{"id":"7190adde-5894-4a1d-9f57-c03c3cee4cb8","arxiv_id":"2502.09096","paper_version":3,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":4,"one_line_summary":"Skyrme QRPA calculations support a neutron two-quasiparticle assignment nn[734↑,613↑] for the disputed 8^- isomer in 254No and predict low-energy pairing vibrational 0^+ states in 252,254No caused by suppressed neutron pairing at N=152.","lead":"This paper computes the low-energy excited states of nobelium isotopes 252No and 254No with a fully self-consistent Skyrme QRPA model. It proposes an assignment for the disputed 8^- isomer in 254No and predicts low-energy pairing vibrational 0^+ states tied to a neutron shell gap at N=152.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The 254No 8- assignment hinges on an uncalculated blocking shift that is invoked only for 254No, while the well-reproduced 252No isomer is left unshifted.","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption already identifies the uncalculated pairing-blocking shift and the fragility of the single-particle ordering near the Fermi level. My stress-test sharpens this into a concrete internal tension: the blocking correction is invoked selectively for 254No while the same correction is omitted for 252No, where the QRPA result already matches experiment. This is the most load-bearing point because the 8- assignment is the paper's headline claim and the abstract states it as a definitive assignment. The broader 0+ pairing-vibration prediction is also force-dependent (SLy6 gives an admitted BCS artifact at 0.224 MeV, SLy4/SkM* give 0.6-0.8 MeV, SVbas gives 1.24 MeV), so it would also benefit from a systematic treatment of blocking and from explicit error bars, but it is less central to the abstract's strongest assertion. The paper is honest about the fine-tuning problem, and the UNEDF/LN appendix shows that alternative functionals do not resolve the assignment. Thus the correct verdict remains CONDITIONAL: the assignment is plausible and the nuclear-structure context is valuable, but the central claim requires a computed blocking correction or a clear statement that the 0.4 MeV discrepancy is an accepted systematic uncertainty. No change to the reader's conditional verdict is needed.","tokens_in":34374,"tokens_out":2598,"duration_ms":28312,"concrete_test":"Perform QRPA calculations with explicit blocking of the neutron 2qp configuration nn[734↑,613↑] (and, for comparison, pp[514↓,624↑]) for both 254No and 252No using the same SLy6/SLy4 mean field and pairing interaction as in Table IV. If the blocking correction lowers the 254No 8- state from ~1.75 MeV to ~1.30 MeV while leaving the 252No state near 1.25 MeV, the assignment survives; if it lowers both states by similar amounts, the current 252No agreement is accidental and the 254No assignment loses its empirical anchor. A variant test: vary the spin-orbit strength b4 by ±5% for SLy6 and recompute the ǫqq' values of nn[734↑,613↑] and pp[514↓,624↑]; if the ordering flips within the 0.1-0.2 MeV margin, the configuration assignment is not robust.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central assignment nn[734↑,613↑] for the disputed 8- isomer in 254No rests on QRPA energies that overestimate experiment by ~0.4 MeV (SLy4: 1.673 MeV, SLy6: 1.747 MeV vs. Ex=1.295 MeV; Table IV), and the paper bridges this gap by citing a 0.2-0.5 MeV pairing-blocking correction from Refs. [35,45] without computing it. The load-bearing problem is the selective application of that correction: in the same Table IV, the 252No 8- isomer is reproduced almost exactly without any blocking shift (SLy4: 1.257 MeV vs. 1.254 MeV, same neutron 2qp structure). If blocking lowers 2qp energies by the cited 0.2-0.5 MeV, it should also lower the 252No state by a comparable amount, destroying the calibration that gives confidence in the single-particle scheme. The paper explicitly acknowledges that 'even a modest difference in the s-p spectra can result in different assignments' and that the 254No 8- state 'demands very fine tuning' (Sec. IV A). Since the assignment is decided by a ~0.1-0.2 MeV closeness between neutron and proton 2qp configurations, the unquantified blocking shift is not a minor detail; it is the difference between a predicted and a fitted energy. Until the blocking effect is computed within the same QRPA framework for both isotopes, the nn[734↑,613↑] assignment is plausible but not quantitatively supported.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The paper presents fully self-consistent Skyrme QRPA calculations of non-rotational low-energy states in the even-even nobelium isotopes 250-262No, focusing on 252,254No. The model uses four Skyrme forces (SLy4, SLy6, SkM*, SVbas) with different effective masses and pairing prescriptions, plus three UNEDF functionals with Lipkin-Nogami pairing in an appendix. The paper analyzes K-isomers, pairing vibrations, quadrupole and octupole states, and makes three central claims: (i) the disputed 8^- isomer in 254No is the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration nn[734↑,613↑]; (ii) the neutron shell gap at N=152 leads to a suppression of neutron pairing and predicts low-energy pairing-vibrational K^π=0^+ states at approximately 0.6-0.8 MeV in 252,254No; (iii) the observed 3^+ isomer in 254No should be accompanied by a nearby 4^+ state. The work is cross-checked with energy-weighted sum rules, moments of inertia, odd-neighbor single-particle spectra, and the two-neutron mass staggering δ_2n^(3).","tokens_in":34696,"tokens_out":5170,"duration_ms":43483,"significance":"If correct, the assignment of the 8^- isomer resolves a long-standing experimental dispute and the pairing-vibrational 0^+ states provide a concrete, experimentally testable signature of suppressed pairing in a superheavy nucleus. The paper has genuine strengths: the QRPA implementation is fully self-consistent, the energy-weighted sum rules are exhausted to 90-100%, a representative set of forces is used, and the results are cross-checked against odd-A neighbor spectra and mass-staggering data. The paper is honest about the limitations of BCS in the weak-pairing regime and about the need for fine tuning. However, the central 8^- assignment and the 0^+ interpretation have quantitative gaps that need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted as predictions.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The assignment of the 254No 8^- isomer to nn[734↑,613↑] rests on QRPA energies that overestimate the experimental Ex=1.295 MeV by 0.378 MeV (SLy4: 1.673 MeV) and 0.452 MeV (SLy6: 1.747 MeV). The paper bridges this gap by citing a 0.2-0.5 MeV pairing-blocking correction from Refs. [35,45] without computing it. The same Table IV shows that the 252No 8^- isomer, with the same neutron two-quasiparticle structure, is reproduced almost exactly without any blocking shift (SLy4: 1.257 MeV vs. 1.254 MeV). If the blocking correction lowers two-quasiparticle energies by the cited amount, it should also lower the 252No state by a comparable amount, destroying the agreement that gives confidence in the single-particle scheme. Since the neutron and proton 8^- two-quasiparticle configurations in 254No are separated by only ~0.1-0.2 MeV (186 keV for SLy6, 128 keV for SkM*, as stated in Sec. IV A), the unquantified correction is the difference between a predicted and a fitted energy. Until the blocking effect is computed within the same QRPA framework for both isotopes, the nn[734↑,613↑] assignment is plausible but not quantitatively supported.","section":"Sec. IV A, Table IV"},{"comment":"The prediction of low-energy pairing-vibrational K^π=0^+ states in 254No is not yet uniquely established. The SLy6 result of 0.224 MeV is labelled by the authors themselves as an artifact of the BCS description of weak pairing, and the SLy4 result of 0.616 MeV differs from the experimental 0^+ at 0.888 MeV by more than 0.27 MeV. The experimental paper [10] interprets this state as shape coexistence between normal-deformed and superdeformed minima, and the authors reject that interpretation using the argument that the superdeformed coupling is 'too weak to affect noticeably the low-energy spectrum' without performing a beyond-mean-field mixing calculation. Given that SkM* yields two 0^+ states at 0.767 and 0.866 MeV whose energies and structures bracket the observed state, the identification of the 0.888 MeV state as a pairing vibration is a reasonable hypothesis but not a demonstration. The authors should either compute the shape-mixing amplitude or frame the 0^+ prediction as a testable alternative to shape coexistence rather than as the most plausible explanation.","section":"Sec. IV B, Table V"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Figures 2 and 3 are extremely compressed in the manuscript, and the single-particle levels near the Fermi energy are difficult to read; please enlarge these panels or provide a tabulated list of the levels close to the Fermi level.","section":"Figures 2 and 3"},{"comment":"The terms 'particle-hole' and 'particle-particle' are used without explicit definition; please define them in terms of the F-order and the pairing factors u and v.","section":"Sec. IV A"},{"comment":"Reference [36] contains the typo 'anf W. Scheid' and should read 'and W. Scheid'.","section":"Reference [36]"},{"comment":"In Table II, the experimental E(2^+_1) values are given without error bars; please specify the experimental uncertainties or state that they are negligible on the displayed scale.","section":"Table II"},{"comment":"The phrase 'pairing blocking' is used repeatedly; please specify whether it refers to the blocking of the BCS vacuum for odd systems or to a correction to the two-quasiparticle energies in the QRPA calculation.","section":"Sec. IV A and figure captions"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is a solid application of established QRPA machinery to a topical set of nuclei. The main concern is the selective use of the blocking correction in the 8^- assignment, which may be fixable by a supplementary calculation or by revising the abstract and conclusions to present the assignment as tentative. The paper's own caveats about fine tuning are more prominent in Sec. IV A than in the abstract; the authors should align the claims. The manuscript fits the journal scope."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Worth a careful read. The genuinely new material is the fully self-consistent QRPA survey of low-energy non-rotational states across 250–262No with several Skyrme forces, and the suggestion that the 0.888 MeV 0+ state in 254No is a pairing vibration rather than shape coexistence. That interpretation gives experimenters a concrete, testable target and is argued with EWSR checks, odd-neighbor single-particle comparisons, and the delta_2n^(3) analysis. The paper is thorough and the cross-checks are real; exporting the machinery to superheavy nuclei is non-trivial.\n\nThe soft spot is exactly where the reader's report puts it. The nn[734↑,613↑] assignment for the 254No 8- isomer rests on QRPA energies that overestimate the observed value by ~0.4 MeV, and the gap is bridged by an uncalculated 0.2–0.5 MeV pairing-blocking shift. The problem is not just the missing calculation: if blocking lowers 2qp energies by that much, it should also lower the 252No 8- state, which currently matches experiment almost exactly without any shift. The paper does not resolve that inconsistency. It is, however, openly acknowledged in the text: the authors say the 8- state demands very fine tuning and recommend using it only for secondary calibration. The abstract does not carry that caveat, and that mismatch between abstract and text is a fair editorial criticism.\n\nThe 0+ pairing-vibration predictions have a wide force spread, and the SLy6 result of 0.224 MeV is admitted to be a BCS artifact. Presenting the SLy4 value as realistic while clearly showing the spread as systematic uncertainty would be more honest than listing them as flat predictions. Again, the text is candid; the figures and abstract are less so.\n\nOn balance the paper deserves serious refereeing and likely publication after revision. The central claim is not quantitatively supported as stated; either the blocking calculation needs to be done, or the claim should be softened to a plausible assignment consistent with earlier Woods-Saxon work. The systematic QRPA spectra and the pairing-vibration interpretation are valuable regardless.","headline":"A thorough QRPA study whose credible new result—pairing-vibrational 0+ states in 252,254No—sits alongside an 8- isomer assignment that is plausible but leans on an uncalculated and selectively applied blocking shift.","tokens_in":35375,"tokens_out":2249,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":24015,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No is assigned to the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$, and the same Skyrme QRPA predicts low-energy $0^{+}$ pairing vibrations from the $N=152$ shell gap.","keywords":["nobelium isotopes","K-isomers","quasiparticle random-phase approximation","Skyrme energy density functionals","pairing vibrations","neutron shell gap","N=152","superheavy nuclei"],"falsifier":"Measure the magnetic moment (g-factor) of the $8^{-}$ isomer at 1.295 MeV in $^{254}$No: the neutron assignment $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor close to zero, whereas the proton configuration $pp[514\\downarrow,624\\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor near $+1$ in nuclear magneton units, so the measured value would settle which quasiparticle pair dominates.","tokens_in":34100,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":9928,"duration_ms":85656,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper tries to establish that the full low-energy spectrum of the heaviest nobelium isotopes can be described by a single self-consistent framework, the Skyrme quasiparticle random-phase approximation, and that the long-disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No is a neutron two-quasiparticle state, $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$. The reason the assignment matters is that the same calculation ties the isomer to a predicted neutron shell gap at $N=152$: with neutron pairing nearly quenched, the model predicts low-lying $K^{\\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations around 0.6-0.8 MeV in $^{252,254}$No. If the assignment is right, the 0.888 MeV $0^{+}$ state already seen in $^{254}$No is not a shape-coexistence band head but a pairing vibration, giving an observable handle on pairing in superheavy nuclei. The paper also predicts a set of previously unsought low-energy $K$-isomers and doublets, so a sympathetic reader would treat it as a systematic map of where new spectroscopy should look.","feed_headline":"A neutron pair explains the disputed 8^- isomer in nobelium-254","feed_subtitle":"The same calculation predicts a low-energy 0+ pairing vibration that would test neutron pairing at N=152.","key_machinery":"The machinery is the fully self-consistent quasiparticle random-phase approximation (QRPA), in which the same Skyrme energy density functional supplies the mean field, the residual particle-hole and particle-particle interactions, pairing in the BCS approximation, and Coulomb exchange; spurious modes are removed before diagonalization. Excited states are treated as collective one-phonon excitations built from two-quasiparticle pairs. The decisive ingredient is the neutron single-particle spectrum near the Fermi surface: for SLy4 and SLy6 the Fermi level $[734\\uparrow]$ sits inside a wide shell gap at $N=152$, and the $8^{-}$ state emerges as an $F\\to F+3$ one-phonon excitation $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$. The pairing vibrational $0^{+}$ states are identified by their dominant diagonal two-quasiparticle components, such as $nn[734\\uparrow,734\\uparrow]$, with the largest component exhausting only 33-58% of the state norm.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is that a fully self-consistent QRPA built on the Skyrme functionals SLy6 and SLy4 reproduces the key non-rotational states in $^{252}$No and $^{254}$No together, and therefore the previously disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No should be assigned the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$. The competing proton configuration $pp[514\\downarrow,624\\uparrow]$ lies close in energy, but the SLy6 decay-chain argument, based on the $10^{+}\\to 8^{-}$ transition energy, favors the neutron pair. The same neutron shell gap that creates this isomer suppresses neutron pairing, and as a direct consequence the model predicts low-energy $K^{\\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations in $^{252,254}$No; the state observed at 0.888 MeV in $^{254}$No is identified with the predicted pairing vibration rather than with a superdeformed band head. In addition, the paper predicts that the $K^{\\pi}=3^{+}$ isomer at 0.987 MeV in $^{254}$No is accompanied by a nearby $K^{\\pi}=4^{+}$ band head, and that several further $K$-isomers ($4^{-},7^{-}$ in $^{252}$No; $4^{-},6^{-},7^{-}$ in $^{254}$No) appear at 1.2-1.4 MeV.","pith_inferences":["If the paper is right that the 0.888 MeV state in $^{254}$No is a pairing vibration, its two-neutron transfer cross section should be selectively enhanced in $(p,t)$ or $(t,p)$ reactions, unlike a shape-coexistence band head; a transfer measurement would separate the two interpretations without waiting for higher-spin spectroscopy.","The same shell-gap mechanism that quenches neutron pairing in $^{254}$No should also affect single-neutron transfer and $\\alpha$-decay fine structure in neighbouring isotones, so the prediction could be cross-checked outside the nobelium chain.","The near-degeneracy of the neutron and proton $8^{-}$ candidates, only 0.1-0.2 MeV apart, suggests the physical state may be a mixture; the paper treats them as alternative assignments, but a mildly mixed state would have intermediate $g$-factor and transition rates, which the proposed $g$-factor measurement would also reveal.","A systematic extension of the same QRPA machinery to $N=150$ isotones, such as $^{250}$Fm, could test whether the $N=152$ gap and the pairing-vibrational $0^{+}$ states persist one neutron pair away."],"forward_implications":["If the $8^{-}$ assignment is right, the two competing single-particle schemes that have fought over $^{254}$No for two decades are decided in favor of the neutron pair, and the decay chain from the 2.01 MeV $10^{+}$ band head becomes a consistent neutron two-quasiparticle ladder.","The predicted low-energy $K^{\\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations in $^{252,254}$No provide a concrete target for coincidence and transfer experiments; observing one near 0.6-0.8 MeV would confirm that the $N=152$ shell gap suppresses neutron pairing.","The $K^{\\pi}=3^{+}$ and $4^{+}$ band heads in $^{254}$No should be a nearly degenerate doublet built from the same proton pair $pp[521\\downarrow,514\\downarrow]$; their rotational bands should show strong Coriolis coupling, so the $4^{+}$ band head newly reported at 1.203 MeV is a direct test.","The predicted $4^{-},7^{-}$ states in $^{252}$No and $4^{-},6^{-},7^{-}$ states in $^{254}$No, all around 1.2-1.4 MeV, are specific falsifiable entries for future $\\gamma$-ray spectroscopy of nobelium isotopes.","The calculation implies that moments of inertia and $E(2^{+})$ energies along $^{250-262}$No should be irregular at $A\\sim 252-254$, a fingerprint of the pairing drop that should be visible in rotational band data."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Predicted the neutron shell gap at $N=152$ whose pairing suppression drives the paper's central claim.","marker":"[6]"},{"why":"Measured the $10^{+}\\to 8^{-}$ decay in $^{254}$No that the paper uses to favor the neutron $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ assignment.","marker":"[8]"},{"why":"New high-resolution gamma-decay data that reopens the dispute by suggesting the proton assignment; the paper's neutron identification must survive this counter-evidence.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"QRPA with Woods-Saxon mean field and pairing blocking that already proposed the neutron $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ assignment for the $8^{-}$ isomer.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"Quasiparticle-phonon-model calculation proposing the competing proton $pp[514\\downarrow,624\\uparrow]$ assignment; its near-degeneracy with the neutron pair is key to the paper's fine-tuning argument.","marker":"[35]"},{"why":"Reports the 0.888 MeV $0^{+}$ state in $^{254}$No that the paper reinterprets as a pairing vibration rather than a shape-coexistence state.","marker":"[10]"},{"why":"The QRPA formalism, including the mean field, residual interaction, and removal of spurious modes, that carries the calculation.","marker":"[39–41]"},{"why":"Defines the SLy4 and SLy6 Skyrme parametrizations whose single-particle spectra produce the paper's main results.","marker":"[42]"},{"why":"The Skyax code used to generate the single-particle spectra, pairing gaps, and mean-field deformations.","marker":"[48]"},{"why":"AME2020 masses used for the five-point experimental pairing gaps and the two-neutron mass staggering comparison.","marker":"[53]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Skyrme QRPA pins No-254's disputed 8^- isomer to a neutron pair","Neutron pair resolves No-254's 8^- isomer mystery","Same model predicts 0+ pairing vibration for No-252 and No-254","N=152 shell gap reduces neutron pairing, spawning 0+ states in No","Self-consistent QRPA assigns No-254's 8^- isomer to nn[734,613]"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The load-bearing premise is that the neutron single-particle ordering near the Fermi surface in $^{254}$No puts $[734\\uparrow]$ inside the shell gap and $[613\\uparrow]$ three levels above it; if the gap or ordering shifts even slightly, the neutron and proton $8^{-}$ candidates separate by only 0.1-0.2 MeV and the assignment flips.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Skyrme QRPA pins No-254's disputed 8^- isomer to a neutron pair","Neutron pair resolves No-254's 8^- isomer mystery","Same model predicts 0+ pairing vibration for No-252 and No-254","N=152 shell gap reduces neutron pairing, spawning 0+ states in No","Self-consistent QRPA assigns No-254's 8^- isomer to nn[734,613]"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000785,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3616,"prompt_tokens":1245,"completion_tokens":2371,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":861,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2259}},"tokens_in":861,"tokens_out":2371,"duration_ms":18002,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2259,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-07T22:38:15.232625+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Measure the magnetic moment (g-factor) of the $8^{-}$ isomer at 1.295 MeV in $^{254}$No: the neutron assignment $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor close to zero, whereas the proton configuration $pp[514\\downarrow,624\\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor near $+1$ in nuclear magneton units, so the measured value would settle which quasiparticle pair dominates.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Predicted the neutron shell gap at $N=152$ whose pairing suppression drives the paper's central claim."},{"cited_title":"Clark et al, High-K multi-quasiparticle states in 254No, Phys","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Measured the $10^{+}\\to 8^{-}$ decay in $^{254}$No that the paper uses to favor the neutron $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ assignment."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"New high-resolution gamma-decay data that reopens the dispute by suggesting the proton assignment; the paper's neutron identification must survive this counter-evidence."},{"cited_title":"The two-center shell model","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"QRPA with Woods-Saxon mean field and pairing blocking that already proposed the neutron $nn[734\\uparrow,613\\uparrow]$ assignment for the $8^{-}$ isomer."},{"cited_title":"Jolos, L.A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Quasiparticle-phonon-model calculation proposing the competing proton $pp[514\\downarrow,624\\uparrow]$ assignment; its near-degeneracy with the neutron pair is key to the paper's fine-tuning argument."},{"cited_title":"Forge et al, New results on the decay spectroscopy of 254No with GABRIELA@SHELS, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2586, 012083 (2023)","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Reports the 0.888 MeV $0^{+}$ state in $^{254}$No that the paper reinterprets as a pairing vibration rather than a shape-coexistence state."},{"cited_title":"Skyrme RPA for spherical and axially symmetric nuclei","cited_arxiv_id":"1510.01248","evidence_quote":"Defines the SLy4 and SLy6 Skyrme parametrizations whose single-particle spectra produce the paper's main results."},{"cited_title":"Nesterenko, V.G","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The Skyax code used to generate the single-particle spectra, pairing gaps, and mean-field deformations."},{"cited_title":"Huang, F.G","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"AME2020 masses used for the five-point experimental pairing gaps and the two-neutron mass staggering comparison."}],"review_version":1}