pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19829 · v1 · pith:P7LMQX5Enew · submitted 2026-06-18 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Parameter-free deformation variables of the proxy-SU(3) symmetry in even-even actinide, superheavy and hyperheavy nuclei with Z=82-126, N=82-258

Dennis Bonatsos , V. K. B. Kota , Andriana Martinou , S. K. Peroulis , D. Petrellis , P. Vasileiou , T. J. Mertzimekis , N. Minkov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords proxy-SU(3)deformation variablesbeta and gammaactinide nucleisuperheavy nucleihighest-weight irrepparameter-free predictionseven-even nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Proxy-SU(3) supplies parameter-free beta and gamma values for every even-even nucleus from Z=82 to Z=126.

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

The paper extends the proxy-SU(3) method to actinide, superheavy and hyperheavy nuclei by restoring SU(3) symmetry through a unitary transformation and then selecting, for each nucleus, the highest-weight irreducible representation allowed by the Pauli principle. When that representation is fully symmetric the next-highest-weight representation is used instead. From these representations the method produces concrete numerical predictions for the collective deformation parameters beta and gamma that contain no adjustable constants. The resulting tables cover the full range of even-even nuclei with proton numbers 82–126 and neutron numbers 82–258, allowing direct study of shape evolution, prolate-to-oblate transitions and mirror symmetries along the valley of stability.

Core claim

Within the proxy-SU(3) approach the SU(3) symmetry of the three-dimensional harmonic oscillator is restored by a unitary transformation. For each nucleus the most symmetric irreducible representation permitted by the Pauli principle and the short-range nucleon-nucleon force, called the highest-weight irrep, suffices except when that irrep is completely symmetric; in those cases the next-highest-weight irrep is also required. The paper tabulates these irreps together with the resulting parameter-free predictions for the collective deformation variables beta and gamma for the entire range Z = 82–126, N = 82–258.

What carries the argument

The unitary transformation that restores SU(3) symmetry in the presence of strong spin-orbit coupling, together with the rule that selects the highest-weight (or next-highest-weight) irreducible representation allowed by the Pauli principle.

If this is right

  • A complete set of beta and gamma values is now available for all even-even nuclei with Z from 82 to 126 and N from 82 to 258.
  • These values can be used to trace the prolate-to-oblate shape transition across isotopic chains without any fitted parameters.
  • Mirror symmetries in the deformation variables become directly testable for nuclei in this mass region.
  • The evolution of collective variables along the valley of stability can be followed for the full range of proton and neutron numbers considered.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Experimental quadrupole moments measured in the few superheavy nuclei that have been produced could serve as an immediate check on whether the tabulated irreps remain accurate at the upper end of the range.
  • The tabulated highest-weight irreps could be inserted directly into other algebraic models that treat pairing or higher-order interactions explicitly.
  • One could test whether the same selection rule continues to hold when the calculations are repeated for odd-mass nuclei by adding a single-particle degree of freedom.

Load-bearing premise

The proxy-SU(3) unitary transformation and the rule for selecting highest-weight or next-highest-weight irreps, previously validated only up to the rare-earth region, remain valid without modification for the actinide-to-hyperheavy mass range.

What would settle it

A systematic discrepancy between the predicted beta values and measured quadrupole deformation parameters in any well-studied actinide nucleus would falsify the claim that the same irreps suffice in the heavier region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19829 by Andriana Martinou, Dennis Bonatsos, D. Petrellis, N. Minkov, P. Vasileiou, S. K. Peroulis, T. J. Mertzimekis, V. K. B. Kota.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Proxy-SU(3) predictions for the collective variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The parameter-free predictions for the collective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The parameter-free predictions for the collective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superheavy and hyperheavy nuclei are one of the frontiers of nuclear structure nowadays, while also for many actinides rather limited experimental information exists. Therefore, theoretical methods providing parameter-independent predictions for these nuclei are of particular interest. Such a method is the proxy-SU(3) approximation to the shell model, which has been adequately tested against experimental data in medium-mass and heavy nuclei up to the rare earth region, and has been found to provide reliable, parameter-independent predictions for the collective deformation variables beta and gamma. Within the proxy-SU(3) approach, the SU(3) symmetry of the 3-dimensional harmonic oscillator, which is destroyed beyond the sd shell by the strong spin-orbit interaction, is restored through a unitary transformation. For each nucleus, the most symmetric irreducible representation (irrep) allowed by the Pauli principle and the short-range nature of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, called the highest-weight (hw ) irrep in mathematical language, is found to suffice, except in cases in which the hw irrep turns out to be completely symmetric, so that the next highest weight (nhw) irrep has also to be included. In this article we provide a full collection of the hw and nhw irreps, as well as of the corresponding parameter-free predictions for the deformation variables beta and gamma, for all atomic nuclei ranging from Z=82, N=82 to Z=126, N=258. Several cases exemplifying the use of the collected results for studying the prolate to oblate shape transition, mirror symmetries, as well as the evolution of the collective variables along the valley of stability are also considered.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper extends the proxy-SU(3) framework to provide a complete tabulation of highest-weight (hw) and next-highest-weight (nhw) SU(3) irreps, together with the associated parameter-free predictions for the collective deformation variables β and γ, for all even-even nuclei in the range Z=82–126, N=82–258. It states that the SU(3) symmetry of the 3D harmonic oscillator is restored via a unitary transformation that maps the realistic shell onto an effective sd-like proxy, and that the most symmetric irrep allowed by the Pauli principle and short-range NN interaction (hw, or nhw when hw is fully symmetric) suffices; the work then applies this rule to generate the tabulated predictions and illustrates their use for prolate–oblate transitions, mirror symmetries, and evolution along the valley of stability.

Significance. If the unitary mapping and hw/nhw selection rules remain valid without modification in the actinide-to-hyperheavy domain, the parameter-free character of the β and γ predictions would constitute a genuine strength, supplying falsifiable, zero-parameter estimates for a mass region where experimental data remain sparse. The systematic collection of irreps and the explicit discussion of shape-transition and mirror-symmetry examples add practical utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the identical unitary transformation and hw/nhw irrep-selection rule (previously fixed by comparison only up to the rare-earth region) continue to select the correct leading irrep for the N≈7–9 oscillator shells relevant to Z=82–126 nuclei is not justified; the larger spin-orbit gaps and altered Nilsson ordering in this domain constitute a load-bearing extrapolation whose validity is not demonstrated by any new derivation or test within the manuscript.
  2. The tabulated β and γ values inherit this untested extrapolation; without an explicit check against even a single new datum or an independent calculation (e.g., comparison with known actinide deformations), the parameter-free status of the predictions cannot be assessed for the target region.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method “has been adequately tested … up to the rare earth region,” yet no quantitative measure of that agreement (rms deviation, number of nuclei, etc.) is supplied; a brief summary table or reference to the earlier validation set would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for highlighting the need to strengthen the justification for extending the proxy-SU(3) framework to the actinide and superheavy region. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the identical unitary transformation and hw/nhw irrep-selection rule (previously fixed by comparison only up to the rare-earth region) continue to select the correct leading irrep for the N≈7–9 oscillator shells relevant to Z=82–126 nuclei is not justified; the larger spin-orbit gaps and altered Nilsson ordering in this domain constitute a load-bearing extrapolation whose validity is not demonstrated by any new derivation or test within the manuscript.

    Authors: The unitary transformation that restores SU(3) symmetry is constructed from the general algebraic properties of the 3D harmonic oscillator and the systematic identification of proxy orbitals; this construction is independent of the principal quantum number of the major shell. The hw/nhw selection rule follows directly from the requirement of maximal spatial symmetry allowed by the Pauli principle together with the dominance of short-range attractive components of the NN interaction, both of which are universal. Nevertheless, we agree that an explicit statement addressing the applicability to the N=7–9 shells, where spin-orbit splittings are larger, would improve the manuscript. In the revised version we will add a concise paragraph in the introduction that recalls the shell-independent character of the mapping and the selection rule. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The tabulated β and γ values inherit this untested extrapolation; without an explicit check against even a single new datum or an independent calculation (e.g., comparison with known actinide deformations), the parameter-free status of the predictions cannot be assessed for the target region.

    Authors: We accept that a direct comparison with existing experimental deformations in the actinide region would provide a useful test of the parameter-free predictions. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short new subsection (or an additional panel in an existing figure) that compares the predicted eta values with measured quadrupole deformations for several even-even actinides (e.g., 232Th, 238U, 240Pu) where data are available, thereby allowing the reader to assess the extrapolation. revision: yes

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the proxy-SU(3) unitary mapping and the Pauli-principle rule for choosing hw versus nhw irreps; both are domain assumptions imported from prior work rather than re-derived here. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption SU(3) symmetry of the 3D harmonic oscillator can be restored in heavy nuclei via a unitary transformation that accounts for the spin-orbit interaction.
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the foundation of the proxy-SU(3) approach.
  • domain assumption The highest-weight irrep (or next-highest when the hw irrep is fully symmetric) is sufficient to determine the collective deformation variables beta and gamma.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the selection rule for each nucleus.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5896 in / 1582 out tokens · 26257 ms · 2026-06-26T15:37:04.396776+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

150 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T.; Loveland, W

    Seabong, G. T.; Loveland, W. D.The Elements Beyond Uranium; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1991

    1991

  2. [2]

    C.; Ghiorso, A.; Seabong, G

    Hoffman, D. C.; Ghiorso, A.; Seabong, G. T.The Transuranium People; World Scientific: River Edge, NJ, USA, 2000

    2000

  3. [3]

    New elements - approachingZ= 114.Rep

    Hofmann, S. New elements - approachingZ= 114.Rep. Prog. Phys.1998,61, 639

    1998

  4. [4]

    The discovery of the heaviest elements.Rev

    Hofmann, S.; M¨ unzenberg, G. The discovery of the heaviest elements.Rev. Mod. Phys.2000,72, 733

    2000

  5. [5]

    M.; Stoitsov, M

    Erler, J.; Birge, N.; Kortelainen, M.; Nazarewicz, W.; Olsen, E.; Perhac, A. M.; Stoitsov, M. The limits of the nuclear landscape.Nature2012,486, 509

  6. [6]

    Ts.; Utyonkov, V

    Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V. K. Super-heavy ele- ment research.Rep. Prog. Phys.2015,78, 036301

    2015

  7. [7]

    Ts.; Sobiczewski, A.; Ter-Akopian, G

    Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Sobiczewski, A.; Ter-Akopian, G. M. Superheavy nuclei: from predictions to discovery. Phys. Scr.2017,92, 023003

    2017

  8. [8]

    The limits of nuclear mass and charge

    Nazarewicz, W. The limits of nuclear mass and charge. Nature Physics2018,14, 537

  9. [9]

    A.; Matheson, Z.; Nazarewicz, W.; Olsen, E.; Reinhard, P.-G.; Sadhukhan, J.; Schuetrumpf, B.; Schunck, N.; Schwerdtfeger, P

    Giuliani, S. A.; Matheson, Z.; Nazarewicz, W.; Olsen, E.; Reinhard, P.-G.; Sadhukhan, J.; Schuetrumpf, B.; Schunck, N.; Schwerdtfeger, P. Colloquium: Superheavy elements: Oganesson and beyond.Rev. Mod. Phys. 2019,91, 011001

    2019

  10. [10]

    Decharg´ e, J.; Berger, J.-F.; Dietrich, K.; Weiss, M. S. Superheavy and hyperheavy nuclei in the form of bub- bles or semi-bubbles.Phys. Lett. B1999,451, 275

  11. [11]

    Shell stabilization of super- and hyperheavy nuclei without magic gaps.Phys

    Bender, M.; Nazarewicz, W.; Reinhard, P.-G. Shell stabilization of super- and hyperheavy nuclei without magic gaps.Phys. Lett. B2001, 515, 42

  12. [12]

    A.; Greiner, W

    Bender, M.; Rutz, K.; Reinhard, P.-G.; Maruhn, J. A.; Greiner, W. Potential energy surfaces of superheavy nu- clei.Phys. Rev. C1998,58, 2126

  13. [13]

    L.; Jungclaus, A

    Egido, J. L.; Jungclaus, A. Predominance of Triaxial Shapes in Transitional Super-Heavy Nuclei: Ground- State Deformation and Shape Coexistence along the Flerovium (Z= 114) Chain of Isotopes.Phys. Rev. Lett.2020,125, 192504

    2020

  14. [14]

    A.; Adamian, G

    Malov, L. A.; Adamian, G. G.; Antonenko, N. V.; Lenske, H. Landscape of the island of stability with self- consistent mean-field potentials.Phys. Rev. C2021, 104, 064303

  15. [15]

    A.; Sharma, M

    Lalazissis, G. A.; Sharma, M. M.; Ring, P.; Gambhir, Y. K. Superheavy nuclei in the relativistic mean-field theory.Nucl. Phys. A1996,608, 202

  16. [16]

    K.; Wu, C.-L.; Praharaj, C

    Patra, S. K.; Wu, C.-L.; Praharaj, C. R.; Gupta, R. K. A systematic study of superheavy nuclei forZ= 114 and beyond using the relativistic mean field approach. Nucl. Phys. A1999,651, 117

  17. [17]

    K.; Greiner, W.; Gupta, R

    Patra, S. K.; Greiner, W.; Gupta, R. K. Shell structure of superheavy nuclei.J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 2000,26, L65

    2000

  18. [18]

    S.; Kaur, H.; Kumar, B.; Patra, S

    Mehta, M. S.; Kaur, H.; Kumar, B.; Patra, S. K. Prop- erties of superheavy nuclei withZ= 124.Phys. Rev. C 2015,92, 054305

    2015

  19. [19]

    A.; Vretenar, D

    Prassa, V.; Nikˇ si´ c, T.; Lalazissis, G. A.; Vretenar, D. Relativistic energy density functional description of shape transitions in superheavy nuclei.Phys. Rev. C 2012,86, 024317

    2012

  20. [20]

    Structure of trans- actinide nuclei with relativistic energy density function- als.Phys

    Prassa, V.; Nikˇ si´ c, T.; Vretenar, D. Structure of trans- actinide nuclei with relativistic energy density function- als.Phys. Rev. C2013,88, 044324

  21. [21]

    C.; Block, M.; Borschevsky, A.; Cheal, B.; Chhetri, P.; et al

    Raeder, S.; Ackermann, D.; Backe, H.; Beerwerth, R.; Berengut, J. C.; Block, M.; Borschevsky, A.; Cheal, B.; Chhetri, P.; et al. Probing Sizes and Shapes of Nobelium Isotopes by Laser Spectroscopy.Phys. Rev. Lett.2018, 120, 232503

    2018

  22. [22]

    V.; Agbemava, S

    Afanasjev, A. V.; Agbemava, S. E.; Gyawali, A. Hy- perheavy nuclei: Existence and stability.Phys. Lett. B 2018,782, 533

    2018

  23. [23]

    E.; Afanasjev, A

    Agbemava, S. E.; Afanasjev, A. V.; Taninah, A.; Gyawali, A. Extension of the nuclear landscape to hy- perheavy nuclei.Phys. Rev. C2019,99, 034316

  24. [24]

    V.; Agbemava, S

    Afanasjev, A. V.; Agbemava, S. E.; Taninah, A. Explor- ing Nuclear Exotica at the Limits.Acta Phys. Polonica B Proc. Suppl.2020,13, 347

    2020

  25. [25]

    E.; Afanasjev, A

    Agbemava S. E.; Afanasjev, A. V. Hyperheavy spherical and toroidal nuclei: The role of shell structure.Phys. Rev. C2021,103, 034323

  26. [26]

    V.; Ring, P

    Abusara, H.; Afanasjev, A. V.; Ring, P. Fission barriers in covariant density functional theory: Extrapolation to superheavy nuclei.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 024314

  27. [27]

    E.; Afanasjev, A

    Agbemava, S. E.; Afanasjev, A. V.; Nakatsukasa, T.; Ring, P. Covariant density functional theory: Reexam- ining the structure of superheavy nuclei.Phys. Rev. C 2015,92, 054310

    2015

  28. [28]

    J.; Hess, P

    Ermamatov, M. J.; Hess, P. O. Microscopically derived potential energy surfaces from mostly structural consid- erations.Ann. Phys. (NY)2016,371, 125

    2016

  29. [29]

    C.; Souli- otis, G

    Veselsk´ y, M.; Petousis, V.; Moustakidis, Ch. C.; Souli- otis, G. A.; Bonasera, A. Investigating the possible ex- istence of hyper-heavy nuclei in a neutron-star environ- ment.Phys. Rev. C2022,106, L012802

  30. [30]

    ENSDF database https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf

  31. [31]

    E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Cakirli, R

    Bonatsos, D.; Assimakis, I. E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F.; Blaum, K. Proxy- SU(3) symmetry in heavy deformed nuclei.Phys. Rev. C2017,95, 064325

  32. [32]

    E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Cakirli, R

    Bonatsos, D.; Assimakis, I. E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F.; Blaum, K. Analytic predictions for nuclear shapes, pro- late dominance, and the prolate-oblate shape transition in the proxy-SU(3) model.Phys. Rev. C2017,95, 064326

  33. [33]

    K.; Mertz- imekis, T

    Bonatsos, D.; Martinou, A.; Peroulis, S. K.; Mertz- imekis, T. J.; Minkov, N. The proxy-SU(3) symmetry in atomic nuclei.Symmetry2023,15, 169

  34. [34]

    G.Classical Groups for Physicists; Wi- ley: New York, NY, USA, 1974

    Wybourne, B. G.Classical Groups for Physicists; Wi- ley: New York, NY, USA, 1974

    1974

  35. [35]

    F.The Harmonic Oscil- lator in Modern Physics; Harwood: Amsterdam, 1996

    Moshinsky, M.; Smirnov, Yu. F.The Harmonic Oscil- lator in Modern Physics; Harwood: Amsterdam, 1996

    1996

  36. [36]

    Iachello, F.Lie Algebras and Applications; Springer: Berlin, 2006

    2006

  37. [37]

    E.; Peroulis, S

    Martinou, A.; Bonatsos, D.; Minkov, N.; Assimakis, I. E.; Peroulis, S. K.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Cseh, J. Proxy- SU(3) symmetry in the shell model basis.Eur. Phys. J. A2020,56, 239

  38. [38]

    E.; Saran- topoulou, S.; Assimakis, I

    Martinou, A.; Bonatsos, D.; Karakatsanis, K. E.; Saran- topoulou, S.; Assimakis, I. E.; Peroulis, S. K.; Minkov , N. Why nuclear forces favor the highest weight irre- ducible representations of the fermionic SU(3) symme- try.Eur. Phys. J. A2021,57, 83. 30

  39. [39]

    E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Cakirli, R

    Sarantopoulou, S.; Bonatsos, D.; Assimakis, I. E.; Minkov, N.; Martinou, A.; Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F.; Blaum, K. Proxy-SU(3) Symmetry in Heavy Nuclei: Prolate Dominance and Prolate-Oblate Shape Transi- tion.Bulg. J. Phys.2017,44, 417

    2017

  40. [40]

    Bonatsos, D.; Kota, V. K. B.; Martinou, A.; Peroulis, S. K.; Petrellis, D.; P. Vasileiou, P.; Mertzimekis, T. J.; Minkov, N. Parameter-free deformation variables of the proxy-SU(3) symmetry in even-even atomic nuclei with Z= 28−82,N= 28−126.Symmetry2026,18, 683

  41. [41]

    E.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Peroulis, S

    Martinou, A.; Bonatsos, D.; Minkov , N.; Assimakis, I. E.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Peroulis, S. Highest weight SU(3) irreducible representations for nuclei with shape coexis- tence.Nuclear Theory2018,37, 41

  42. [42]

    P.; Leschber, Y.; Park, S

    Draayer, J. P.; Leschber, Y.; Park, S. C.; R. Lopez, R. Representations of U(3) in U(N).Comput. Phys. Com- mun.1989,56, 279

    1989

  43. [43]

    P.; Launey, K

    Langr, D,; Dytrych, T.; Draayer, J. P.; Launey, K. D.; Tvrd´ ık, P. Efficient algorithm for representations of U(3) in U(N).Comput. Phys. Commun.2019,244, 442

    2019

  44. [44]

    A numerical algorithm for the explicit calculation of SU(N) and SL(N,C) Clebsch–Gordan coefficients.J

    Alex, A.; Kalus, M.; Huckleberry, A.; von Delft, J. A numerical algorithm for the explicit calculation of SU(N) and SL(N,C) Clebsch–Gordan coefficients.J. Math. Phys.2011,52, 023507

    2011

  45. [45]

    K.; Petrellis, D.; Vasileiou, P.; T.J

    Bonatsos, D.; Martinou, A.; Peroulis, S. K.; Petrellis, D.; Vasileiou, P.; T.J. Mertzimekis, T. J.; Minkov, N. Robustness of the proxy-SU(3) symmetry in atomic nu- clei and the role of the next highest weight irreducible representation.Symmetry2024,16, 1625

  46. [46]

    K.; Petrellis, D.; Vasileiou, P.; Mertzimekis, T

    Bonatsos, D.; Martinou, A.; Peroulis, S. K.; Petrellis, D.; Vasileiou, P.; Mertzimekis, T. J.; Minkov, N. Pre- ponderance of triaxial shapes in atomic nuclei predicted by the proxy-SU(3) symmetry.J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.2025,52, 015102

    2025

  47. [47]

    Mayer, M. G. On Closed Shells in Nuclei.Phys. Rev. 1948,74, 235

    1948

  48. [48]

    Mayer, M. G. On Closed Shells in Nuclei. II.Phys. Rev. 1949,75, 1969

    1949

  49. [49]

    Haxel, O.; Jensen, J. H. D.; Suess, H. E. On the ”Magic Numbers” in Nuclear Structure.Phys. Rev.1949,75, 1766

    1949

  50. [50]

    G.; Jensen, J

    Mayer, M. G.; Jensen, J. H. D.Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure; Wiley: New York, 1955

    1955

  51. [51]

    Heyde, K. L. G.The Nuclear Shell Model; Springer: Berlin, 1990

    1990

  52. [52]

    Talmi, I.Simple Models of Complex Nuclei: The Shell Model and the Interacting Boson Model; Harwood: Chur, 1993

    1993

  53. [53]

    Exact boson mappings for nuclear neutron (proton) shell-model algebras having SU(3) subalgebras.Ann

    Bonatsos, D.; Klein, A. Exact boson mappings for nuclear neutron (proton) shell-model algebras having SU(3) subalgebras.Ann. Phys. (NY)1986,169, 61

    1986

  54. [54]

    Nilsson, S. G. Binding states of individual nucleons in strongly deformed nuclei.Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd.1955, 29, no. 16

    1955

  55. [55]

    G.; Ragnarsson, I.Shapes and Shells in Nu- clear Structure; Cambridge U

    Nilsson, S. G.; Ragnarsson, I.Shapes and Shells in Nu- clear Structure; Cambridge U. Press: Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  56. [56]

    B.; Casten, R

    Bonatsos, D.; Karampagia, S.; Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F.; Blaum, K.; Amon Susam, L. Emergent collectivity in nuclei and enhanced proton-neutron interactions.Phys. Rev. C2013,88, 054309

  57. [57]

    B.; Brenner, D

    Cakirli, R. B.; Brenner, D. S.; Casten, R. F.; Millman, E. A. Proton-Neutron Interactions and the New Atomic Masses.Phys. Rev. Lett.2005,94, 092501. Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.2005,95, 119903

    2005

  58. [58]

    B.; Casten, R

    Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F. Direct Empirical Correla- tion between Proton-Neutron Interaction Strengths and the Growth of Collectivity in Nuclei.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006,96, 132501

    2006

  59. [59]

    B.; Casten, R

    Stoitsov, M.; Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F.; Nazarewicz, W.; Satu la, W. Empirical Proton-Neutron Interactions and Nuclear Density Functional Theory: Global, Re- gional, and Local Comparisons.Phys. Rev. Lett.2007, 98, 132502

    2007

  60. [60]

    B.; Blaum, K.; Casten, R

    Cakirli, R. B.; Blaum, K.; Casten, R. F. Indication of a mini-valence Wigner-like energy in heavy nuclei.Phys. Rev. C2010,82, 061304(R)

  61. [61]

    B.; Casten, R

    Cakirli, R. B.; Casten, R. F. Nuclear binding and nu- clear structure.Int. J. Mass Spectrom.2013,187, 349- 350

    2013

  62. [62]

    B.; Blaum, K.; Casten, R

    Cakirli, R. B.; Blaum, K.; Casten, R. F. Confirmation and extension of a mini-valence Wigner-like energy in Sm, Gd, and Dy.Phys. Rev. C2025,111, 014305

  63. [63]

    Shell model structure of proxy-SU(3) pairs of orbitals.Eur

    Bonatsos, D.; Sobhani, H.; Hassanabadi, H. Shell model structure of proxy-SU(3) pairs of orbitals.Eur. Phys. J. Plus2020, 135, 710

  64. [64]

    Pseudo LS coupling and pseudo SU3 coupling schemes.Phys

    Arima, A.; Harvey, M.; Shimizu, K. Pseudo LS coupling and pseudo SU3 coupling schemes.Phys. Lett. B1969, 30, 517

  65. [65]

    T.; Adler, A

    Hecht, K. T.; Adler, A. Generalized seniority for fa- voredJ̸= 0 pairs in mixed configurations.Nucl. Phys. A1969,137, 129

  66. [66]

    D.; Draayer, J

    Ratna Raju, R. D.; Draayer, J. P.; Hecht, K. T. Search for a coupling scheme in heavy deformed nuclei: The pseudo SU(3) model.Nucl. Phys. A1973,202, 433

  67. [67]

    P.; Weeks, K

    Draayer, J. P.; Weeks, K. J.; Hecht, K. T. Strength of theQ π ·Q ν interaction and the strong-coupled pseudo- SU(3) limit.Nucl. Phys. A1982,381, 1

  68. [68]

    P.; Weeks, K

    Draayer, J. P.; Weeks, K. J. Shell-Model Description of the Low-Energy Structure of Strongly Deformed Nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett.1983,51, 1422

    1983

  69. [69]

    P.; Weeks, K

    Draayer, J. P.; Weeks, K. J. Towards a shell model de- scription of the low-energy structure of deformed nuclei I. Even-even systems.Ann. Phys. (NY)1984,156, 41

    1984

  70. [70]

    P.; Moszkowski, S

    Bahri, C.; Draayer, J. P.; Moszkowski, S. A. Pseudospin symmetry in nuclear physics.Phys. Rev. Lett.1992,68, 2133

    1992

  71. [71]

    Ginocchio, J. N. Pseudospin as a Relativistic Symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett.1997,78, 436

    1997

  72. [72]

    Transforma- tion from U(3) to pseudo U(3) basis

    Casta˜ nos, O.; Moshinsky, M.; Quesne, C. Transforma- tion from U(3) to pseudo U(3) basis. InGroup Theory and Special Symmetries in Nuclear Physics (AnnArbor, 1991); Draayer, J. P., J¨ anecke, J., Eds.; World Scien- tific: Singapore, 1992; p. 80

    1991

  73. [73]

    Transforma- tion to pseudo-SU(3) in heavy deformed nuclei.Phys

    Casta˜ nos, O.; Moshinsky, M.; Quesne, C. Transforma- tion to pseudo-SU(3) in heavy deformed nuclei.Phys. Lett. B1992,277, 238

  74. [74]

    O.; Hirsch, J

    Casta˜ nos, O.; Vel´ azquez A., V.; Hess, P. O.; Hirsch, J. G. Transformation to pseudo-spin-symmetry of a de- formed Nilsson hamiltonian.Phys. Lett. B1994,321, 303

  75. [75]

    E.; Peroulis, S.; Minkov, N

    Bonatsos, D.; Martinou, A.; Sarantopoulou, S.; Assi- makis, I. E.; Peroulis, S.; Minkov, N. Parameter-free predictions for the collective deformation variablesβ andγwithin the pseudo-SU(3) scheme.Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics2020,229, 2367

  76. [76]

    Ring, P.; Schuck, P.The Nuclear Many-Body Problem; Springer: Berlin, 1980. 31

    1980

  77. [77]

    M.; Broglia, R

    Brink, D. M.; Broglia, R. A.Nuclear Superfluidity: Pairing in Finite Systems; Cambridge U. Press: Cam- bridge, 2005

    2005

  78. [78]

    Troltenier, D.; Bahri, C.; Draayer, J. P. Generalized pseudo-SU(3) model and pairing.Nucl. Phys. A1995, 586, 53

  79. [79]

    Troltenier, D.; Bahri, C.; Draayer, J. P. Effects of pair- ing in the pseudo-SU(3) model.Nucl. Phys. A1995, 589, 75

  80. [80]

    Troltenier, D.; Bahri, C.; Escher, J.; Draayer, J. P. Rare-earth nuclei and the pseudo-SU(3) model.Z. Phys. A1996,354, 125

Showing first 80 references.