Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Single-particle structure of the semi-magic nucleus ${}^{90}$Zr from a nonlocal dispersive optical model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding a single pairing gap to the dispersive optical model reproduces the 90Zr(e,e'p) cross sections and yields a neutron-skin prediction of 0.078 ± 0.039 fm.

desk verdict Extends DOM to an open-shell nucleus with a simple pairing ansatz, but the two strongest (e,e'p) tests are renormalized to experiment; the 1p1/2 fragment is the real independent check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21875 v1 pith:SRPYWW5X submitted 2026-07-24 nucl-th

R. A. Ramon , M. C. Atkinson , W. H. Dickhoff This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 24.10.Ht25.30.Fj21.10.Jx
keywords dispersiveopticalmodelpairingcorrelationssemi-magicnucleus90Zrspectroscopicfactors(ee'p)knockoutsingle-particlestructureneutronskin
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper extends the dispersive optical model—a framework that fits elastic scattering, reaction cross sections, and ground-state properties with one energy-dependent self-energy—to the semi-magic nucleus 90Zr, whose 40 protons form an open shell. The authors show that adding a BCS-like pairing step with a single gap parameter of about 1 MeV splits the strength of the 1p1/2, 1p3/2, 0f5/2, and 0g9/2 orbits across the Fermi energy, producing the smooth mostly-full-to-mostly-empty occupation pattern expected in a paired system. With this extension, the model reproduces the measured (e,e'p) momentum distributions for four discrete transitions, improves the description of the charge density, and predicts a neutron skin of 0.078 ± 0.039 fm. If correct, this gives a unified description of scattering, structure, and knockout for an open-shell nucleus and opens a path to studying single-particle strength in semi-magic systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the irreducible self-energy of the nonlocal dispersive optical model, a complex one-body potential whose energy dependence is generated by a subtracted dispersion relation from a fitted imaginary part. The new mechanism is a two-step pairing treatment: first solve the Dyson equation with the DOM self-energy to get quasihole states and spectroscopic factors; then apply a BCS-like splitting using a single gap parameter of about 1 MeV and chemical potentials from experimental binding energies, redistributing each orbit's strength into upper and lower fragments. These split spectroscopic factors, combined with DOM overlap functions and distorted waves in a distorted-wave im

What would settle it

Measure the 90Zr(e,e'p) cross sections with higher missing-energy resolution and extract spectroscopic factors for the 1p1/2, 1p3/2, 0f5/2, and 0g9/2 fragments; if the extracted factors deviate from the predicted values (0.396, 0.577, 0.522, and 0.047, respectively) by more than the stated uncertainties, the single-gap pairing ansatz is ruled out. Alternatively, a parity-violating electron-scattering measurement of the 90Zr neutron skin would test the predicted R_skin = 0.078 ± 0.039 fm; a skin outside this range would falsify the model's ground-state densities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nonlocal dispersive optical model, previously validated for doubly closed-shell nuclei like 40Ca, 48Ca, and 208Pb, can be extended to the semi-magic nucleus 90Zr by treating the open proton shell with pairing correlations in a two-step procedure. In the first step the DOM self-energy is fitted to elastic scattering, total and reaction cross sections, single-particle energies, particle numbers, charge density, and binding energy. In the second step, a BCS-like pairing ansatz with a single gap parameter of about 1 MeV splits the spectroscopic strength of the four orbits nearest the Fermi energy (1p1/2, 1p3/2, 0f5/2, and 0g9/2) into fragments above and below the Fe

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that a single energy-gap parameter, the same for all four proton orbits near the Fermi energy, is enough to describe how the open proton shell splits into occupied and empty fragments; if the real nucleus distributes this strength through orbit-dependent or more complicated correlations, the predicted spectroscopic factors and knockout cross sections would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The DOM with pairing reproduces the 90Zr(e,e'p)89Y momentum distributions for the 1p1/2 ground-state transition and the 1p3/2, 0f5/2, and 0g9/2 excited transitions, with spectroscopic factors close to those extracted from experiment.
  • Including pairing improves the calculated charge density and elastic electron-scattering cross sections, extending the DOM's density description from closed-shell to open-shell nuclei.
  • The model yields a neutron-skin prediction of 0.078 ± 0.039 fm for 90Zr, a benchmark between 48Ca and 208Pb.
  • A single gap parameter near the empirical pairing gap suffices to describe the fragmentation of four proton orbits, suggesting a simple route to other semi-magic nuclei.
  • The occupation numbers of proton orbits show a smooth mostly-full-to-mostly-empty transition characteristic of pairing, distinct from the abrupt transition in closed-shell nuclei like 40Ca.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the BCS-like pairing treatment holds for heavier semi-magic nuclei, the same two-step DOM could be applied to nuclei like 92Mo or 96Ru, where proton pairing is expected to be stronger, providing a systematic map of single-particle strength.
  • The neutron-skin prediction of 0.078 fm for 90Zr could be tested with parity-violating electron scattering, offering an asymmetry benchmark between the 48Ca and 208Pb measurements already reported.
  • The smooth occupation transition predicted here suggests that higher-resolution (e,e'p) experiments could resolve the small predicted fragments (for example 0.047 for 0g9/2) and discriminate the BCS ansatz from phonon-coupling models.
  • A natural extension is to treat the gap parameter as orbit-dependent or compute it self-consistently instead of fixing it at 1 MeV; testing the sensitivity of the (e,e'p) cross sections to the gap would reveal how much physics the single parameter is carrying.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the nonlocal dispersive optical model (DOM) to the semi-magic nucleus 90Zr by adding a BCS-like pairing treatment for the open proton shell. The DOM self-energy is fitted to proton and neutron elastic scattering, reaction and total cross sections, single-particle energies, particle numbers, charge density, and binding energy. The pairing extension splits the strength of the 1p1/2, 1p3/2, 0f5/2, and 0g9/2 orbits across the Fermi energy using one global gap parameter Δ = 1 MeV. The resulting overlaps and spectroscopic factors are used in DWIA calculations of 90Zr(e,e'p)89Y momentum distributions and compared to Nikhef data. A neutron skin R_skin = 0.078 ± 0.039 fm is predicted.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable step: the DOM framework, previously applied to doubly magic nuclei, is extended to a semi-magic open-shell nucleus while maintaining a simultaneous description of scattering, charge density, single-particle strength, and knockout cross sections. The paper is transparent about its parametrization (Appendix A), provides extensive comparisons to scattering and density data, and gives a falsifiable neutron-skin prediction. The most important independent evidence is the 1p1/2 ground-state transition (0.396 vs. 0.360, within the claimed uncertainty) and the weak 0g9/2 fragment (0.047 vs. 0.054). However, as detailed below, the predictive content of the (e,e'p) comparisons is substantially weakened because two of the four transitions are renormalized to the experimental integrated strength via Eq. (24). The framework is promising, but the paper's central claim overstates what is actually predicted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24)] Eq. (24) explicitly enforces equality between the DOM integrated spectral strength and the experimental integrated strength in the fragment region for the 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 orbits. The quoted DOM spectroscopic factors in Table II (0.577 and 0.522) therefore inherit this experimental normalization, together with an additional ad hoc 'theoretical correction' described in the text. Consequently, Figs. 10(b), 11(b), 12(a), and 13(a) test only the shape of the momentum distributions, not the model's ability to predict cross-section magnitudes for those transitions. The abstract's claim that the model yields 'a good description of the (e,e'p) cross sections' should be tempered, or the unrenormalized DOM values (≈0.711 and ≈0.670 from Eq. (6)) should be reported so the reader can judge the predictive content. As written, the central claim is partly circular for two of the four transitions.
  2. [Sec. II B and Sec. III] The pairing extension relies on a single global pairing gap Δ = 1 MeV chosen by hand ('close to the empirical value') and not determined by the fit. The uncertainty bands in Figs. 10–13 are obtained by varying Δ = 1 ± 0.1169 MeV, which is a sensitivity test, not a χ²-constrained uncertainty. Because this parameter directly controls the splitting in Eqs. (11)–(17) and hence the spectroscopic factors used in the (e,e'p) calculation, the paper should state explicitly that the pairing treatment introduces one free parameter and should quantify how much of the observed agreement for the independent 1p1/2 and 0g9/2 transitions depends on this choice. A comparison with the empirical estimate from Eq. (13) would also help.
  3. [Sec. IV, paragraph after Eq. (24)] The 'theoretical correction' applied to the 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 strengths is an ad hoc scaling: the DOM spectral strength integrated from -20 MeV to the Fermi energy (0.797 and 0.757) is divided by the quasihole normalization from Eq. (6) (0.711 and 0.670). The paper does not derive this correction from a controlled many-body approximation or from an independent observable. If both Eq. (24) and this correction were omitted, the unrenormalized DOM strengths are about 0.711 and 0.670, roughly 50% larger than the Nikhef values 0.465 and 0.462. The manuscript should report these unrenormalized values and discuss whether the discrepancy indicates a genuine deficiency of the DOM imaginary part or of the simple BCS pairing ansatz, rather than absorbing it into normalization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24)] The fragment region FR is not defined explicitly. Please specify the integration limits used in Eq. (24), e.g., the energy interval around each quasihole peak corresponding to the experimentally identified fragments.
  2. [Table IV] The row for ρwb(p,n) lists the unit as [MeV]; this should presumably be [fm], since it is a radial parameter in Eq. (A4). Please correct.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A3)] There appears to be a typo: 'aHF aym' should read 'aHF asy'.
  4. [Sec. IV, Table II] The column header 'Znlj DOM' does not indicate that the 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 entries include the Eq. (24) renormalization and the additional theoretical correction. A more precise header or a footnote would prevent misinterpretation.
  5. [Sec. III, Fig. 6] The four columns are labeled 'Theory', 'Exp', 'Exp Split', and 'Theory Split' in the caption, but the text refers to 'the second column', 'the third column', and 'the fourth column'. Please make the column numbering explicit and consistent.
  6. [Sec. II A, Eq. (6)] The notation Sn−lj(E) in Eq. (18) and Slj(E) in Eq. (5) is visually similar; consider a clearer distinction between the spectral strength of a quasihole state and the angle-integrated spectral function.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The (e,e'p) validation is partly circular: Eq. (24) folds the measured 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 fragment strengths into the DOM spectroscopic factors before the comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eq. (24) and Table II (also Figs. 10(b), 11(b), 12(a), 13(a))]
    "The calculated DOM spectroscopic factor must be reduced by the experimental strength observed in the neighborhood of the quasihole energy. This effect is incorporated for the 1p 3/2, and 0f 5/2 orbits by enforcing that the ratio between the strength of the peak to the total spectral strength shown in the energy domain of Fig. (1) is the same between the data as for the DOM, Z DOM FR dE S DOM(E) = Z exp FR dE S exp(E) . (24)"

    Eq. (24) imposes that the DOM strength in the fragment region is tied to the experimental strength extracted from the same (e,e'p) data. The paper explicitly states that the DOM entries for the 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 fragments 'include this experimental correction.' Therefore the agreement shown for those two transitions in Figs. 10(b), 11(b), 12(a), and 13(a) has the absolute normalization partly built in from the measured strengths; only the shape of the momentum distribution and the small pairing correction are genuine predictions. The 1p1/2 and 0g9/2 transitions do not receive this renormalization, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

This paper is largely a legitimate fitting exercise: the DOM self-energy is constrained by elastic scattering, reaction and total cross sections, single-particle energies, particle numbers, charge density, and binding energy; those constraints are not circular. The pairing extension is a single-gap BCS-like ansatz, and the 1p1/2 transition is a genuine prediction (0.396 vs 0.360), as is the unrenormalized 0g9/2 fragment (0.047 vs 0.054). However, the central claim that the 'resulting spectroscopic factors ... yield a good description of the (e,e'p) cross sections' is weakened for the 1p3/2 and 0f5/2 fragments: Eq. (24) ties the DOM fragment strength to the experimental strength, and the text says the quoted DOM spectroscopic factors 'include this experimental correction.' The remaining differences in Table II (0.577 vs 0.465; 0.522 vs 0.462) come from additional theoretical and pairing corrections, so the reduction is not complete. The paper itself concedes that it is 'not (yet) possible to describe the details of the strength fragmentation near the Fermi energy,' which is why the experimental correction is needed. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness argument is present; prior DOM validations [8,13] are external, falsifiable benchmarks. Overall score 6: some 'predictions' reduce by construction, but the circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The DOM parameter tables (Tables III-IV) list dozens of fitted values; these plus the hand-chosen pairing gap Δ carry most of the model's descriptive power. The reaction and structure predictions inherit these fitted inputs. The paper introduces no new particles or physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Pairing gap Δ = 1 MeV
    Chosen by hand to reproduce the observed fragmentation of 1p1/2 and 0g9/2 levels; varied ±0.1169 MeV for systematic uncertainty (Sec. II B, Sec. IV).
  • DOM isoscalar HF parameters (V_HF_sym, βvol1_sym, βvol2_sym, x_sym, β_wb, spin-orbit) = Table III
    Fitted via χ² to elastic scattering, analyzing powers, total/reaction cross sections, charge density, levels, particle numbers, binding energy (Sec. II A).
  • DOM proton/neutron asymmetric HF terms (V_HF_asy, radii, diffuseness, nonlocalities) = Table IV
    Fitted to the same χ² dataset; account for N-Z asymmetry (App. A, Eq. A3).
  • DOM imaginary volume and surface parameters (W0, A, B, E, radii, diffuseness, β) = Tables III, IV
    Fitted to scattering and reaction data; energy dependence per Eqs. (A7)-(A12).
  • DOM spin-orbit strengths (V_so, A_so, B_so) = Tables III, IV
    Fitted to analyzing powers and high-energy scattering data (Eq. A14).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The irreducible self-energy can be represented by the DOM parametrization of Eqs. (A1)-(A14) (Woods-Saxon plus Gaussian nonlocality)
    Invoked in Sec. II A and App. A; if the true self-energy has features outside this form, extracted spectroscopic factors are biased.
  • standard math The subtracted dispersion relation (Eq. 1) with the Fermi energy as subtraction point yields the dynamic real part from the fitted imaginary part
    Standard DOM result; relies on analyticity of the self-energy (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption The pairing description of Sec. II B, with BCS-like quasiparticle energies and the splitting formulas Eqs. (14)-(17), captures the open-shell proton fragmentation
    Adopted from Migdal [16]; if neglected phonon couplings dominate, this ansatz fails.
  • domain assumption DWIA with effective momentum approximation (Eq. 21) and DOM distorted waves is valid for (e,e'p) at 70-100 MeV outgoing protons
    Invoked in Sec. IV; depends on impulse approximation and Coulomb treatment.
  • domain assumption The smooth imaginary term in the self-energy approximates the effect of discrete poles not explicitly included
    Stated in Sec. IV as a limitation of the DOM treatment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-particle structure of the semi-magic nucleus ${}^{90}$Zr from a nonlocal dispersive optical model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRPYWW5X

@misc{pith2026260721875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-particle structure of the semi-magic nucleus $^90$Zr from a nonlocal dispersive optical model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRPYWW5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21875}
}
abstract

A nonlocal dispersive-optical-model (DOM) analysis has been carried out for neutrons and protons in the semi-magic nucleus $^{90}$Zr. Elastic-scattering angular distributions, total and reaction cross sections, single-particle energies, the neutron and proton numbers, the charge distribution, and the binding energy have been fitted to extract the neutron and proton self-energies both above and below the Fermi energy. The resulting spectroscopic factors and other DOM ingredients yield a good description of the $(e,e'p)$ cross sections when the open-shell proton system is described with an extension of the DOM that treats pairing. The distinct difference between the open-shell proton system and a closed one is illustrated by the smooth transition from mostly full to mostly empty orbits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Proton spectral functions for a representative set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Angular distributions of the differential cross sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Proton reaction cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total cross section for neutrons scattered off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Proton energy levels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Neutron energy levels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: is further validated by the agreement with elastic electron-scattering differential cross sections at incident electron energies of 209.6 and 302.0 MeV, calculated us￾ing the code of Ref. [46], as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Differential cross section for elastic electron scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. As for Fig. 10 but for an outgoing proton energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. As for Fig. 12 but for an outgoing proton energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J. W. A. den Herder, H. P. Blok, E. Jans, P. H. M. Keizer, L. Lapik´ as, E. N. M. Quint, G. van der Steenhoven, and P. K. A. de Witt Huberts, Nucl. Phys. A490, 507 (1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    G. J. Kramer, H. P. Blok, J. F. J. van den Brand, H. J. Bulten, R. Ent, E. Jans, J. B. J. M. Lanen, L. Lapik´ as, H. Nann, E. N. M. Quint, G. van der Steenhoven, P. K. A. De Witt Huberts, and G. J. Wagner, Phys. Lett. B227, 199 (1989)

    1989

  3. [3]

    P. K. A. de Witt Huberts, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 16, 507 (1990)

    1990

  4. [4]

    A. E. L. Dieperink and P. K. A. de Witt Huberts, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.40, 239 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    Sick and P

    I. Sick and P. K. A. de Witt Huberts, Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys.20, 177 (1991)

    1991

  6. [6]

    Lapik´ as, Nucl

    L. Lapik´ as, Nucl. Phys.A553, 297c (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    V. R. Pandharipande, I. Sick, and P. K. A. de Witt Hu- berts, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 981 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    M. C. Atkinson, H. P. Blok, L. Lapik´ as, R. J. Charity, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C98, 044627 (2018)

    2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 377 (2004). 15

    2004

  2. [10]

    M. H. Mahzoon, R. J. Charity, W. H. Dickhoff, H. Dus- san, and S. J. Waldecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 162503 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    M. H. Mahzoon, M. C. Atkinson, R. J. Charity, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 222503 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Atkinson, M

    M. Atkinson, M. Mahzoon, M. Keim, B. Bordelon, C. Pruitt, R. Charity, and W. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044303 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. C. Atkinson and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Lett. B798, 135027 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Aumann, C

    T. Aumann, C. Barbieri, D. Bazin, C. A. Bertulani, A. Bonaccorso, W. H. Dickhoff, A. Gade, M. G´ omez- Ramos, B. P. Kay, A. M. Moro, T. Nakamura, A. Obertelli, K. Ogata, S. Paschalis, and T. Uesaka, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.118, 103847 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Allaart, E

    K. Allaart, E. Boeker, G. Bonsignori, M. Savoia, and Y. K. Gambhir, Phys. Rep.169(1988)

    1988

  8. [16]

    A. B. Migdal,Theory of Finite Fermi Systems and Ap- plications to Atomic Nuclei(John Wily & Sons, Ltd., 1967)

    1967

  9. [17]

    W. H. Dickhoff and D. Van Neck,Many-Body Theory Ex- posed!, 3rd edition(World Scientific, New Jersey, 2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ut- suno, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg,et al., Nat. Phys.18, 1196 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Dussan, M

    H. Dussan, M. H. Mahzoon, R. J. Charity, W. H. Dick- hoff, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C90, 061603 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Mahaux and R

    C. Mahaux and R. Sartor, Adv. Nucl. Phys.20, 96 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    W. H. Dickhoff, R. J. Charity, and M. H. Mahzoon, J. of Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.44, 033001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    W. H. Dickhoff and R. J. Charity, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 252 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    N. L. Calleya, M. C. Atkinson, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Lett. B863, 139371 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Adhikari, H

    D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, K. A. Aniol, D. S. Armstrong, T. Averett, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, S. K. Barcus, V. Bellini, R. S. Beminiwattha,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042501 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Adhikari, H

    D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, K. A. Aniol, D. S. Armstrong, T. Averett, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, S. Bar- cus, V. Bellini, R. S. Beminiwattha,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    W. H. Dickhoff, D. Van Neck, S. J. Waldecker, R. J. Charity, and L. G. Sobotka, Phys. Rev. C82, 054306 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Brida, S

    I. Brida, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024319 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    We write the HF self- energy term in the following form with spin-orbit and a local Coulomb contribution

    and restrict the nonlocal contributions to the HF term and to the volume and surface contributions to the imaginary part of the potential. We write the HF self- energy term in the following form with spin-orbit and a local Coulomb contribution. ΣHF (r,r ′) = Σnl HF (r,r ′) +V ...

  23. [31]

    Perey and B

    F. Perey and B. Buck, Nuclear Physics32, 353 (1962)

    1962

  24. [32]

    Descouvemont and D

    P. Descouvemont and D. Baye, Rep. Prog. Phys.73, 036301 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Baye, Phys

    D. Baye, Phys. Rep.565, 1 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Kn¨ opfle, M

    K. Kn¨ opfle, M. Rogge, C. Mayer-Boricke, J. Pedersen, and D. Burch, Nucl. Phys. A159, 642 (1970)

    1970

  27. [35]

    D. Ding, A. Rios, H. Dussan, W. H. Dickhoff, S. J. Witte, A. Carbone, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C94, 025802 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure: Volume I(World Scientific, 1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Den Herder, H

    J. Den Herder, H. Blok, E. Jans, P. Keizer, L. Lapik´ as, E. Quint, G. Van der Steenhoven, and P. de Witt Hu- berts, Nucl. Phys. A490, 507 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,Numerical Recipes in C(Cambridge University Press, 1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    A. Auce, A. Ingemarsson, R. Johansson, M. Lantz, G. Tibell, R. Carlson, M. Shachno, A. Cowley, G. Hill- house, N. Jacobs,et al., Phys. Rev. C71, 064606 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Finlay, W

    R. Finlay, W. Abfalterer, G. Fink, E. Montei, T. Adami, P. Lisowski, G. Morgan, and R. Haight, Phys. Rev. C 47, 237 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. De Jager, and C. De Vries, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  34. [42]

    Frois, inNuclear Structure 1985(Elsevier, 1985) pp

    B. Frois, inNuclear Structure 1985(Elsevier, 1985) pp. 25–43

    1985

  35. [43]

    B. A. Brown, S. E. Massen, and P. E. Hodgson, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys.5, 1655 (1979)

    1979

  36. [44]

    M. C. Atkinson,Developing Nucleon Self-Energies to Generate the Ingredients for the Description of Nuclear Reactions(Springer, 2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Dispersive-optical-model analysis of the asymmetry de- pendence of neutron skins,

    R. A. Ramon, M. C. Atkinson, and W. H. Dickhoff, “Dispersive-optical-model analysis of the asymmetry de- pendence of neutron skins,” submitted to Phys. Rev. C (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    P. X. Ho, J.-B. Bellicard, A. Bussiere, P. Leconte, and M. Priou, Nucl. Phys. A179, 529 (1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Salvat, A

    F. Salvat, A. Jablonski, and C. J. Powell, Comput. Phys. Commun.165, 157 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Roca-Maza, M

    X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, F. Salvat, and X. Vinas, Phys. Rev. C78, 044332 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    M. C. Atkinson, W. H. Dickhoff, M. Piarulli, A. Rios, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C102, 044333 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Boffi, C

    S. Boffi, C. Giusti, F. D. Pacati, and M. Radici,Electro- magnetic Response of Atomic Nuclei(Oxford, New York, 1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Giusti and F

    C. Giusti and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A485, 461 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    Boffi, C

    S. Boffi, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A336, 416 (1980)

    1980

  47. [55]

    Giusti and F

    C. Giusti and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A473, 717 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    De Forest Jr., Nucl

    T. De Forest Jr., Nucl. Phys. A392, 232 (1983)

    1983

  49. [57]

    Giusti, A

    C. Giusti, A. Meucci, F. D. Pacati, G. Co’, and V. De Donno, Phys. Rev. C84, 024615 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Schwandt, H

    P. Schwandt, H. O. Meyer, W. W. Jacobs, A. D. Bacher, S. E. Vigdor, M. D. Kaitchuck, and T. R. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. C26, 55 (1982)

    1982

  51. [59]

    C. D. Pruitt, R. J. Charity, L. G. Sobotka, M. C. Atkin- son, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 102501 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    C. D. Pruitt, R. J. Charity, L. G. Sobotka, J. M. Elson, D. E. M. Hoff, K. W. Brown, M. C. Atkinson, W. H. Dick- hoff, H. Y. Lee, M. Devlin, N. Fotiades, and S. Mosby, Phys. Rev. C102, 034601 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    J. W. A. den Herder,Single-particle properties of 51V and 90Zr studied with the(e, e′p)reaction, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1987)

    1987

  54. [62]

    J. M. Mueller, R. J. Charity, R. Shane, L. G. Sobotka, S. J. Waldecker, W. H. Dickhoff, A. S. Crowell, J. H. 16 Esterline, B. Fallin, C. R. Howell, C. Westerfeldt, M. Youngs, B. J. Crowe, and R. S. Pedroni, Phys. Rev. C83, 064605 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Dussan, S

    H. Dussan, S. J. Waldecker, W. H. Dickhoff, H. M¨ uther, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C84, 044319 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    S. J. Waldecker, C. Barbieri, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C84, 034616 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    R. J. Charity, J. M. Mueller, L. G. Sobotka, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C76, 044314 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.