra of reactions induced Li and Be by proton \cite{Hashimoto2014}. But there are some divergences between the calculated results and experimental double-differential cross sections for $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction at 39 MeV with 0 angle.

In addition, the continuum discretized coupled channels (CDCC) method is used to calculate the double-differential cross sections both for neutron and proton induced $^{6,7}$Li reactions \cite{Guo2013,Guo2014,Matsumoto2011,Ichinkhorloo2012}. Apart from the theoretical studies as far as I am concerned till now, there are no any publications of the double-differential cross sections for light charged particle induced reactions with the 1p-shell nuclei involved.

Although much effort has been made during the past several decades, there is lack of a general theory or method that can satisfactorily reproduce the measured double-differential cross sections for light charged particle induced nuclear reactions with the 1p-shell light nuclei involved. This problem may originate from several sources. Firstly, there is the absent theoretical method to describe the particle emission processes between the discrete levels of the residual nuclei with pre-equilibrium mechanism, which dominates all of the 1p-shell light nucleus reactions. Secondly, because of light mass, the recoil effect of the energy conservation must be strictly taken into account. Furthermore, there are individual features (including energy, spin, parity, width, branch ratio, and so on) of every energy level for each 1p-shell light nucleus. In this paper, the statistical theory of light nucleus reaction (STLN), which can describe the sequential and simultaneous particle emission processes between the discrete levels keeping conservations of energy, angular momentum and parity, is proposed to calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons and charged particles both for neutron and light charged particle induced reactions with the 1p-shell nuclei involved. Furthermore, taking $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction at 18 MeV as an example,
we calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons firstly using PUNF code in the frame of STLN. The calculated results agree very well with the existing experimental data.

This paper proceeds as follow. In Sec. \ref{sect2}, the dynamic and kinematics of STLN are introduced in detail. The reaction channels of p+$^9$Be reaction are analyzed detailedly, and the calculated results are compared with the experimental data in Sec. \ref{sect3}. In last section, a summary is given.

\section{Statistical theory of light nucleus reaction}\label{sect2}
It is assumed that the pre-equilibrium emission process from a compound nucleus to discrete levels
of the residual nuclei is the dominative reaction mechanism in light particle induced light nucleus reactions. Thus the dynamics of STLN can be described by the unified Hauser-Feshbach and exciton model \cite{Zhang1991,Zhang1993,Zhang1994}, which has applied successfully to calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons for neutron induced $^{6}$Li \cite{Zhang2001Li6}, $^{7}$Li \cite{Zhang2002Li7}, $^9$Be \cite{Sun2009Be9,Duan2010Be9}, $^{10}$B \cite{Zhang2003B10}, $^{11}$B \cite{Zhang2003B11}, $^{12}$C \cite{Zhang1999C12,Sun2007C12,Sun2008kerma}, $^{14}$N \cite{Yan2005N14}, $^{16}$O \cite{Zhang2001O16,Duan2005O16} and $^{19}$F \cite{Duan2007} reactions.

For conveniently describing the dynamics and kinematics, some quantities are defined as follows.

$M_T$: mass of the target nucleus with mass number $A_T$, proton number $Z_T$ and neutron number $N_T$;

$E_L$: kinetic energy of the incident particle in laboratory system;

$m_0$: mass of the incident particle with mass number $A_0$, proton number $Z_0$ and neutron number $N_0$;

$M_C$: mass of the compound nucleus with mass number $A_C=A_T+A_0$ and excited energy $E^*=\frac{M_T}{M_C}E_L+B_0$;

$m_1$ and $M_1$: masses of the first emitted particle and its residual nucleus, respectively;

$m_2$ and $M_2$: masses of the secondary particle emitted from $M_1$ and its residual nucleus, respectively;

$B_0, B_1$ and $B_2$: binding energies of $m_0$, $m_1$ in $M_C$ and $m_2$ in $M_1$, respectively;

$\varepsilon^X_{m_1}$ and $E^X_{M_1}$: kinetic energies of $m_1$ and $M_1$ in X coordinate system, respectively;

$\varepsilon^X_{m_2}$ and $E^X_{M_2}$: kinetic energies of $m_2$ and $M_2$ in X coordinate system, respectively;

Here, three motion systems will be used in STLN. Superscripts ($X=l, c, r$) denote the laboratory system (LS), the center-of-mass system (CMS) and the recoil nucleus system (RNS), respectively. For convenience, masses $m_i$ and $M_i$ ($i=0, C$, 1, 2) defined above also indicate the corresponding the nuclei or particles in text. It is obvious that there are approximate relations without lowering precision, i.e., $M_C\approx m_0+M_T\approx m_1+M_1$ and $M_1\approx m_2+M_2$.

\subsection{Dynamics}\label{sect2.1}
\subsubsection{First particle emission process}

In the frame of STLN, the cross section of the first emitted particle $m_1$ with kinetic energy $\varepsilon_{m_1}^c$ from compound nucleus $M_C$ to the $k_1$-th discrete energy level of residual nuclei $M_1$ can be described as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.1}
\sigma_{m_1,k_1}(E_L)=\sum_{j\pi}\sigma_a^{j\pi}(E_L)\{\sum_{n=3}^{n_{max}}P^{j\pi}(n)
\frac{W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(n,E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)}{W_T^{j\pi}(n,E^*)}
+Q^{j\pi}(n)\frac{W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)}{W_T^{j\pi}(E^*)}\}.   \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $P^{j\pi}(n)$ is the occupation probability of the $n$-th exciton state in the $j\pi$ channel ($j$ and $\pi$ denote the angular momentum and parity in final state, respectively), which
can be obtained by solving the $j$-dependent exciton master equation to conserve the angular momentum in pre-equilibrium reaction processes \cite{Zhang1994}. And $Q^{j\pi}(n)$ is the occupation probability of the equilibrium state in $j\pi$ channel expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.2}
Q^{j\pi}(n)=1-\sum_{n=3}^{n_{max}}P^{j\pi}(n).
\end{eqnarray}

The absorption cross section $\sigma_a^{j\pi}(E_L)$ in $j\pi$ channel can be derived by Hauser-Feshbach statistical theory as \cite{Hauser1952}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.3}
\sigma_a^{j\pi}(E_L)=\frac{\pi}{k^2}\frac{(2j+1)}{(2I_T+1)(2s_0+1)}\sum_{S=|I_T-s_0|}^{I_T+s_0}
\sum_{l=|j-S|}^{min\{j+S,l_{max}\}}T_{l}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)g_l(\pi,\pi_T).
\end{eqnarray}
Where $I_T, \pi_T$ are the spin and parity of the target $M_T$, respectively. $s_0$ is the spin of incident particle $m_0$. And $k$ is the incident wave vector. $T_{l}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)$ is the reduced penetration factor of the first emitted particle $m_1$ \cite{Uhl1970} that can be obtained by the optical model of the spherical nucleus including the Coulomb barrier of incident charged particle.

In addition, parity conservation is determined by the orbit angular momentum $l$ of the relative motion between the incident particle $m_0$ and target nucleus $M_T$ in incident channel. For describing the parity conservation, we define the function
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.4}
g_l(\pi,\pi_T)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
1, ~~if ~\pi=(-1)^l \pi_T\\
0, ~~if ~\pi\neq(-1)^l \pi_T,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\pi$ and $\pi_T$ are the parities of the compound nucleus $M_C$ and the target nucleus $M_T$, respectively.

The emission rate $W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(n,E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)$ of the first emitted particle $m_1$ in Eq. (\ref{eq2.1}) at $n$-th exciton state with outgoing kinetic energy $\varepsilon_{m_1}^c$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.5}
W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(n,E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar\omega^{j\pi}(n, E^*)}\sum_{S=|j_{k_1}-s_{m_1}|}^{j_{k_1}+s_{m_1}}\sum_{l=|j-S|}^{j+S}
T_{l}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)  \nonumber\\
&\times & g_l(\pi,\pi_{k_1})F_{m_1[\lambda,m]}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)Q_{m_1}(n)_{[\lambda,m]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $\omega^{j\pi}(n, E^*)$ is the $n$-th exciton state density. $j_{k_1}$ is the angular momentum of the residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$, and $s_{m_1}$ is the spin of the first emitted particle $m_1$. $\pi$ and $\pi_{k_1}$ are the parities of the compound $M_C$ and residual nuclei $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$, respectively. The function of parity conservation are expressed as Eq. (\ref{eq2.4}) only substituting the target nucleus parity $\pi_T$ with the residual nucleus parity $\pi_{k_1}$.

In exciton model, $p$ and $h$ denote the particle number and hole number at $n$-th exciton state  ($n=p+h$), respectively. And $Q_{m_1}(n)_{[\lambda,m]}$, considering the effect of the incident particle memories, is the combination factor of the $n$-th exciton state expressed as\cite{Zhang1989}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.6}
Q_{m_1}(p,h)_{[\lambda,m]}&=& \left(\frac{A_T}{Z_T}\right)^{Z_{m_1}}\left(\frac{A_T}{N_T}\right)^{N_{m_1}}
\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \lambda\end{array}\right)^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}A_T-h\\ m\end{array}\right)^{-1}
\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{m_1}\\Z_{m_1}\end{array}\right)^{-1}       \nonumber\\
&\times& \sum_{i=0}^h \left(\begin{array}{c}h\\i\end{array}\right)\left(\frac{Z_T}{A_T}\right)^i\left(\frac{N_T}{A_T}\right)^{h-i} \nonumber\\
&\times& \sum_j \left(\begin{array}{c}Z_{m_1}+i\\j\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}N_{m_1}+h-i\\\lambda-j\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}Z-i\\Z_{m_1}-j\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}N-h+i\\N_{m_1}-\lambda+j\end{array}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $A_{m_1}, Z_{m_1}$ and $N_{m_1}$ are the mass number, proton number and neutron number of the first emitted particle $m_1$, respectively. And $A_{m_1}=\lambda+m$ denotes that there are $\lambda$ nucleon above the Fermi sea and $m$ nucleon blow the Fermi sea for the emitted particle $m_1$. The symbol $\left (\begin{aligned}n \\m\end{aligned}\right )$ is the binomial coefficient.

If the first emitted particle $m_1$ is nucleon, there is $\lambda=1, m=0$. Especially, if $m_1$ is neutron, i.e., $A_{m_1}=N_{m_1}=1$ and $Z_{m_1}=0$, thus Eq. (\ref{eq2.6}) can be simplified as \cite{Cline1972}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.7}
Q_n(p,h)_{[1,0]}=\left(\frac{A_T}{N_T}\right)\frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=0}^h \left(\begin{array}{c}h\\i\end{array}\right)\left(\frac{Z_T}{A_T}\right)^i\left(\frac{N_T}{A_T}\right)^{h-i}(N_{m_1}+h-i).
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, if $m_1$ is proton, i.e., $A_{m_1}=Z_{m_1}=1$ and $N_{m_1}=0$, Eq. (\ref{eq2.6}) can be also simplified as \cite{Cline1972}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.8}
Q_p(p,h)_{[1,0]}=\left(\frac{A_T}{Z_T}\right)\frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=0}^h \left(\begin{array}{c}h\\i\end{array}\right)\left(\frac{Z_T}{A_T}\right)^i\left(\frac{N_T}{A_T}\right)^{h-i}(Z_{m_1}+i).
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, if $m_1$ is $\gamma$ photo, i.e., $A_{m_1}=Z_{m_1}=N_{m_1}=0$, Eq. (\ref{eq2.6}) can be most simplified as $Q_{\gamma}(p,h)_{[0,0]}=1$. Apparently, the combination factor strictly keeps the particle conservation, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.9}
\frac{N_T}{A_T}Q_n(p,h)_{[1,0]}+\frac{Z_T}{A_T}Q_p(p,h)_{[1,0]}=1.
\end{eqnarray}

In Eq. (\ref{eq2.5}), $F_{m_1[\lambda,m]}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)$ is the the pre-formation probability of composite particles $m_1$ at $n$-th exciton state in compound nucleus $M_C$, in which the momentum distributions of the exciton states are taken into account \cite{Zhang2007}. The consideration of the momentum distribution, which can improve Iwamoto-Harada model with no restriction in the momentum space, enhances the pre-formation probability of $[1,m]$ configuration and suppresses that of $[l>1,m]$ configurations seriously.

Considering the energy-momentum conservation in center of mass system (CMS), the definitive kinetic energies of the first emitted particle $m_1$ can be easily derived as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.10}
\varepsilon_{m_1}^c=\frac{M_1}{M_C}(E^*-B_1-E_{k_1}).
\end{eqnarray}
However, if the emitted particle $m_1$ is a charged particle, there is a threshold $E^{m_1}_{min}$ because of the Coulomb barrier $V_{Coul}\approx\frac{e^2Z_{m_1}Z_{M_1}}{R_c}$ ($R_c \approx r_c(A_{m_1}^{1/3}+A_{M_1}^{1/3}), r_c\approx 1.2\sim 1.5$ fm). Therefore, the open reaction channels must meet $E^*-E_{k_1}>B_1+V_{Coul}$. Obviously, Coulomb barrier can effect the open reaction channels seriously. And it is obvious that $T_{l}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)$ is 0, if $\varepsilon_{m_1}^c\leq E^{m_1}_{min}$.

Additionally, the total emission rate $W_T^{j\pi}(n,E^*)$ in pre-equilibrium reaction processes can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.11}
W_T^{j\pi}(n,E^*)=\sum_{m_1,k_1}W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(n,E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c).
\end{eqnarray}

In equilibrium reaction processes, the partial emission rate of the first particle $m_1$ in $j\pi$ channel and the total emission rate can be derived as following \cite{Hauser1952}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.12}
W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)=\frac{1}{2\pi\hbar\rho^{j\pi}(E^*)}
\sum_{J=|j-I_{M_1}|}^{j+I_{M_1}}\sum_{l=|J-s_{m_1}|}^{J+s_{m_1}}
(2J+1)T_{Jl}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)g_l(\pi,\pi_{k_1}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.13}
W_T^{j\pi}(E^*)=\sum_{m_1,k_1}W_{m_1,k_1}^{j\pi}(E^*,\varepsilon_{m_1}^c).
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $s_{m_1}$ and $I_{M_1}$ are the spins of the emitted particle $m_1$ and the corresponding residual nucleus $M_1$, respectively. $T_{Jl}(\varepsilon_{m_1}^c)$ is the penetration factor, and $\rho^{j\pi}(E^*)$ is the energy level density.

\subsubsection{Secondary particle emission process}

After the first particle $m_1$ emission, the cross section of the first residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$ emitting the secondary particle $m_2$ to the secondary residual nucleus $M_2$ at energy level $E_{k_2}$ can be expressed in the frame of STLN as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.14}
W_{m_2}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}\rightarrow j_{k_2}\pi_{k_2}}(E_{k_1}\rightarrow E_{k_2})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{S=|j_{k_2}-s_{m_2}|}^{j_{k_2}+s_{m_2}}\sum_{l=|j_{k_1}-S|}^{j_{k_1}+S}
T_l(\varepsilon_{m_2}^r)g_l(\pi_{k_1},\pi_{k_2}).
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}$ and $j_{k_2}\pi_{k_2}$ are the angular momentums and parities of the first and secondary residual nuclei, respectively. $T_{l}(\varepsilon_{m_2}^r)$ is the reduced penetration factor of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$, and $g_l(\pi_{k_1},\pi_{k_2})$ denotes the parity conservation in the secondary particle emission process.

The kinetic energy of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in recoil nucleus system (RNS) is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.15}
\varepsilon_{m_2}^r=\frac{M_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}-B_2-E_{k_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

As well as $m_1$, there is a threshold $E^{m_2}_{min}$ if the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ is a charged particle because of the Coulomb barrier.

The total emission rate $W_T^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})$ from the first residual nucleus at energy level $E_{k_1}$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.16}
W_T^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})=W_{\gamma}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})+\sum_{m_2,k_2}
W_{m_2}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}\rightarrow j_{k_2}\pi_{k_2}}(E_{k_1}\rightarrow E_{k_2}).
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $W_{\gamma}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})$ is the de-excited rate of $\gamma$ photo from energy level $E_{k_1}$.

So the branch ratio of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ from energy level $E_{k_1}$ to the energy level $E_{k_2}$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.17}
R_{m_2}^{k_1\rightarrow k_2}(E_{k_1})=\frac{W_{m_2}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}\rightarrow j_{k_2}\pi_{k_2}}(E_{k_1}\rightarrow E_{k_2})}{W_T^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})}.
\end{eqnarray}

Similarly, the branch ration of $\gamma$ photo can also be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.18}
R_{\gamma}^{k_1}(E_{k_1})=\frac{W_{\gamma}^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1}}{W_T^{j_{k_1}\pi_{k_1}}(E_{k_1})}.
\end{eqnarray}

Thus, the cross section of the secondary particle $m_2$ emitting from the energy level $E_{k_1}$ to $E_{k_2}$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.19}
\sigma_{k_1 \rightarrow k_2}(n, m_1, m_2)=\sigma_{k_1}(n, m_1)\cdot R_{m_2}^{k_1\rightarrow k_2}(E_{k_1}).
\end{eqnarray}

If the energy level $E_{k_1}$ is only de-excited by $\gamma$ photo to finish the reaction processes, the cross section of the first particle emission channel reads as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2.20}
\sigma_{k_1}(n, m_1, \gamma)=\sigma_{k_1}(n, m_1)\cdot R_{\gamma}^{k_1}(E_{k_1}).
\end{eqnarray}

Eqs. (\ref{eq2.17})-(\ref{eq2.20}) describe the competitions among the reaction channels of the first particle emission, secondary particle emission and $\gamma$ de-excitation. In addition, the (reduced) penetration factor $T$ can be derived by optical model to fit the cross sections of all of the channels.

\subsection{Kinematics}\label{sect2.2}

\subsubsection{First particle emission process}

After the first particle $m_1$ is emitted, the residual nucleus $M_1$ is possible to remain at the energy level $E_{k_1}$. Considering the energy-momentum conservation in CMS, the definitive kinetic energies of $m_1$ and $M_1$ can be reexpressed for systematically describing the kinematics as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.1}
\varepsilon_{m_1}^c=\frac{M_1}{M_C}(E^*-B_1-E_{k_1})
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.2}
E_{M_1}^c=\frac{m_1}{M_C}(E^*-B_1-E_{k_1}).
\end{eqnarray}

The normalized angular distributions of the first emitted particle $m_1$ and its residual nucleus $M_1$ with definitive kinetic energies can be standardized in nuclear reaction databases as \cite{Trkov2011}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.3}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega^c_{Y}}=\sum_l\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}f_l^c(Y)P_l(\cos\theta^c_{Y}).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $Y=m_1$ or $M_1$. $P_l(x)$ is the Legendre function, and the Legendre expansion coefficients $f^c_l(M_1)=(-1)^lf^c_l(m_1)$ can be derived from the the generilized master equation of the exciton model \cite{Zhang1989}.

Using the non-relativistic triangle relationship of the velocity vectors, the average kinetic energy of the first emitted particle $m_1$ in LS can be obtained
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.4}
\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_1} &=& \int \frac{1}{2}m_1(\textbf{\textit{V}}_C+\textbf{\textit{v}}^c_{m_1})^2\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega^c_{m_1}}d\Omega^c_{m_1}  \nonumber\\
 &=& \frac{m_1m_0E_L}{M^2_C}+\varepsilon^c_{m_1}+\frac{2}{M_C}\sqrt{m_0m_1E_L\varepsilon^c_{m_1}}f^c_1(m_1),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{\textit{V}}_C$ and $\textbf{\textit{v}}^c_{m_1}$ are the velocity vectors of the center-of-mass and the first emitted particle $m_1$ in CMS, respectively. Similarly as Eq. (\ref{eq3.4}), the average kinetic energy of the first residual nucleus $M_1$ in LS reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.5}
\overline{E}^l_{M_1} = \frac{M_1m_0E_L}{M^2_C}+E^c_{M_1}-\frac{2M_1}{M_C}\sqrt{\frac{m_0E_LE^c_{M_1}}{M_1}}f^c_1(m_1).
\end{eqnarray}

Thus, it is obvious that the energy conservation for the first particle emission process in LS can be strictly kept as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.6}
E^l_{total}=\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_1}+ \overline{E}^l_{M_1}+E_{k_1}=E_L+B_0-B_1.
\end{eqnarray}

\subsubsection{Secondary particle emission processes}

For the 1p-shell light nucleus reactions, the secondary particle emission processes also come from the discrete energy levels after the first particle $m_1$ emission. There are four kinds of the particle emission processes as follows.

1) The residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$ emits the secondary particle $m_2$ with kinetic energy $\varepsilon^c_{m_2}$ to the secondary residual nucleus $M_2$ at energy level $E_{k_2}$.

2) The residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$ breaks spontaneously up into two particles.

3) The first emitted particle $m_1$ such as $^5$He, which is very unstable, breaks spontaneously up into a neutron and an alpha.

4) All of the first emitted particle $m_1$ and its residual nucleus $M_1$ is unstable and breaks spontaneously up into two smaller particles. This is so-called double two-body breakup reaction.

For the case 1), the residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$ with recoiling kinetic energy $E^c_{M_1}$ in CMS will emit the secondary particle $m_2$ with kinetic energy $\varepsilon^c_{m_2}$, if the conservations of the energy, angular momentum and parity are met. Thus, the corresponding residual nucleus $M_2$ at energy level $E_{k_2}$ will also gain the recoiling kinetic energy $E^c_{M_2}$ at arbitrary directions in CMS. In order to analytically describe the kinematics of the secondary emitted particle, we assume $M_1$ is static in RNS, then the definitive kinetic energy of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.7}
\varepsilon^r_{m_2}=\frac{M_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}-B_2-E_{k_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, the energy of the residual nucleus $M_2$ in RNS can be also obtained
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.8}
E^r_{M_2}=\frac{m_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}-B_2-E_{k_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

Using the non-relativistic triangle relationship $\textbf{\textit{v}}^c_{m_2}=\textbf{\textit{v}}^c_{M_1}+\textbf{\textit{v}}^r_{m_2}$, we can obtain \cite{Zhang2003B11,Zhang1999C12}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.9}
\varepsilon^c_{m_2}=\varepsilon^r_{m_2}(1+2\gamma\cos\Theta+\gamma^2),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.10}
\cos\Theta=\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon^c_{m_2}}{\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}}[\cos\theta^c_{m_2}\cos\theta^c_{M_1}+\sin\theta^c_{m_2}\sin\theta^c_{M_1}\cos(\varphi^c_{m_2}-\varphi^c_{M_1})]-\gamma,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma \equiv \sqrt{\frac{m_2E^c_{M_1}}{M_1\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}}$. The maximum and minimum kinetic energies of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in CMS are given by the following
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.11}
\varepsilon^c_{m_2,max}=\varepsilon^r_{m_2}(1+\gamma)^2, ~~~~\varepsilon^c_{m_2,min}=\varepsilon^r_{m_2}(1-\gamma)^2.
\end{eqnarray}

In the frame of STLN, the double-differential cross section of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in RNS is assumed as the following isotropic distribution with a definitive kinetic energy $\varepsilon^r_{m_2}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.12}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^r_{m_2}d\Omega^r_{m_2}}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\delta[\varepsilon^c_{m_2}-\varepsilon^r_{m_2}(1+2\gamma\cos\Theta+\gamma^2)].
\end{eqnarray}

Starting from the basic relation of the double-differential cross sections between CMS and RNS, the double-differential cross section of $m_2$ in CMS can be obtained through the corresponding results in RNS averaged by the angular distribution of the residual nucleus $M_1$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.13}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}=\int d\Omega^c_{M_1} \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega^c_{M_1}} \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon^c_{m_2}}{\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}} \frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^r_{m_2}d\Omega^r_{m_2}}.
\end{eqnarray}

By means of the properties of $\delta$ function and Eqs. (\ref{eq3.3})-(\ref{eq3.13}), the double-differential cross section of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in CMS can be rewritten as \cite{Zhang2015,Sun2015}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.14}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2\gamma\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}\sum_l (2l+1)f_l^c(M_1)\int_0^{\pi} dtP_l(\sqrt{(1-\eta^2)\sin^2\theta^c_{m_2}}\cos t+\eta\cos\theta^c_{m_2}),         \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta=\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}{\varepsilon^c_{m_2}}}\frac{\varepsilon^c_{m_2}/
\varepsilon^r_{m_2}-1+\gamma^2}{2\gamma}$.
In term of the new integral formula \cite{Sun2015}, which has not been compiled in any integral tables or mathematical softwares, Eq. (\ref{eq3.14}) can be simplified as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.15}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}=\sum_l \frac{(-1)^l}{16\pi\gamma\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}(2l+1)f_l^c(m_1)P_l(\eta)P_l(\cos\theta^c_{m_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

The normalized double-differential cross section of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ is also standardized in nuclear reaction databases as \cite{Trkov2011}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.16}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}=\sum_l\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}f_l^c(m_2)P_l(\cos\theta^c_{m_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

By comparing Eqs. (\ref{eq3.15}) and (\ref{eq3.16}), the Legendre expansion coefficients of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in CMS can be expressed as
 \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.17}
f_l^c(m_2)=\frac{(-1)^l}{4\gamma\varepsilon^r_{m_2}}f_l^c(m_1)P_l(\eta).
\end{eqnarray}

Similarly as Eq. (\ref{eq3.17}), we can also derive the analytical expression of the Legendre expansion coefficients of the secondary residual nucleus $M_2$ in CMS. The formula is expressed as \cite{Sun2015}
 \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.18}
f_l^c(M_2)=\frac{(-1)^l}{4\Gamma E^r_{M_2}}f_l^c(m_1)P_l(H),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma=\sqrt{\frac{M_2 E^c_{M_1}}{M_1E^r_{M_2}}}$ and $H=\sqrt{\frac{E^r_{M_2}}{E^c_{M_2}}}\frac{E^c_{M_2}/E^r_{M_2}-1+\Gamma^2}{2\Gamma}$.

It is obvious that the Legendre expansion coefficients of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ and its residual nucleus $M_2$ in CMS are closely related to the first emitted particle $m_1$ and its recoiling nucleus $M_1$. Analytical expressions of Eq. (\ref{eq3.17}) and (\ref{eq3.18}) can largely reduce the volume of file-6 in nuclear reaction databases.

In CMS, the average kinetic energy of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ can be obtained by averaging its double differential cross section, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.19}
\overline{\varepsilon}^c_{m_2} &=& \int^{\varepsilon^c_{m_2,max}}_{\varepsilon^c_{m_2,min}}\varepsilon^c_{m_2}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}  \nonumber\\
&=& \varepsilon^r_{m_2}(1+\gamma^2).
\end{eqnarray}

We also can obtain the average kinetic energy of the secondary residual nucleus $M_2$ in CMS in the same way, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.20}
\overline{\varepsilon}^c_{M_2}= E^r_{M_2}(1+\Gamma^2).
\end{eqnarray}

In terms of the non-relativistic triangle relationship of the velocity vectors, the average kinetic energy of the secondary emitted particle $m_2$ in LS can be obtained
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.21}
\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_2} &=& \int \frac{1}{2}m_2(\textbf{\textit{V}}_C+\textbf{\textit{v}}^c_{m_2})^2\frac{d^2\sigma} {d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}}d\varepsilon^c_{m_2}d\Omega^c_{m_2}  \nonumber\\
 &=& \frac{m_0m_2E_L}{M^2_C}+\overline{\varepsilon}^c_{m_2}-2\frac{m_2}{M_C} \sqrt{\frac{m_0E_L E^c_{M_1}}{M_1}}f^c_1(m_1).
\end{eqnarray}

In the same way, the average kinetic energy of the secondary residual nucleus $M_2$ in LS can be derived as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.22}
\overline{E}^l_{M_2} = \frac{m_0M_2E_L}{M^2_C}+\overline{E}^c_{M_2}-2\frac{M_2}{M_C} \sqrt{\frac{m_0E_L E^c_{M_1}}{M_1}}f^c_1(m_1).
\end{eqnarray}

Thus, the energy conservation of the initial and final states for the light nucleus reactions can be strictly kept in LS as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.23}
E^l_{total} &=& \overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_1}+\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_2}+ \overline{E}^l_{M_2}+E_{k_2} \nonumber\\
 &=& E_L+B_0-B_1-B_2.
\end{eqnarray}

For the case 2), the residual nucleus $M_1$ at energy level $E_{k_1}$ spontaneously break up into two smaller particles $m_2$ and $M_2$. It is assumed that $m_2$ and $M_2$ are at ground states, i.e., $E_{k_2}=0$. As well as the case 1), we assume $M_1$ is static in RNS, then the definitive kinetic energies of $m_2$ and $M_2$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.24}
\varepsilon^r_{m_2}=\frac{M_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}+Q_{M_2})
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.25}
E^r_{M_2}=\frac{m_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}+Q_{M_2}).
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $Q_{M_2}$ is the reaction $Q$ value for the breakup process $M_1\rightarrow m_2+M_2$.

Similarly, we can obtain the average kinetic energies of $m_2$ and $M_2$ in CMS as following
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.26}
\overline{\varepsilon}^c_{m_2}=\frac{M_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}+Q_{M_2})+\frac{m_1m_2}{M_1^2}\varepsilon^c_{m_1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.27}
\overline{E}^c_{M_2}=\frac{m_2}{M_1}(E_{k_1}+Q_{M_2})+\frac{m_1M_2}{M_1^2}\varepsilon^c_{m_1}.
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, we can obtain the average kinetic energies of $m_2$ and $M_2$ in LS as following
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.28}
\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_2}=\frac{m_0m_2E_L}{M_C^2}+\overline{\varepsilon}_{m_2}^c
-\frac{2m_2}{M_CM_1}\sqrt{m_0m_1E_L\varepsilon_{m_1}^c}f_1^c(m_1)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.29}
\overline{E}^l_{M_2}=\frac{m_0M_2E_L}{M_C^2}+\overline{E}_{M_2}^c
-\frac{2M_2}{M_CM_1}\sqrt{m_0m_1E_L\varepsilon_{m_1}^c}f_1^c(m_1)
\end{eqnarray}

Obviously, the energy conservation of the initial and final states can be strictly kept in LS as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.30}
E^l_{total} &=& \overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_1}+\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_2}+ \overline{E}^l_{M_2} \nonumber\\
 &=& E_L+B_0-B_1+Q_{M_2}.
\end{eqnarray}

For the case 3), the first emitted particle $m_1$ can break spontaneously up into two smaller particles. For the 1p-shell light nucleus reactions, the unstable nucleus $m_1$ is only $^5$He, which breaks spontaneously up into a neutron ($m_n$) and an alpha ($M_{\alpha}$). As well as the case 1), we assume that $m_1$ is static in RNS. Then the definitive kinetic energies of $m_n$ and $M_{\alpha}$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.31}
\varepsilon^r_{n}=\frac{M_{\alpha}}{m_1}Q_{m_1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.32}
E^r_{\alpha}=\frac{m_n}{m_1}Q_{m_1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $Q_{m_1}$ is the reaction $Q$ value for the breakup process $^5$He$\rightarrow$ n+$\alpha$.

Similarly, we can obtain the average kinetic energies of $m_n$ and $M_{\alpha}$ in CMS as following
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.33}
\overline{\varepsilon}^c_{m_n}=\frac{M_{\alpha}}{m_1}Q_{m_1}+\frac{m_n}{m_1}\varepsilon^c_{m_1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.34}
\overline{E}^c_{M_{\alpha}}=\frac{m_n}{m_1}Q_{m_1}+\frac{M_{\alpha}}{m_1}\varepsilon^c_{m_1}.
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, we can obtain the average kinetic energies of $m_n$ and $M_{\alpha}$ in LS as following
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.35}
\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_n}=\frac{m_0m_nE_L}{M_C^2}+\overline{\varepsilon}_{m_n}^c
+\frac{2m_n}{M_Cm_1}\sqrt{m_0m_1E_L\varepsilon_{m_1}^c}f_1^c(m_1)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.36}
\overline{E}^l_{M_{\alpha}}=\frac{m_0M_{\alpha}E_L}{M_C^2}+\overline{E}_{M_{\alpha}}^c
+\frac{2M_{\alpha}}{M_Cm_1}\sqrt{m_0m_1E_L\varepsilon_{m_1}^c}f_1^c(m_1)
\end{eqnarray}

Obviously, the energy conservation of the initial and final states can be strictly kept in LS as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.37}
E^l_{total} &=& \overline{E}^l_{M_1}+\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_n}+ \overline{E}^l_{M_{\alpha}} \nonumber\\
 &=& E_L+B_0-B_1+Q_{m_1}.
\end{eqnarray}

It is worth mentioning that the symbols before the Legendre expansion coefficients $f_1^c(m_1)$ of $m_n$ and $M_{\alpha}$ are positive in case 3) comparing the negative signs in other cases. This is due to the forward tendency of the first emitted particle $m_1$.

For the case 4), the first emitted particle $m_1$ and its residual nucleus $M_1$ break spontaneously up into two smaller particles at the same time. As well as case 2), the averaged kinetic energies of $m_2$ and $M_2$ in both CMS and LS coming from the residual nucleus $M_1$ can be expressed as Eqs. (\ref{eq3.24})-(\ref{eq3.29}). For this double two-body breakup process of the 1p-shell light nucleus reactions, the first emitted particle $m_1$ is $^5$He, which can spontaneously break up into a neutron ($m_n$) and an alpha ($M_{\alpha}$). The averaged kinetic energies of neutron ($m_n$) and alpha ($M_{\alpha}$) in both CMS and LS coming from  $^5$He can be expressed as Eqs. (\ref{eq3.31})-(\ref{eq3.36}). Thus, the energy conservation of the initial and final states can be strictly kept in LS as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3.38}
E^l_{total} &=& \overline{E}^l_{M_2}+\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_2}
+\overline{E}^l_{M_{\alpha}}+\overline{\varepsilon}^l_{m_n} \nonumber\\
 &=& E_L+B_0-B_1+Q_{m_1}+Q_{M_2}.
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The partial double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons from reaction channel (p, n)$^9$B with outgoing angle 60$^0$ at $E_p$=18 MeV in LS. The points denote the experimental data taken from Ref. \cite{Verbinski1969}, and the red solid line denotes the calculated total double-differential cross sections. The black solid lines denote the partial spectra of the first emitted neutron from the compound nucleus to the ground state, up to 9th excited energy levels (as the numbers labeled in figure) of the first residual nucleus $^9$B, in which broadening effects must be taken into account. Only the cross sections with the values larger than 0.1 mb are given.  }\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The same as Fig. \ref{Fig1}, but the partial double-differential cross sections from reaction channel (p, pn)$^8$Be$\rightarrow$(p, pn+2$\alpha$). The black solid lines denote the partial spectra of the secondary emitted neutron from the 1st-17th excited energy levels (as the numbers labeled in figure) of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be to the ground state of the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be. }\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The same as Fig. \ref{Fig2}, but the black solid lines denote the partial spectra from the 6th-17th excited energy levels (as the numbers labeled in figure) of $^9$Be to the first excited energy level of $^8$Be. The green dash lines denote the partial spectra from the 12th-17th excited energy levels of $^9$Be to the second excited energy level of $^8$Be, and the blue dot lines denote the partial spectra from the 14th and 17th excited energy levels of $^9$Be to the third excited energy level of $^8$Be.}\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The same as Fig. \ref{Fig1}. But the black solid lines denote the partial spectra of the emitted neutron in reaction channel (p, p$\alpha$)$^5$He$\rightarrow$(p, p$\alpha$+n$\alpha$) from the 4th-17th excited energy levels of $^9$Be to the lowest two energy levels of the secondary residual nucleus $^5$He, which can spontaneously breakup a neutron and an alpha. And the blue dash lines denote the partial spectra of the emitted neutron in double two-body breakup channel (p, $^5$He)$^5$Li$\rightarrow$(p, n$\alpha$+p$\alpha$) from the ground state and 1st excited energy level of the $^5$He.}\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}

\section{Applications to p+$^9$Be reactions}
\label{sect3}

For neutron induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved, such as $^{6}$Li \cite{Zhang2001Li6}, $^{7}$Li \cite{Zhang2002Li7}, $^9$Be \cite{Sun2009Be9,Duan2010Be9}, $^{10}$B \cite{Zhang2003B10}, $^{11}$B \cite{Zhang2003B11}, $^{12}$C \cite{Zhang1999C12,Sun2007C12,Sun2008kerma}, $^{14}$N \cite{Yan2005N14}, $^{16}$O \cite{Zhang2001O16,Duan2005O16} and $^{19}$F \cite{Duan2007}, the calculated double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons agree greatly well with the experimental data. In this section, taking p+$^9$Be reaction at 18 MeV as an example, we analyze the open reaction channels in detail at 18 MeV, and calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons using PUNF code in the frame of STLN. The calculated results are compared with the existing experimental data, and the partial double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutron from possible energy levels are shown in detail.

\subsection{Analysis of the reaction channels}\label{sect4.1}

For proton induced $^9$Be reaction, there theoretically exists reaction channels at incident energy $E_p \leq$20 MeV in terms of the reaction threshold energies $E_{th}$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4.1}
\textmd{p}+^9\textmd{Be}\rightarrow ^{10}\textmd{B}^* \rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{llr}
(\textmd{p}, \gamma)^{10}\textmd{B}, ~~~~Q=+6.586 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=0.000 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{n})^{9}\textmd{B},~~~~Q=-1.850 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=2.067 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{p})^{9}\textmd{Be},~~~~Q=~0.000 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=0.000 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \alpha)^{6}\textmd{Li}, ~~~~Q=+2.127 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=0.000 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, ^3\textmd{He})^{7}\textmd{Li}, ~~Q=-11.202 \textmd{MeV}, ~~E_{th}=12.455 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{d})^{8}\textmd{Be}, ~~~~Q=+0.559 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=0.000 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, ^5\textmd{He})^{5}\textmd{Li}, ~~Q=-4.434 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=4.930 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{np})^{8}\textmd{Be}, ~~Q=-1.665 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=1.851 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{n}\alpha)^{5}\textmd{Li}, ~~~~Q=-3.539 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=3.935 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{pn})^{8}\textmd{Be}, ~~~~Q=-1.665 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=1.851 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \textmd{p}\alpha)^{5}\textmd{He}, ~~~~Q=-2.467 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=2.743 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \alpha\textmd{n})^{5}\textmd{Li}, ~~~~Q=-3.539 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=3.935 \textmd{MeV}\\
(\textmd{p}, \alpha\textmd{p})^{5}\textmd{He}, ~~~~Q=-2.467 \textmd{MeV}, ~~~~E_{th}=2.743 \textmd{MeV}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}

Considering the conservations of the energy, angular momentum and parity in the particle emission processes, the reaction channels of the first particle emission are listed as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4.2}
\textmd{p}+^9\textmd{Be}\rightarrow ^{10}\textmd{B}^* \rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textmd{n}+ ^{9}\textmd{B}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1, 2, ...,10)\\
\textmd{p}+ ^{9}\textmd{Be}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1, 2, ..., 21)\\
\alpha+ ^{6}\textmd{Li}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1, 2, ..., 7)\\
^3\textmd{He}+ ^{7}\textmd{Li}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1, 2, ..., 4)\\
\textmd{d}+ ^8\textmd{Be}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1, 2, ..., 8)\\
\textmd{t}+ ^7\textmd{Be} ~~(k_1=gs)\\
^5\textmd{He}+ ^5\textmd{Li}^* ~~(k_1=gs, 1).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Where, $k_1$ denotes the residual nuclei $M_1$ at $k_1$-th energy level, and $gs$ denotes its ground state.

For the first particle emission channel $^9$Be(p, n)$^9$B$^*$, the first residual nucleus $^9$B$^*$ can still emit a proton at each excited energy level, and the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be$^*$ can spontaneously break up into two alpha \cite{Zhang2003B10}. Thus, these reaction processes belong to the reaction channel $^9$Be(p, np2$\alpha$) at the final state.

For reaction channel $^9$Be(p, p)$^9$Be$^*$, if the first residual nucleus $^9$Be$^*$ is at ground state, so this channel belongs to the compound nucleus elastic scattering. If the first residual nucleus $^9$Be$^*$ is at the $k_1$-th ($k_1\geq 1$) excited energy level, each energy level will emit a neutron and the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be$^*$ can spontaneously break up into two alpha. Thus, these reaction processes also belong to the reaction channel $^9$Be(p, np2$\alpha$) at the final state. Especially, if the first residual nucleus $^9$Be$^*$ is at the $k_1$-th ($k_1\geq 4$) excited energy level, each energy level will be possible to emit an alpha, and the secondary residual nucleus $^5$He$^*$ can also spontaneously break up into a neutron and an alpha. Thus, these reaction processes also belong to the reaction channel $^9$Be(p, np2$\alpha$) at the final state. Therefore, the particle emission processes of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be$^*$ can be described as follows \cite{Duan2010Be9,Sun2009Be9}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4.3}
^{9}\textmd{Be}^* \rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
k=gs, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p}, \textmd{p})^{9}\textmd{Be}\\
k\geq 1, \textmd{n}+ ^{8}\textmd{Be}^*\rightarrow 2\alpha ~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p}, \textmd{np}2\alpha)\\
k\geq 4, \alpha+^{5}\textmd{He}^*\rightarrow \textmd{n}+\alpha ~~~~~~(\textmd{p}, \textmd{np}2\alpha).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}

For reaction channel $^9$Be(p, $\alpha$)$^6$Li$^*$, the first residual nucleus $^6$Li$^*$ is possible to emit neutron at different excited energy levels through $^6$Li$^* \rightarrow$p+$^5$He ($^5$He$\rightarrow$n+$\alpha$) and $^6$Li$^* \rightarrow$n+$^5$Li ($^5$Li$\rightarrow$p+$\alpha$) \cite{Zhang2001Li6,Zhang2002Li7}, but the cross section of this first particle emission process is so small that its contribution to neutron products can be reasonably neglected.

For reaction channel $^9$Be(p, $^3$He)$^7$Li$^*$ at $E_p=18$ MeV, the first residual nucleus $^7$Li$^*$ \cite{Zhang2001Li6,Zhang2002Li7} only at the ground, 1st and 2nd excited energy levels can not emit neutron. So the contributions of this reaction channel to neutron products are not considered in this work, as well as the reaction channels $^9$Be(p, d)$^8$Be$^*$ and $^9$Be(p, t)$^7$Be$^*$.

In addition, the double two-body breakup reaction $^9$B$^*$(p, $^5$He$^*$)$^5$Li$^*$ also belongs to channel (p, np2$\alpha$) through breakup reactions $^5$He$\rightarrow$n+$\alpha$ and $^5$Li$\rightarrow$p+$\alpha$. In conclusion, for proton induced $^9$Be reaction, there exists actually reaction channels at incident energy $E_p \leq$20 MeV as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4.4}
\textmd{p}+^9\textmd{Be}\rightarrow ^{10}\textmd{B}^* \rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\textmd{n}+^{9}\textmd{B}^* (k_1=gs, 1, ..., 10) \rightarrow \textmd{p}+^8\textmd{Be}^* \rightarrow 2\alpha, ~~~(\textmd{p, np}2\alpha)\\
\textmd{p}+^{9}\textmd{Be}^* (k_1=gs), ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Compound~nucleus~elastic\\
~~~~~~~~~~~(k_1\geq 1) \rightarrow \textmd{n}+^8\textmd{Be}^*\rightarrow 2\alpha, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, np}2\alpha)\\
~~~~~~~~~~~(k_1\geq 4) \rightarrow \alpha+^5\textmd{He}^*\rightarrow \textmd{n}+\alpha, ~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, np}2\alpha)\\
\alpha+^{6}\textmd{Li}^* (k_1=gs, 2), ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p}, \alpha)^6\textmd{Li}\\
~~~~~~~~~~~(k_1=1, 3, 4, ..., 7) \rightarrow \textmd{d}+\alpha, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, d}2\alpha)\\
^3\textmd{He}+^7\textmd{Li}^* (k_1=gs, 1, 2, 3),~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p}, ^3\textmd{He})^7\textmd{Li}\\
\textmd{d}+^8\textmd{Be}^* (k_1=gs, 1, ..., 8)\rightarrow 2\alpha,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, d} 2\alpha)\\
\textmd{t}+^7\textmd{Be} (k_1=gs),~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, t})^7\textmd{Be}\\
^5\textmd{He}+^5\textmd{Li}^* (k_1=gs, 1) \rightarrow \textmd{n}+\alpha+\textmd{p}+\alpha,~~~~~~~~(\textmd{p, np}2\alpha).\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}

From Eq. (\ref{eq4.4}), one can see that the contributions to the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutron only come from reaction channel (p, np2$\alpha$), which consists of four kinds of the particle emission processes.

\subsection{Calculation of the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons}

In the case of p+$^9$Be reaction at $E_p=18$ MeV with outgoing angle $60^0$ in LS, the partial double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons from reaction channel (p, n)$^9$B are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1}. The black lines denote the partial neutron spectra coming from the ground state to 9th excited energy levels ($k_1=gs, 1, ..., 9$, as the numbers labeled in Fig. \ref{Fig1}) of the first residual nucleus $^9$B. Because of the level widths and energy resolution in the measurements, the measured data are always in a broadening form. Therefore, for fitting measurements the broadening effect must be taken into account in the first particle emission processes \cite{Zhang1999C12}. Only the cross sections with the values larger than 0.1 mb are given, as well as the following figures.

The partial double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons from reaction channel (p, pn)$^8$Be$\rightarrow$(p, pn+2$\alpha$) are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig2}, but the black lines denote the partial spectra of the secondary emitted neutron from the $k_1$-th excited energy levels ($k_1=1, 2, ..., 17$, as the numbers labeled in Fig. \ref{Fig2}) of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be to the ground state of the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be. In Fig. \ref{Fig3}, the black solid lines denote the partial spectra of the secondary emitted neutron from the $k_1$-th excited energy levels ($k_1=6, ..., 17$, as the numbers labeled in Fig. \ref{Fig3}) of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be to the first excited energy level of the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be. The green dash lines denote the partial spectra of the secondary emitted neutron from the $k_1$-th ($k_1=12, ..., 17$) excited energy levels of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be to the second excited energy level of the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be. The blue dot lines denote the partial spectra of the secondary emitted neutron from the $k_1$-th ($k_1=14, ..., 17$) excited energy levels of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be to the third excited energy level of the secondary residual nucleus $^8$Be. The calculated results show that the contributions ($> 0.1$ mb) only come from two energy levels ($k_1=14$ and 17) of $^9$Be.

In Fig. \ref{Fig4}, the black solid lines denote the partial spectra of the emitted neutron from reaction channel (p, p$\alpha$)$^5$He$\rightarrow$(p, p$\alpha$+n$\alpha$). The contributions of these partial neutron spectra come from the emissions between the 4th-17th excited energy levels of the first residual nucleus $^9$Be and the lowest two energy levels of the secondary residual nucleus $^5$He, which can spontaneously breakup a neutron and an alpha. And the blue dash lines denote the partial spectra of the emitted neutron from reaction channel (p, $^5$He)$^5$Li$\rightarrow$(p, n$\alpha$+p$\alpha$). The contributions of these partial neutron spectra come from the ground state and the 1st excited energy level of $^5$He.

Summing up all of the partial double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons, we can obtain the total double-differential cross sections at $E_p=18$ MeV with outgoing angle $60^0$ (as shown the red lines in Figs. \ref{Fig1}-\ref{Fig4}). In these figures, the points denote the experimental data measured by Verbinski et al \cite{Verbinski1969}. One can see that the calculated total double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons agree greatly well with the experimental data. Similarly, the calculated total double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons at other angles also agree well with the experimental data as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig5} and Fig. \ref{Fig6}.

It is worth mentioning that all of the final states is the discrete levels of the residual nuclei in light nucleus reactions. Therefore, the theoretical calculations are very sensitive to the level schemes of the target and residual nuclei. Although the updated energy level schemes of the target and the residual nuclei \cite{Tilley2002,Tilley2004} are employed for reaction $^9$Be(p, xn), the contributions coming from the real 9th and 10th energy levels of the target nucleus $^9$Be, as shown the green dash lines in Fig. \ref{Fig5} and Fig. \ref{Fig6}, are still deficiencies. So two predicted levels 9.0($\frac{5}{2}^+$) and 10.0($\frac{5}{2}^+$) between the 9th and 10th levels have been employed in this paper as neutron induced $^9$Be reaction \cite{Sun2009Be9}. In Fig. \ref{Fig5} and Fig. \ref{Fig6}, the red solid lines denote the results using the real energy levels and two predicted energy levels of $^9$Be, and the green dash lines denote the results only using the real energy levels, respectively. One can see that the calculated results of adding two predicted levels agree better with the existing experimental data.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The total double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutron for reaction $^9$Be(p, xn) with outgoing angles 0$^0$, 20$^0$, 40$^0$, 60$^0$ and 80$^0$ at $E_p$=18 MeV in LS, respectively. The points denote to the experimental data taken from Ref. \cite{Verbinski1969}. The red solid lines denote the calculated results using the real and two predicted energy levels of $^9$Be, and the green dash lines denote the calculated results only using the real energy levels of $^9$Be.}\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=24cm,angle=0]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The same as Fig. \ref{Fig5}, but with outgoing angles 100$^0$, 120$^0$, 145$^0$ and 170$^0$, respectively. }\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary}
\label{sect4}

Our previous studies indicate that the calculated double-differential cross sections agree greatly well with the experimental data for neutron induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved, which have been successfully used to set up file-6 in CENDL 3.1 library. In this paper, STLN is proposed to describe the light particle induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved. In the dynamic of STLN, not only the angular momentum and parity conservations for both equilibrium and pre-equilibrium processes, but also the Coulomb barriers of the incident and outgoing charged particles are considered in different particle emission processes. In the kinematics of STLN, the recoiling effects in various emission processes are taken strictly into account. Taking $^9$Be(p, xn) reaction as an example, we further calculate the double-differential cross sections of outgoing neutrons and charged particles using PUNF code in the frame of STLN. The calculated results agree very well with the existing experimental neutron double-differential cross sections at $E_p=18$ MeV, and indicate that PUNF code is a powerful tool to set up file-6 in the reaction data library for the light particle induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved. However, it is worth mentioning that STLN and PUNF code are applied to nuclear reactions without polarization of incoming light particles and orientation of target nuclei.

In addition, two predicted levels of target nucleus $^9$Be have been employed in this paper. The great agreement between the calculated results and the experimental data shows again that there may be lack of several levels of $^9$Be. We hope these predicted levels could be validated by experiment in the future.
For analytically describing the double-differential cross sections of reaction products in the sequential particle emission processes, a new integral formula, which has not been compiled in any integral tables or mathematical softwares, is employed to obtain analytical Legendre expansion coefficients. This integral formula can largely reduce the volume of file-6 in nuclear reaction databases with full energy balance. This integral formula and STLN are being tested by light charged particles induced nuclear reactions with 1p-shell light nuclei involved.

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

We wish to thank Dr. Y. Guo, professors S. G. Zhou, N. Wang, L. Ou and M. Liu for some valuable suggestions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11465005); the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi (No. 2014GXNSFDA118003); Guangxi University Science and Technology Research Project (No. 2013ZD007); the Open Project Program of State Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China (No. Y4KF041CJ1);
and the project of outstanding young teachers' training in higher education institutions of Guangxi.