pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07570 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Systematics of characteristics of pygmy dipole resonances in medium-heavy and heavy atomic nuclei with neutron excess

V. A. Plujko , O. M. Gorbachenko , N. O. Romanovskyi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords pygmy dipole resonanceneutron excessmacroscopic modelenergy-weighted sum ruleneutron skin thicknessnuclear structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

A modified macroscopic model reproduces pygmy dipole resonance energies in neutron-rich nuclei when the neutron-proton interaction strength is tripled.

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

The paper applies a modified version of the Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner macroscopic model to pygmy dipole resonances in medium-heavy and heavy nuclei with neutron excess. By making the number of surface neutrons proportional to neutron skin thickness via the Pethick-Ravenhall expression, the PR INW approach produces energies whose dependence on neutron excess agrees with data and microscopic calculations for Ni, Sn, and Pb isotopes. This match requires setting the absolute value of the neutron-proton interaction strength nearly three times larger than the original INW value derived from nucleon-nucleon volume integrals. The authors additionally derive analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the electric dipole energy-weighted sum rule in the PR MSR approach and fit parameters to experimental and calculated results to propose systematics for the contribution across such nuclei.

Core claim

Within the PR INW approach the dependence of pygmy dipole resonance energies on neutron excess agrees rather well with experimental data and microscopic calculations for chains of Ni, Sn and Pb isotopes provided the absolute value of the neutron-proton interaction strength is nearly three times as large as that obtained by Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner. The PR MSR approach supplies analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the E1 energy-weighted sum rule by treating the number of surface neutrons as a function of neutron skin thickness. The macroscopic model captures the main features of the PDR, yet the required adjustment in interaction strength does not allow the conclusion that the PDR 1

What carries the argument

The PR INW approach, which scales the number of surface neutrons directly with neutron skin thickness according to the Pethick-Ravenhall expression inside the modified Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner model, together with the PR MSR approach that yields closed-form expressions for the PDR share of the E1 energy-weighted sum rule.

If this is right

  • PDR energies rise with neutron excess according to a trend that the adjusted macroscopic model reproduces for the studied isotopic chains.
  • Closed analytical formulas give the PDR fraction of the E1 EWSR once the surface-neutron scaling is inserted.
  • Fitted parameters from the PR MSR expressions supply ready estimates of the PDR contribution for other medium-heavy and heavy nuclei.
  • The macroscopic description supplies a computationally light alternative to full microscopic calculations for estimating PDR properties in nuclei with large neutron excess.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the tripling of interaction strength is required, it may signal stronger surface isovector coupling in neutron-rich nuclei than volume-integral estimates capture.
  • The explicit tie between skin thickness and surface neutrons suggests that improved neutron-skin measurements could be used to refine PDR predictions.
  • Applying the same scaling to unmeasured exotic isotopes could generate testable forecasts for upcoming radioactive-beam experiments.

Load-bearing premise

That tripling the neutron-proton interaction strength and scaling surface neutrons with neutron skin thickness supplies a physically justified description rather than an adjustment that compensates for missing microscopic physics.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the pygmy dipole resonance energy in an isotope such as 132Sn that lies significantly outside the narrow band predicted by the PR INW model with the tripled interaction strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07570 by N. O. Romanovskyi, O. M. Gorbachenko, V. A. Plujko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The energies of the PDR for isotopes of tin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The dependence of the rms thickness of the neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The comparison of PDR energy values for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the systematics of the PDR energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the ratio ¯sp,sys of systematics of the PDR to GDR sum rules of E1 EWSR along the beta￾stability line as a function of the atomic mass number and parameter of neutron-proton asymmetry I = (N −Z)/A. Ratio of the fractions is calculated according to PR MSF expression (9) and systematics (12) with the pa￾rameters from Table II of fitting the results of micro￾scopic calculations and experimental data. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: demonstrates the dependence of the ratio s¯p of the PDR to GDR sum rules for isotopes of Ni, Sn, Pb on the parameter of neutron-proton asymmetry I = (N − Z)/A. The results of the calculations by PR MSR expression Eq.(9) and systematics (12) of micro￾scopic calculations (δ = 0.37, γ = 0.55) are presented in comparison with the microscopic results within RRPA [16], HB RQRPA [19], MF RRPA [20]. 2 6 10 0.1 0.3… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The comparison of the experimental data for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The systematics of energies and the contribution of pygmy dipole resonance (PDR) to the energy-weighted sum rule of dipole gamma transitions in medium-heavy and heavy nuclei with an excess of neutrons are considered. The modified macroscopic model of Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner was used for calculating PDR energies with the number of surface neutrons proportional to the thickness of the neutron skin according to the Pethick- Ravenhall expression (PR INW approach). Such modification of the macroscopic approach by Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner enables to take into account microscopic evidence of direct relationship between skin thickness and low-energy dipole response. The results are compared with the microscopic calculations for the chains of Ni, Sn and Pb isotopes. It was demonstrated that the dependence of the magnitudes of the energies within the PR INW approach on neutron excess is in rather good agreement with experimental data and microscopic calculations if the absolute value of the strength of the neutron-proton interaction is nearly three times as large as that obtained by Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner by the volume integral of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. While the macroscopic INW PR model can describe the main features of the PDR, above mentioned discrepancy of the strength values doesn't not provide reason enough for the conclusion that PDR is pure collective state. The analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the energy-weighted sum rule for electric dipole transitions (E1 EWSR) are used. They are based on the "molecular" energy-weighted E1 sum rule considering the number of surface neutrons as a function of the neutron thickness (PR MSR approach). Systematics for the PDR fraction of E1 EWSR are proposed with parameters obtained by fitting the experimental data and microscopic calculations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a modified macroscopic Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner (INW) model for pygmy dipole resonances (PDR) in neutron-rich nuclei. By scaling the number of surface neutrons with neutron-skin thickness via the Pethick-Ravenhall expression (PR INW approach), it computes PDR energies and reports that the neutron-excess dependence agrees with experimental data and microscopic calculations for Ni, Sn, and Pb chains only when the neutron-proton interaction strength is increased by a factor of approximately three relative to the original INW volume-integral value. Analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the E1 energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR) are also derived within a 'molecular' sum-rule framework (PR MSR), with parameters fitted to data and calculations.

Significance. If the large rescaling of the interaction strength can be independently justified, the PR INW approach could supply a simple macroscopic route to PDR energy systematics that incorporates microscopic evidence linking skin thickness to low-energy dipole strength. The EWSR expressions similarly aim to provide practical systematics. However, the necessity of the factor-of-three adjustment and post-hoc fitting reduces the model's predictive power and raises questions about whether missing physics (e.g., collective-single-particle mixing or surface isovector terms) is being compensated rather than captured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and main results: The central claim of 'rather good agreement' for the neutron-excess dependence of PDR energies holds only after increasing the absolute value of the neutron-proton interaction strength by a factor of ~3 relative to the original INW value. No derivation, external constraint, or physical motivation is supplied for this rescaling; it is introduced solely to restore agreement. The manuscript should explicitly compare results obtained with the original INW strength to quantify how much of the reported agreement is attributable to the PR skin-thickness scaling alone versus the additional free parameter.
  2. [EWSR systematics] EWSR section: The parameters entering the PR MSR analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the E1 EWSR are obtained by fitting experimental data and microscopic calculations. The fitting procedure (number of free parameters, functional form, data sets used, and resulting uncertainties) is not detailed, making it impossible to assess whether the proposed systematics are robust or overfitted.
  3. [Discussion / Conclusions] Discussion: The paper correctly notes that the strength discrepancy precludes concluding that the PDR is a pure collective state, yet the abstract and conclusions still present the scaled model as successfully describing the main features. A quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., variation of the strength factor by ±20 %) is needed to substantiate how load-bearing the PR modification remains once the ad-hoc scaling is removed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a clear grammatical error: 'doesn't not provide' should read 'does not provide'.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the interaction strength (volume integral vs. absolute value) and the precise definition of the factor-of-three rescaling should be stated explicitly in the methods section for reproducibility.
  3. [Figures] If figures compare PR INW results to data and microscopic calculations, they should include a panel or table showing the same quantities computed with the original (unscaled) INW strength to illustrate the effect of the adjustment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important points regarding the presentation of the PR INW rescaling, the EWSR fitting procedure, and the balance between the model's achievements and limitations. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and main results: The central claim of 'rather good agreement' for the neutron-excess dependence of PDR energies holds only after increasing the absolute value of the neutron-proton interaction strength by a factor of ~3 relative to the original INW value. No derivation, external constraint, or physical motivation is supplied for this rescaling; it is introduced solely to restore agreement. The manuscript should explicitly compare results obtained with the original INW strength to quantify how much of the reported agreement is attributable to the PR skin-thickness scaling alone versus the additional free parameter.

    Authors: We agree that the factor-of-three rescaling is an empirical adjustment introduced to restore quantitative agreement with data and microscopic calculations. The PR modification itself is motivated by the established microscopic connection between neutron-skin thickness and low-energy dipole strength, which is the central innovation of the approach. To quantify the separate contributions, we will add explicit comparisons in the revised manuscript: PDR energies computed with the original INW strength (both with and without the PR skin-thickness scaling) versus the scaled strength. This will show that the PR scaling improves the neutron-excess trend even before the overall strength adjustment, while the factor of three primarily corrects the absolute energy scale. We will also expand the discussion to note possible physical origins of the rescaling, such as the effective surface character of the interaction or missing isovector surface terms, although a first-principles derivation lies outside the macroscopic framework. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [EWSR systematics] EWSR section: The parameters entering the PR MSR analytical expressions for the PDR fraction of the E1 EWSR are obtained by fitting experimental data and microscopic calculations. The fitting procedure (number of free parameters, functional form, data sets used, and resulting uncertainties) is not detailed, making it impossible to assess whether the proposed systematics are robust or overfitted.

    Authors: We accept that the fitting details were not sufficiently documented. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to specify: (i) the exact data sets employed (experimental PDR EWSR fractions for Ni, Sn and Pb isotopes together with the corresponding microscopic results from the literature), (ii) the functional form derived from the molecular sum-rule framework with the PR neutron-skin dependence, (iii) the number of free parameters (two adjustable coefficients), and (iv) the uncertainties obtained from the least-squares fit. These additions will allow readers to judge the robustness of the proposed systematics. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion / Conclusions] Discussion: The paper correctly notes that the strength discrepancy precludes concluding that the PDR is a pure collective state, yet the abstract and conclusions still present the scaled model as successfully describing the main features. A quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., variation of the strength factor by ±20 %) is needed to substantiate how load-bearing the PR modification remains once the ad-hoc scaling is removed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the tonal inconsistency between the cautious discussion and the more affirmative statements in the abstract and conclusions. We will revise both the abstract and the conclusions to state more precisely that the neutron-excess dependence is reproduced once the interaction strength is scaled, while underscoring the remaining discrepancy in absolute strength. In addition, we will include a quantitative sensitivity study in which the interaction-strength factor is varied by ±20 % around the adopted value; the resulting PDR energy trends for the Ni, Sn and Pb chains will be shown to demonstrate that the qualitative neutron-excess dependence remains stable under the PR modification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

PDR energy dependence and EWSR systematics rely on fitted n-p strength and parameters

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "It was demonstrated that the dependence of the magnitudes of the energies within the PR INW approach on neutron excess is in rather good agreement with experimental data and microscopic calculations if the absolute value of the strength of the neutron-proton interaction is nearly three times as large as that obtained by Isacker-Nagarajan-Warner by the volume integral of the nucleon-nucleon interaction."

    The reported agreement is shown only after explicitly scaling the interaction strength parameter by a factor of approximately three; without this tuning the model does not match, so the demonstration reduces to a fit of the adjustable input rather than a first-principles prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Systematics for the PDR fraction of E1 EWSR are proposed with parameters obtained by fitting the experimental data and microscopic calculations."

    The proposed systematics and their parameters are obtained directly by fitting to the experimental data and microscopic results used for validation, rendering the systematics equivalent to a reparametrization of the inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper modifies the INW model using the external Pethick-Ravenhall skin-thickness relation and reports agreement with data only after rescaling the neutron-proton interaction strength by a factor of three; the EWSR systematics are explicitly constructed by fitting parameters to the same data and calculations. These steps make the quantitative claims dependent on adjustments chosen to match inputs rather than independent derivations, producing partial circularity while the underlying macroscopic framework remains non-self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on two domain assumptions (macroscopic validity of the INW model and direct proportionality of surface neutrons to skin thickness) plus two free parameters (interaction strength scaled by a factor of three and the fitted EWSR coefficients) that are chosen to match data.

free parameters (2)
  • neutron-proton interaction strength = approximately 3 times original INW value
    Set to nearly three times the original INW value to obtain agreement with microscopic calculations and data for PDR energies.
  • EWSR-fraction parameters = fitted to data
    Obtained by fitting the analytical PR MSR expressions to experimental data and microscopic calculations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Number of surface neutrons is proportional to neutron-skin thickness according to the Pethick-Ravenhall expression
    Invoked to modify the INW model and incorporate microscopic evidence of skin-thickness dependence.
  • domain assumption The modified macroscopic INW model remains applicable to PDR in medium-heavy and heavy nuclei with neutron excess
    Basis for all energy and sum-rule calculations presented.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 1895 out tokens · 75434 ms · 2026-05-10T17:02:34.210519+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The figure 1 shows that microscopic values of the PDR energies decrease with growing parameter of the neutron- proton asymmetry

    The follow- ing microscopic methods were used: the relativistic RPA (RRPA)[16], the relativistic quasiparticle RPA (RQRPA) [18], mean-field (MF) plus the relativistic RPA (MF RRPA)[20], the quasiparticle-phonon model (QPM)[21], the relativistic quasiparticle time blocking approximation (RQTBA)[22], a self-consistent Hartree-Fock plus contin- uum RPA approa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    the number of surface neutrons Ns, and 2) the thick- ness y of the neutron skin for 2pF Fermi nuclear dis- 3 tributions ( A.4), i.e., a difference between neutron and proton radii of the distributions. We use expression by Pethick- Ravenhall ( A.19): Ns = 3 yN/R 0, for depen- dence thickness of surface neutron number on the neu- tron skin and Eq.( A.10) fo...

    work page

  3. [3]

    4A/ (200 + A)

    The beta-stability line is defined by Green formula [36, 37]: I = 0. 4A/ (200 + A). It can be seen from the figure that the values of the rms thicknesses with different parameters are in rather close agreement and they are not contradictory to exper- imental data. In what follows the expression for ∆ rnp with parameters ( A.15), ( A.18) is adopted, because i...

    work page 1930

  4. [4]

    68 · ∆ rnp A1/ 3 = ¯sp, 2

    takes the form ¯sp, 1 ∼ = 1 2 − · √ 15 ·∆ rnp/R 0 √ 15 ·∆ rnp R0 ≈ ≈ 1. 68 · ∆ rnp A1/ 3 = ¯sp, 2. (10) We suppose, that E1 EWSR (integral cross-section σint) can be taken to be the sum of two components from excitations of the GDR and PDR. Therefore, the expression for the PDR fraction of the E1 EWSR within PR MSR is considered in the form sp = m1 L=1(PD...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The last column is the relative chi-squa re values for ¯sp,sys , ¯sp, 2 to the value χ 2 ¯sp, 1

    (in brackets). The last column is the relative chi-squa re values for ¯sp,sys , ¯sp, 2 to the value χ 2 ¯sp, 1 . for PR MSR expres- sion given by Eq.(9). Expression Parameters ¯ χ 2 ¯sp,α / ¯χ 2 ¯sp, 1 ¯sp,sys , (12) δ = 0. 37, γ = 0. 55(δ = 0. 37, γ = 0. 78) 0.45(0.37) ¯sp, 2, (12) δ = 0. 435, γ = 1. 0(δ = 0. 435, γ = 1. 0) 0.85(1.45) As is seen from Tab...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Figure 5 demonstrates the dependence of the ratio ¯sp of the PDR to GDR sum rules for isotopes of Ni, Sn, Pb on the parameter of neutron-proton asymmetry I = ( N − Z)/A

    than analytical expressions PR MSR. Figure 5 demonstrates the dependence of the ratio ¯sp of the PDR to GDR sum rules for isotopes of Ni, Sn, Pb on the parameter of neutron-proton asymmetry I = ( N − Z)/A . The results of the calculations by PR MSR expression Eq.(

    work page

  7. [7]

    37, γ = 0

    and systematics ( 12) of micro- scopic calculations ( δ = 0 . 37, γ = 0 . 55) are presented in comparison with the microscopic results within RRPA [16], HB RQRPA [19], MF RRPA [20]. 2 6 10 0.1 0.3 Ni s− p (%) 2 4 6 8 0.1 0.3 Sn I=(N−Z)/A 2 4 6 0.1 0.3 Pb FIG. 5. The values ¯ sp, 1 (9) and ¯sp,sys (12) of the ratio of the PDR to GDR fractions in E1 EWSR fo...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Figure 5 shows that the ratio of the PDR to GDR sum rules in accordance with the PR MSR expression (

    55), filled circle /CIRCLE- RRPA [16], circle ⊙ - HB RQRPA [19], cross + - MF RRPA [20]. Figure 5 shows that the ratio of the PDR to GDR sum rules in accordance with the PR MSR expression (

    work page

  9. [9]

    These values are less in ≈ 20-30% than the values of microscopic calculations and systematics ( 12) of the microscopic calculations

    does not exceed ≈ 6-8% in neutron-rich nuclei with A ≥≈ 100. These values are less in ≈ 20-30% than the values of microscopic calculations and systematics ( 12) of the microscopic calculations. The values of the frac- tions of the PDR to GDR sum rules calculated by the PR MSR expression (

    work page

  10. [10]

    In microscopic calculations such behavior of ¯sp is demonstrated at a small neutron excess

    and systematics ( 12) of micro- scopic data are monotonically increasing with an excess of neutrons. In microscopic calculations such behavior of ¯sp is demonstrated at a small neutron excess. Figure 6 shows the ratio ¯ sp,sys of systematics of the PDR to GDR sum rules of E1 EWSR along the beta- stability line as a function of the atomic mass number and p...

    work page

  11. [11]

    The beta- stability line is determined by the Green formula [36, 37]: I = 0

    and systematics ( 12) with the pa- rameters from Table II of fitting the results of micro- scopic calculations and experimental data. The beta- stability line is determined by the Green formula [36, 37]: I = 0. 4A/ (200 + A) . It can be seen that along the beta-stability line, the values of the ratio ¯ sp of the PDR to GDR sum rules calculated within differ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    37, γ = 0

    78), inverted triangle ▼ - systematics (12) of microscopic calculations ( δ = 0. 37, γ = 0. 55). of the systematics of microscopic calculations are placed higher than for the systematics of experimental data. Figure 7 compares the experimental data of the PDR fraction sp of E1 EWSR with calculations within both PR MSR, Eqs. ( 11), ( 9), and systematics ( ...

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    in Ref.[27] and the equation of the frequency of the neutron surface oscilla- tions relative to the nuclear core, and can be presented in the form E2 p = 4π |κ np| 3 ℏ2ρn0ρp0 µ p ∆ F (Rn, R p), ∆ F = F (Rn, R p) − F (Rp, R p). (A.1) Here, |κ np| is the absolute value of the strength of ef- fective neutron- proton interaction; µ p= mNsAc/A is the reduced m...

    work page

  14. [14]

    in Ref.[27] which can be presented in the form F (Rn, R p) = 1 4a csch2( y 2a )× × [ coth( y 2a ) cn − cp a − (c′ n + c′ p) ] . (A.3) Here, ci = ( R3 i + π 2a2Ri)/ 3, c′ i ≡ c′(Ri, a ) = ∂c i/∂R i=R2 i + π 2a2/ 3; and Rn, R p- radii of neutron and proton density distributions in the form of two parameter Fermi functions (2pF distribution), ρj(r) = ρ0,j · ...

    work page

  15. [15]

    105, r3 = − 0. 548. These values are rather close to those used in modified drop model [41] (in fm): r1 = 0. 891 ,r2 = 1 . 394,r3 = − 0. 930 . We have used the value of a = ap ∼ = 0. 57 fm [63] for the parameter of diffuseness. In accordance with theoretical studies and fitting ex- perimental data ([38–40, 69–72]), the rms thickness ∆ rnp of the neutron skin...

    work page

  16. [16]

    (A.22) As a result, the following value for the parameter rm is obtained: 10 rm ∼ = Rm/A 1/ 3 = 1

    4A2/ (A + 200) [36, 37, 77], namely, Aj = 5 [ Zj + √ Z 2 j + 40Zj + 10000 − 100 ] / 3. (A.22) As a result, the following value for the parameter rm is obtained: 10 rm ∼ = Rm/A 1/ 3 = 1. 25 ± 0. 02 fm . (A.23) Note that, the dependence of the GDR energy on atomic mass number for the method by Isacker - Nagarajan-Warner [27] at constant rm is proportional t...

    work page

  17. [17]

    40 √ |κ np|= 59

    23 MeV ·fm3, the factor Kg in ( A.26) equals to Kg = 1. 40 √ |κ np|= 59. 9 MeV . (A.27) The expression for the PDR energy was first proposed by Suzuki-Ikeda-Sato in Ref.[26]. It can be presented in the following form (in MeV) Ep,SIS = 2. 082 A1/ 3 [ ℏ28asym m r2 0 ZN A2 ]1/ 2 [ Ns A − Ns Z N ]1/ 2 = = 79 [ 4ZN A2 ]1/ 2 [ Ns A − Ns Z N ]1/ 2 A− 1/ 3, (A.28)...

    work page

  18. [18]

    Savran, T

    D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 70, 210 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Savran, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 590, 012011 (2015)

    D. Savran, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 590, 012011 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Zilges, V

    A. Zilges, V. Derya, D. Savran, A. Hen- nig, S. Pickstone, and M. Spieker, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 580, 012052 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Bracco, E

    A. Bracco, E. Lanza, and A. Tamii, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 106, 360 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Lanza and A

    E. Lanza and A. Vitturi, in Handbook of Nuclear Physics , edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (Springer Nature Singapore, 2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Lanza, L

    E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 129, 104006 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Lanza, L

    E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2586, 012084 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Brzosko, E

    J. Brzosko, E. Gierlik, A. J. Soltan, and Z. Wilhelmi, Canadian Journal of Physics 47, 2850 (1969)

    work page 1969

  26. [26]

    Igashira, H

    M. Igashira, H. Kitazawa, M. Shimizu, H. Komano, and N. Yamamuro, Nucl. Phys. A 457, 301 (1986)

    work page 1986

  27. [27]

    Goriely, Phys

    S. Goriely, Phys. Lett. B 436, 10 (1998)

    work page 1998

  28. [28]

    Arnould, S

    M. Arnould, S. Goriely, and K. Takahashi, Physics Reports 450, 97 (2007)

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    Goriely, European Physical Journal A 59, 16 (2023)

    S. Goriely, European Physical Journal A 59, 16 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Aumannet al., Low-energy dipole response of exotic nuclei, Eur

    T. Aumann, European Physical Journal A 55, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12862-7 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12862-7 2019

  31. [31]

    Zilges, D

    A. Zilges, D. Balabanski, J. Isaak, and N. Pietralla, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 122, 103903 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Chambers, E

    J. Chambers, E. Zaremba, J. Adams, and B. Castel, Phys. Rev. C 50, R2671 (1994)

    work page 1994

  33. [33]

    Vretenar, N

    D. Vretenar, N. Paar, P. Ring, and G. Lalazissis, Nucl. Phys. A 692, 496 (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Goriely and E

    S. Goriely and E. Khan, Nucl. Phys. A 706, 217 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    N. Paar, T. Niksic, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 606, 288 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    N. Paar, P. Ring, T. Niksic, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034312 (2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    Piekarewicz, Phys

    J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044325 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Tsoneva and H

    N. Tsoneva and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024321 (2008)

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, V. Tselyaev, and K. Langanke, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054312 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    G. Co, V. De Donno, M. Anguiano, and A. Lallena, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034305 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Lanza, A

    E. Lanza, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054607 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Abrosimov and O

    V. Abrosimov and O. Davidovskaya, Ukrainian Journal of Physics 54, 1069 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Suzuki, K

    Y. Suzuki, K. Ikeda, and H. Sato, Progress of Theoretical Physics 83, 180 (1990)

    work page 1990

  44. [44]

    Van Isacker, M

    P. Van Isacker, M. Nagarajan, and D. Warner, Phys. Rev. C 45, R13 (1992)

    work page 1992

  45. [45]

    Baran, B

    V. Baran, B. Frecus, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rev. C 85, 051601(R) (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Baran, B

    V. Baran, B. Frecus, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, and R. Zus, Romanian Journal of Physics 57, 36 (2012). 11

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Croitoru, V

    A. Croitoru, V. Baran, T. Isdraila, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, and M. Marciu, Romanian Journal of Physics 60, 748 (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Plujko, O

    V. Plujko, O. Gorbachenko, I. Kadenko, and K. Solodovnik, EPJ Web of Conferences 146, 05014 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Gorbachenko, V

    O. Gorbachenko, V. Plujko, A. Kucher, and V. Petrenko, Nucl. Phys. and Atomic Energy 24, 17 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Goldhaber and E

    M. Goldhaber and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 74, 1046–1049 (1948)

    work page 1948

  51. [51]

    Pethick and D

    C. Pethick and D. Ravenhall, Nucl. Phys. A 606, 173 (1996)

    work page 1996

  52. [52]

    Markova, P

    M. Markova, P. Von Neumann-Cosel, and E. Litvinova, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139216 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Green, Physical Review 83, 1248 (1951)

    A. Green, Physical Review 83, 1248 (1951)

    work page 1951

  54. [54]

    Green and N

    A. Green and N. Engler, Physical Review 91, 40 (1953)

    work page 1953

  55. [55]

    Trzci´ nska, J

    A. Trzci´ nska, J. Jastrzebski, P. Lubinski, F. Hart- man, R. Schmidt, T. von Egidy, and B. Klos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 082501 (2001)

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Jastrzebski, A

    J. Jastrzebski, A. Trzci´ nska, P. Lubinski, B. K/suppress los, F. Hartmann, T. von Egidy, and S. Wycech, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 13, 343–351 (2004)

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    J. T. Zhang, X. L. Tu, P. Sarriguren, K. Yue, Q. Zeng, Z. Y. Sun, M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, X. H. Zhou, and Y. A. Litvinov, Phys. Rev. C 104, 034303 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Myers and K

    W. Myers and K. H. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. A 410, 61 (1983)

    work page 1983

  59. [59]

    Goriely, F

    S. Goriely, F. Tondeur, and J. Pearson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 77, 311–381 (2001)

    work page 2001

  60. [60]

    Lipparini and S

    E. Lipparini and S. Stringari, Phys. Rep. 175, 103 (1989)

    work page 1989

  61. [61]

    Alhassid, M

    Y. Alhassid, M. Gai, and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1482–1485 (1982)

    work page 1982

  62. [62]

    Kurasawa and T

    H. Kurasawa and T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 94, 931 (1995)

    work page 1995

  63. [63]

    Govaert, F

    K. Govaert, F. Bauwens, J. Bryssinck, D. D. Frenne, E. Jacobs, W. Mondelaers, L. Govor, and V. Y. Pono- marev, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2229 (1998)

    work page 1998

  64. [64]

    Adrich, A

    P. Adrich, A. Klimkiewicz, M. Fallot, K. Boretzky, T. Aumann, D. Cortina-Gil, U. D. Pramanik, T. W. Elze, H. Emling, H. Geissel, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 132501 (2005)

    work page 2005

  65. [65]

    Savran, M

    D. Savran, M. Elvers, J. Endres, M. Fritzsche, B. L¨ oher, N. Pietralla, V. Y. Ponomarev, C. R¨ omig, L. Schnorrenberger, K. Sonnabend, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024326 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Hartmann, M

    T. Hartmann, M. Babilon, S. Kamerdzhiev, E. Litvinova, D. Savran, S. Volz, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 192501 (2004)

    work page 2004

  67. [67]

    Klimkiewicz, N

    A. Klimkiewicz, N. Paar, P. Adrich, M. Fallot, K. Boret- zky, T. Aumann, D. Cortina-Gil, U. D. Pramanik, T. W. Elze, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 76, 051603 (2007)

    work page 2007

  68. [68]

    Schwengner, G

    R. Schwengner, G. Rusev, N. Benouaret, R. Beyer, M. Erhard, E. Grosse, A. R. Junghans, J. Klug, K. Ko- sev, L. Kostov, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 76, 034321 (2007)

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    Schwengner, G

    R. Schwengner, G. Rusev, N. Tsoneva, N. Benouaret, R. Beyer, M. Erhard, E. Grosse, A. R. Junghans, J. Klug, K. Kosev, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 78, 064314 (2008)

    work page 2008

  70. [70]

    ¨Ozel, J

    B. ¨Ozel, J. Enders, P. von Neumann-Cosel, I. Poltoratska, A. Richter, D. Savran, S. Volz, and A. Zilges, Nuclear Phys. A 788, 385 (2007)

    work page 2007

  71. [71]

    S. Volz, N. Tsoneva, M. Babilon, M. Elvers, J. Hasper, R.-D. Herzberg, H. Lenske, K. Lindenberg, D. Savran, and A. Zilges, Nuclear Phys. A 779, 1 (2006)

    work page 2006

  72. [72]

    Makinaga, R

    A. Makinaga, R. Schwengner, G. Rusev, F. D¨ onau, S. Frauendorf, D. Bemmerer, R. Beyer, P. Cre- spo, M. Erhard, A. R. Junghans, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 82, 024314 (2010)

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    Schwengner, R

    R. Schwengner, R. Massarczyk, B. A. Brown, R. Beyer, F. D¨ onau, M. Erhard, E. Grosse, A. R. Junghans, K. Ko- sev, C. Nair, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 81, 054315 (2010)

    work page 2010

  74. [74]

    Schramm, R

    G. Schramm, R. Massarczyk, A. R. Junghans, T. Belgya, R. Beyer, E. Birgersson, E. Grosse, M. Kempe, Z. Kis, K. Kosev, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 85, 014311 (2012)

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Wieland, A

    O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera, G. Benzoni, N. Blasi, S. Brambilla, F. Crespi, S. Leoni, B. Million, R. Nicolini, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 092502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    Poltoratska, P

    I. Poltoratska, P. von Neumann-Cosel, A. Tamii, T. Adachi, C. A. Bertulani, J. Carter, M. Do- zono, H. Fujita, K. Fujita, Y. Fujita, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 85, 041304 (2012)

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    Iwamoto, H

    C. Iwamoto, H. Utsunomiya, A. Tamii, H. Akimune, H. Nakada, T. Shima, T. Yamagata, T. Kawabata, Y. Fujita, H. Matsubara, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 262501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    H. K. Toft, A. C. Larsen, A. B¨ urger, M. Guttormsen, A. G¨ orgen, H. T. Nyhus, T. Renstrøm, S. Siem, G. M. Tveten, and A. Voinov, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044320 (2011)

    work page 2011

  79. [79]

    Elton, Nucl

    L. Elton, Nucl. Phys. 5, 173 (1958)

    work page 1958

  80. [80]

    Elton, Nuclear Sizes (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 1961)

    L. Elton, Nuclear Sizes (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 1961)

    work page 1961

Showing first 80 references.