Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Structure of odd-odd Cs isotopes within the interacting boson-fermion-fermion model based on the Gogny-D1M energy density functional

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using a mapped interacting boson-fermion-fermion model with microscopic energy-density-functional input, the paper claims that the odd-odd cesium isotopes 124–132Cs can be described from low-spin spectra to high-spin bands, and identifies…

desk verdict A solid, honest application of the authors' IBFFM-2 framework to odd-odd Cs isotopes; the spectroscopy is useful, but the chirality interpretation rests on a diagnostic that the model's non-triaxial core cannot actually ground. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03322 v2 pith:PPAKK5VL submitted 2019-08-09 nucl-th nucl-ex

K. Nomura , R. Rodríguez-Guzmán , L. M. Robledo This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords odd-oddnucleiinteractingboson-fermion-fermionmodelIBFFM-2chiraldoubletbandsGogny-D1MenergydensityfunctionalHartree-Fock-BogoliubovcesiumisotopesB(M1)staggering
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

The paper tries to show that a single interacting boson-fermion-fermion model, with its core and single-particle inputs taken from microscopic energy-density-functional calculations, can describe the odd-odd cesium isotopes $^{124-132}\mathrm{Cs}$ across the measured energy range. The calculations reproduce the low-spin, low-energy positive- and negative-parity spectra, especially in $^{124,126,128}\mathrm{Cs}$, and the high-spin positive-parity bands built on a neutron hole and a proton in the $h_{11/2}$ orbital up to spin about 20. On this basis the paper identifies many of these nuclei as candidate chiral doublet bands, signaled by a characteristic staggering pattern in the calculated $B(M1;I\to I-1)$ transition rates as a function of spin. If correct, the result would mean that a lightly phenomenologized model can reach from ordinary collective spectroscopy to a subtle symmetry-breaking effect such as nuclear chirality in heavy odd-odd systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the IBFFM-2 Hamiltonian, which couples an IBM-2 neutron-proton boson core to one unpaired neutron and one unpaired proton in the 50–82 shell. Its parameters are fixed by mapping the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov deformation energy surface onto the boson coherent state, and by using the single-particle energies and occupation probabilities from the same mean-field calculation in the boson-fermion coupling terms; only the quadrupole, exchange, and monopole strengths plus the short-range delta and tensor residual neutron-proton interaction are adjusted to experiment. The diagonalized wave functions yield energies, $E2$ and $M1$ transition rates, and static moments, and it is the spin dependence of the $M1$ rates that carries the chirality argument.

What would settle it

Measure the $B(M1;I\to I-1)$ staggering in the predicted partner bands of $^{126}\mathrm{Cs}$, where the yrast and side bands are built on different single-particle configurations in this calculation; if the staggering phase disagrees with the prediction, or if adding three-body boson terms that restore the core's triaxial minimum removes the near-degenerate doublets, the chirality claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the IBFFM-2 Hamiltonian assembled from constrained Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov energy surfaces and single-particle data, with only a few boson-fermion and residual neutron-proton strengths fitted, yields reasonable quantitative agreement with the low-lying spectra of $^{124,126,128}\mathrm{Cs}$ and reproduces the higher-spin positive-parity doublet-like bands up to $I\approx 20$ in most of $^{124-132}\mathrm{Cs}$. The paper further claims that the calculated $B(M1;I\to I-1)$ rates show a staggering pattern with increasing spin in most of the considered isotopes, matching the phase expected from the chiral-doublet selection rule, and therefore many of these odd-odd nuclei are good candidates for chiral doublet bands.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that omitting higher-order boson terms in the core Hamiltonian does not spoil the chiral interpretation, although the resulting mapped core surface is much flatter than the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov surface and cannot reproduce the shallow triaxial minimum at $\gamma\approx 30^\circ$ for $^{124}\mathrm{Xe}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same mapped IBFFM-2 procedure can be applied to other odd-odd nuclei in the $A\approx 130$ region, predicting which nuclei should show chiral partner bands without per-nucleus refitting beyond a few residual-interaction constants.
  • For $^{124,126,128}\mathrm{Cs}$, the model's agreement with low-spin data and high-spin bands up to $I\approx 20$ gives a basis for assigning spins and parities to states that experiment has not firmly classified.
  • The calculated $B(M1)/B(E2)$ ratios reproduce the empirical staggering trend, so the model can guide searches for new chiral candidates even where its absolute transition rates deviate from measured values.
  • The systematic degradation toward $^{132}\mathrm{Cs}$ marks the practical limit set by the small boson number near the $N=82$ shell closure and by fixed residual-interaction strengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the truncated core is the reason the mapped surface is too flat, adding three-body boson terms and refitting would test whether the predicted chiral doublets survive a genuinely triaxial core; this is a test the authors leave for future work.
  • Because the $(\nu h_{11/2})^{-1}\otimes\pi h_{11/2}$ configuration is common in neighboring odd-odd nuclei, the same machinery could predict the chiral-band landscape across the whole mass region, not just the cesium chain.
  • The sign errors in the quadrupole and magnetic moments for $^{130,132}\mathrm{Cs}$ suggest that precise moment measurements, rather than level energies alone, would separate deficiencies in the core or single-particle input from deficiencies in the residual interaction.
  • If future data show no $B(M1)$ staggering in $^{126}\mathrm{Cs}$, that would not necessarily falsify the low-spin description but would indicate that grouping states into yrast and side bands by lowest energy is too simple there.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs IBFFM-2 Hamiltonians for the odd-odd nuclei 124–132Cs from Gogny-D1M HFB calculations: the IBM-2 core parameters are obtained by mapping the constrained HFB (β,γ) energy surfaces of 124–132Xe, the single-particle energies and occupation probabilities for the odd neutron and proton are taken from HFB, and the boson-fermion couplings are partly fixed to odd-mass spectra. A residual neutron-proton interaction with fitted delta and tensor strengths completes the Hamiltonian. The authors compare low-spin positive- and negative-parity spectra, static moments, and high-spin band structures with experiment, and on the basis of near-degenerate yrast/side bands and staggering of B(M1;I→I-1) rates they identify many of these nuclei as candidates for chiral doublet bands.

Significance. If the chiral interpretation holds, the paper demonstrates that a largely microscopic IBFFM-2 approach with only a few adjusted constants can describe both low-spin odd-odd spectroscopy and high-spin bands up to I≈20, and it provides a concrete list of chiral-doublet candidates in the A≈130 region. The systematic chain calculation, the use of HFB-derived single-particle inputs, the comparison with moments and transitions, and the sensitivity study of uD and uT are genuine strengths. The main limitation is that chiral assignment is inferred from energy degeneracy and B(M1) staggering alone; the model core lacks the triaxial minimum found in the Gogny surface, and no chiral geometry is computed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A and Sec. III C 4] The chirality conclusion is load-bearing but is not supported by the model's geometry. In Sec. III A the authors state that the Gogny-D1M HFB surface for 124Xe has a shallow triaxial minimum near γ≈30°, while the adopted IBM-2 Hamiltonian of Eq. (2) gives a much flatter surface because higher-order three-body boson terms are omitted. Since chiral doublet bands are associated with an aplanar orientation of the three angular-momentum vectors, and since a γ-soft core can itself generate near-degenerate bands and M1 staggering through angular-momentum coupling, the observed B(M1) staggering cannot by itself certify chirality. No calculation of the relative angles or any other chiral order parameter is presented. I request either a direct wave-function/geometry diagnostic or a clear revision of the conclusions so that the bands are described as 'chiral-like' candidates without confirming chiral geometry.
  2. [Sec. II B and Table II] The high-spin agreement is partly a fitting result, so the chiral-candidate conclusion should be framed accordingly. The parameters Γπ for the proton h11/2 configuration in 128,130,132Cs were explicitly modified (values in parentheses in Table II) to lower the high-spin states, and uD and uT were fitted to low-lying odd-odd spectra in step 4 of Sec. II B. Consequently, the near-degenerate high-spin doublets and their B(M1) staggering are not independent predictions. The authors should quantify how the doublet splitting and the B(M1) staggering pattern change when Γπ and uT are varied over the ranges discussed in Sec. III C 5, and should clearly separate fitted from predicted content in the concluding claims.
  3. [Sec. III C 1 and Sec. III C 3] For 130Cs and 132Cs the low-spin description is poor (e.g., the experimental 2+ states in 130Cs are overestimated by about a factor of three, several negative-parity states are too high, and Table IV shows wrong-sign moments for some states), and for 126Cs the yrast and side bands have different wave-function content, with the authors noting that the simple I1/I2 grouping into bands is sometimes inadequate. These facts weaken the blanket statement that 'many' of these nuclei are good chiral candidates; the claim should be restricted to the cases where the band assignment is robust or accompanied by an analysis of the wave-function composition of the doublet partners.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C 4 and Fig. 15] The exponent notation '10□1' and '10□2' in the panels of Fig. 15 should be replaced by standard superscripts; several labels are unreadable as printed.
  2. [Sec. II A] The notation 'A+1XeN +1' near the end of Sec. III A is unclear; the isotope-labeling convention should be defined explicitly.
  3. [Various] There are several typographical issues: 'T ransition' in the section heading, duplicated sentences in the acknowledgments, and some awkward phrasing such as 'A reasonable accuracy' should be corrected.
  4. [Fig. 14 and Sec. III C 3] The text notes that the simple I1/I2 band assignment is inadequate for some states, especially in 126Cs; the figure caption for panel (b1) should state explicitly that the B(E2) curve is not meaningful where the band assignment fails.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the low-spin spectra and high-spin band energies are fitted inputs presented as predictions, while the B(M1) staggering used for the chiral-doublet claim is an independent output.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B, item 4 (procedure to build the IBFFM-2 Hamiltonian); compared in Sec. III C.1.]
    "Finally, the parameters uD and uT, in the residual interaction Vres, are determined so as to reproduce with reasonable accuracy the low-lying spectra in the odd-odd nuclei under consideration."

    Section III C.1 then presents the same low-lying spectra as a prediction, e.g., "In the case of 124Cs ... the predicted positive- and negative-parity states agree well with the experimental ones." Since uD and uT were explicitly chosen to reproduce the low-lying odd-odd spectra, the level-energy agreement reported in Figs. 4-8 is a fit-quality statement, not an independent test of the Hamiltonian. The wave-function compositions and moments are independent, but the energies being compared are the fitting target by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B, paragraph after Table II; Sec. III C.3.]
    "For the positive-parity states in 128,130,132Cs, the values of Γπ for the proton h11/2 configuration (which are fitted to the odd-mass nuclei 129,131,133Cs, respectively) have been modified so that the higher-spin positive-parity states, which are mainly composed of the (νh11/2)−1⊗πh11/2 configuration, become lower in energy."

    The stated purpose of the modification is to bring the (νh11/2)−1⊗πh11/2 bands down to Ex≈0.5 MeV. Section III C.3 then reports for 128Cs that "the structures of the bands identified experimentally are well reproduced up to I≈16+" and for 130,132Cs "a good agreement with the experimental spectra up to relatively low spin." To the extent these claims concern the band energy scale and band-head positions, the agreement is a restatement of the manually adjusted Γπ, not a prediction. The calculated B(M1) and B(M1)/B(E2) staggering patterns are not fitted and therefore retain independent content.

full rationale

Most of the model construction is not circular: the IBM-2 parameters come from mapping the Gogny-D1M HFB energy surfaces (Sec. II B.1), the single-particle energies and occupations come from HFB, and the boson-fermion strengths are fixed to neighboring odd-mass nuclei rather than to the odd-odd targets. Citations to Refs. [8,47,48,50,51,54] supply the method, but they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness argument, so they do not raise the circularity score. The genuine reduction is confined to two fitted inputs presented as achieved agreement: the residual neutron-proton strengths uD and uT are fitted to the low-lying odd-odd spectra that are later called "predicted", and Γπ is modified for 128,130,132Cs to lower the h11/2 high-spin bands whose energies are then quoted as reproduced. The central chiral-doublet claim, however, rests mainly on the calculated B(M1) staggering and B(M1)/B(E2) ratios, computed from diagonalized wave functions with fixed g-factors and effective charges; no parameter was fitted to those staggering patterns. Hence the central claim has independent content and the paper is only partially circular, not a case where the main result reduces to its inputs. The absence of the HFB triaxial minimum in the IBM-2 core (Sec. III A) and the use of the triaxial particle-rotor selection rule [29] as a benchmark are physical limitations or model mismatches for a chiral-geometry interpretation, but they are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The model relies on standard residual interactions and a well-known boson mapping, but the central results depend on a significant number of fitted coupling strengths and on the assumption that the truncated boson space preserves the physics relevant for chirality.

free parameters (6)
  • Boson-fermion neutron strengths Gamma_nu, Lambda_nu, A_nu = Table II (Gamma_nu 1.00-3.20 MeV, Lambda_nu 0.20-4.80 MeV, A_nu -0.14 to -0.48 MeV)
    Fitted separately for positive and negative parity to reproduce experimental low-energy levels of odd-N Xe isotopes (Sec. II B.2).
  • Boson-fermion proton strengths Gamma_pi, Lambda_pi, A_pi = Table II (Gamma_pi 0.60-1.20 MeV, Lambda_pi 0.40-0.58 MeV, A_pi -0.50 to -2.20 MeV; modified Gamma_pi 2.40-3.00 MeV…
    Fitted to reproduce low-energy levels of odd-Z Cs isotopes; additionally modified for positive-parity h11/2 states to lower the high-spin bands (Sec. II B and Table II).
  • uD (delta residual neutron-proton interaction strength) = 0.7 MeV
    Chosen to reproduce the low-lying odd-odd spectra and ground-state spin, fixed for all isotopes and parities (Sec. II B.4).
  • uT (tensor residual neutron-proton interaction strength) = 0.02 MeV
    Chosen to reproduce the low-lying odd-odd spectra and ground-state moments, with sensitivity shown in Figs. 17 and 18 (Sec. II B.4).
  • Effective charges eB_nu, eB_pi, eF_nu, eF_pi = 0.15, 0.15, 0.5, 1.5 eb
    Fixed values from systematics used in the E2 transition operator, Eq. (10); they directly influence B(E2) and quadrupole moments.
  • g-factors gB_nu, gB_pi, and quenched Schmidt gs values = 0, 1.0, and Schmidt values with 30 percent quenching
    Fixed values from literature used in the M1 operator, Eq. (11); they directly influence B(M1) and magnetic moments.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The IBM-2 Hamiltonian with only s and d bosons and no three-body terms is sufficient to describe the even-even core and the odd-odd spectra.
    Sec. III A admits the HFB triaxial minimum for 124Xe cannot be reproduced without higher-order terms, yet the authors assert this is not a serious limitation for low-lying collective states.
  • domain assumption Single-particle energies and occupation probabilities computed with Gogny-D1M HFB at zero deformation are realistic inputs for the fermion and boson-fermion parts of the Hamiltonian.
    Used in Sec. II B steps 1-3; the paper itself suggests these may not be realistic enough for 132Cs near the shell closure.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual neutron-proton interaction can be restricted to delta and tensor terms with constant strengths across the whole isotopic chain.
    Adopted in Eq. (7) and Sec. II B.4; the paper acknowledges this choice may be too restrictive in Secs. III C.1 and IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure of odd-odd Cs isotopes within the interacting boson-fermion-fermion model based on the Gogny-D1M energy density functional." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPAKK5VL

@misc{pith2026190803322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure of odd-odd Cs isotopes within the interacting boson-fermion-fermion model based on the Gogny-D1M energy density functional},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPAKK5VL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03322}
}
abstract

The spectroscopic properties of the odd-odd isotopes $^{124-132}$Cs have been studied within the interacting boson-fermion-fermion model based on the Gogny-D1M energy density functional framework. Major ingredients to build the interacting boson-fermion-fermion Hamiltonian, such as the ($\beta,\gamma$)-deformation energy surfaces for the even-even core nuclei $^{124-132}$Xe as well as single-particle energies and occupation probabilities of the odd nucleons, have been computed microscopically with the constrained Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method. A few coupling constants of the boson-fermion and residual neutron-proton interactions are fitted to reproduce with a reasonable accuracy the experimental excitation energy of the low-lying levels of the odd-mass and odd-odd nuclei. The method is applied to describe the low-energy low-spin spectra of the odd-odd Cs nuclei and the band structures of higher-spin higher-energy states, mainly based on the $(\nu h_{11/2})^{-1}\otimes\pi h_{11/2}$ configuration. Many of those odd-odd Cs nuclei have been identified as candidates for exhibiting chiral doublet bands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The Gogny-D1M and IBM-2 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Theoretical and experimental [53] low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but for the odd-N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Low-lying positive- and negative-states of the odd-odd nucleus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Same as in Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as in Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as in Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as in Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Band structure of the higher-spin higher-energy positive-parity states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Same as in Fig. 9 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Same as in Fig. 9 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (Color online) Same as in Fig. 9 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (Color online) Same as in Fig. 9 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (Color online) The calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (Color online) Electric quadrupole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. (Color online) Excitation energies of the low-lying positive- and negative-parity yrast states of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. (Color online) The calculated quadrupole (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    for a general introduction to the latter method. From a computational point of view, systematic applications of these approaches are very demanding, if not impos- sible, for heavy nuclei, especially when a large number of valence nucleons are involved and/or multiple shape ∗ knomura@phy.hr degrees of freedom have to be taken into account in the generator ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  2. [2]

    Once the form of the IBM-2 Hamiltonian is fixed, the parametersϵ,κ,χν, andχπ are uniquely deter- mined [47, 48] by mapping the ( β,γ )-deformation energy surface obtained from the constrained Gogny-D1M [10] HFB calculation onto the expec- tation value of the IBM-2 Hamiltonian in the boson coherent state [49]

    work page

  3. [3]

    The single-neutron Hamiltonian ˆHν F and the boson- fermion Hamiltonian ˆHν BF for odd-N Xe isotopes are built by using the procedure of [50] (see also

    work page

  4. [4]

    For sim- plicity, we have taken the fixed values uD = 0.7 MeV and uT = 0.02 MeV for all the considered nuclei and for both parities

    Finally, the parameters uD and uT, in the residual interaction ˆVres, are determined so as to reproduce with reasonable accuracy the low-lying spectra in the odd-odd nuclei under consideration. For sim- plicity, we have taken the fixed values uD = 0.7 MeV and uT = 0.02 MeV for all the considered nuclei and for both parities. The values of the IBM-2 paramet...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The single- particle energies and occupation probabilities are, however, computed independently for each of the studied odd-odd systems

    We use for the IBFFM-2 Hamiltonian in the odd- odd Cs the same strength parameters Γ ν, Λν, and Aν (Γπ, Λπ, and Aπ) obtained for the odd-N Xe (odd-Z Cs) nuclei in the previous step. The single- particle energies and occupation probabilities are, however, computed independently for each of the studied odd-odd systems

    work page

  6. [6]

    Dobaczewski, A

    J. Dobaczewski, A. Afanasjev, M. Bender, L. Rob- ledo, and Y. Shi, Nuclear Physics A 944, 388 (2015), ISSN 0375-9474, special Issue on Superheavy Ele- ments, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947415001633

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    We will consider low-spin low-energy states up to an excitation energy Ex≈ 1 MeV

    Energy spectra for the low-spin low-energy states Let us now discuss the results obtained for odd-odd Cs nuclei. We will consider low-spin low-energy states up to an excitation energy Ex≈ 1 MeV. Our calculation indicates that those states are mainly based on normal- parity (i.e., sdg) orbitals. The spectra obtained for 124,126,128,130,132Cs are de- picted...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Theoretical and experimental quadrupole Q(I) (in eb units) and magnetic µ(I) (in µN units) moments for 124−132Cs

    E2 and M1 moments of lowest-lying states As for the electromagnetic properties of the lowest- lying states in odd-odd Cs isotopes, experimental data are only available for the quadrupole Q(I) and magnetic TABLE IV. Theoretical and experimental quadrupole Q(I) (in eb units) and magnetic µ(I) (in µN units) moments for 124−132Cs. The experimental values are ...

    work page

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    We have paid special attention to the possible doublet structure expected as a result of the coupling between a neutron hole and a proton in the unique-parity 1h11/2 orbital

    Band structure of higher-spin states We have further studied the detailed band structure of the higher-lying higher-spin states in the considered odd-odd Cs isotopes. We have paid special attention to the possible doublet structure expected as a result of the coupling between ...

  2. [10]

    Our analy- sis of theB(E2) andB(M1) patterns suggests that there are many examples in the odd-odd Cs nuclei that can be considered candidates to display chirality

    B(E2) and B(M1) systematic in the high-spin states To identify possible signatures of chirality we have con- sidered, in addition to energy levels, the systematic of the E2 and M1 transitions with increasing spin. Our analy- sis of theB(E2) andB(M1) patterns suggests that ther...

    2010

  3. [11]

    Iachello and A

    F. Iachello and A. Arima, The interacting boson model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    1987

  4. [12]

    Dependence on the residual neutron-proton interaction Finally we examine how the spectroscopic results from the IBFFM-2 depend on the choice of the strength pa- rameters for the residual neutron-proton interaction ˆVres (see, Eq. (7)). In Fig. 17 we depict the evolution of the...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Scholten, Prog

    O. Scholten, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 14, 189 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The nuclear many-body problem (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    Bender, P.-H

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

    2003

  8. [16]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodrguez, and R. R. Rodrguez- Guzmn, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 013001 (2019), URL http://stacks.iop. org/0954-3899/46/i=1/a=013001

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bally, B

    B. Bally, B. Avez, M. Bender, and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 162501 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Borrajo and J

    M. Borrajo and J. L. Egido, The European Physical Journal A 52, 277 (2016), ISSN 1434-601X, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16277-8

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Vogel, P

    O. Vogel, P. Van Isacker, A. Gelberg, P. von Brentano, and A. Dewald, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1660 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 53.1660

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034308 (2019), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.034308

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Decharge and M

    J. Decharge and M. Girod and D. Gogny, Phys. Lett. B 55, 361 (1975)

    1975

  15. [23]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, M. Girod, and S. P´ eru, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242501 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Cejnar, J

    P. Cejnar, J. Jolie, and R. F. Casten, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2155 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Iachello and O

    F. Iachello and O. Scholten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 679 (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Coquard, N

    L. Coquard, N. Pietralla, T. Ahn, G. Rainovski, L. Bet- termann, M. P. Carpenter, R. V. F. Janssens, J. Leske, C. J. Lister, O. M¨ oller, et al., Phys. Rev. C 80, 061304 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.80.061304

    2009

  19. [27]

    Iachello and P

    F. Iachello and P. Van Isacker, The interacting boson- fermion model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Brant, V

    S. Brant, V. Paar, and D. Vretenar, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei 319, 355 (1984), ISSN 0939-7922, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01412551

    1984 doi

  21. [30]

    Sevrin, K

    A. Sevrin, K. Heyde, and J. Jolie, Phys. Rev. C 36, 2631 (1987), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.36.2631

    1987

  22. [31]

    J. Yan, O. Vogel, P. von Brentano, and A. Gelberg, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1046 (1993), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.1046

    1993 doi

  23. [32]

    is shown as an open circle

  24. [33]

    Mizusaki and T

    T. Mizusaki and T. Otsuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 125, 97 (1996)

    1996

  25. [34]

    Yoshinaga and K

    N. Yoshinaga and K. Higashiyama, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054309 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.69.054309

    2004

  26. [35]

    Z. P. Li, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 81, 034316 (2010)

    2010

  27. [36]

    Nomura, N

    K. Nomura, N. Shimizu, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 132501 (2012)

    2012

  28. [37]

    Higashiyama and N

    K. Higashiyama and N. Yoshinaga, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034315 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.88.034315

    2013

  29. [38]

    R. F. Casten and N. V. Zamfir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3584 (2000), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.85.3584

    2000

  30. [39]

    Brant, N

    S. Brant, N. Yoshida, and L. Zuffi, Phys. Rev. C 74, 024303 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.024303

    2006 doi

  31. [40]

    Iachello, Phys

    F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3580 (2000), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3580

    2000 doi

  32. [41]

    Frauendorf and J

    S. Frauendorf and J. Meng, Nuclear Physics A 617, 131 (1997), ISSN 0375-9474, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0375947497000043

    1997

  33. [42]

    Koike, K

    T. Koike, K. Starosta, and I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 172502 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.172502

    2004 doi

  34. [43]

    Grodner, J

    E. Grodner, J. Srebrny, A. A. Pasternak, I. Zalewska, T. Morek, C. Droste, J. Mierzejewski, M. Kowalczyk, J. Kownacki, M. Kisieli´ nski, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 172501 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.172501

    2006 doi

  35. [44]

    Starosta and T

    K. Starosta and T. Koike, Physica Scripta 92, 093002 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1402-4896% 2Faa800e

    2017

  36. [45]

    Grodner, J

    E. Grodner, J. Srebrny, C. Droste, L. Pr´ ochniak, S. G. Rohozi´ nski, M. Kowalczyk, M. Ionescu-Bujor, C. A. Ur, K. Starosta, T. Ahn, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 022502 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.022502

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    Brant, D

    S. Brant, D. Vretenar, and A. Ventura, Phys. Rev. C 69, 017304 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.017304

    2004 doi

  38. [48]

    Higashiyama, N

    K. Higashiyama, N. Yoshinaga, and K. Tanabe, Phys. Rev. C 72, 024315 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.024315. 18

    2005 doi

  39. [49]

    and Yoshinaga, N., Eur

    Higashiyama, K. and Yoshinaga, N., Eur. Phys. J. A 33, 355 (2007), URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ i2007-10457-7

    2007 doi

  40. [50]

    Nomura, T

    K. Nomura, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054305 (2016)

    2016

  41. [51]

    for further details ). In those references, the single-particle energies and occupation probabili- ties of the odd nucleon, entering both ˆHν F and ˆHν BF, are obtained from Gogny-D1M HFB calculations at zero deformation. The optimal values of the boson- fermion interaction st...

  42. [52]

    L. Zuffi, S. Brant, and N. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034308 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034308

    2003 doi

  43. [53]

    Mardones, J

    E. Mardones, J. Barea, C. E. Alonso, and J. M. Arias, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034332 (2016), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034332

    2016 doi

  44. [54]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 046301 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1361-6633%2Faa5bc5

    2017

  45. [56]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, and F. Iachello, Nucl. Phys. A 309, 1 (1978)

    1978

  46. [57]

    J. M. Arias, C. E. Alonso, and M. Lozano, Phys. Rev. C 33, 1482 (1986), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.33.1482

    1986

  47. [58]

    Yoshida and F

    N. Yoshida and F. Iachello, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2013, 043D01 (2013), URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptt007

    2013 doi

  48. [59]

    Morrison, A

    I. Morrison, A. Faessler, and C. Lima, Nuclear Physics A 372, 13 (1981), ISSN 0375-9474, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/037594748190083X

    1981

  49. [60]

    Nomura, N

    K. Nomura, N. Shimizu, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 142501 (2008)

    2008

  50. [61]

    Nomura, N

    K. Nomura, N. Shimizu, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044307 (2010)

    2010

  51. [62]

    J. N. Ginocchio and M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A 350, 31 (1980)

    1980

  52. [64]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014314 (2017), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014314

    2017 doi

  53. [65]

    Yoshida and A

    N. Yoshida and A. Arima, Physics Letters B 164, 231 (1985), ISSN 0370-2693, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0370269385903156

    1985

  54. [66]

    Brookhaven National Nuclear Data Center, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov

  55. [67]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 96, 064316 (2017), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.064316

    2017 doi

  56. [68]

    Li, Y.-J

    X.-F. Li, Y.-J. Ma, Y.-Z. Liu, J.-B. Lu, G.-Y. Zhao, L.- C. Yin, R. Meng, Z.-L. Zhang, L.-J. Wen, X.-H. Zhou, et al., The European Physical Journal A - Hadrons and Nuclei 17, 523 (2003), ISSN 1434-601X, URL https:// doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2002-10159-8

    2003 doi

  57. [69]

    Stone, At

    N. Stone, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 90, 75 (2005)

    2005

  58. [70]

    Xiong and Y

    B. Xiong and Y. Wang, Atomic Data and Nu- clear Data Tables 125, 193 (2019), ISSN 0092- 640X, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0092640X18300329

    2019

  59. [71]

    Gizon, J

    A. Gizon, J. Timr, J. Gizon, B. Weiss, D. Barnoud, C. Foin, J. Genevey, F. Hannachi, C. Liang, A. Lopez- Martens, et al., Nuclear Physics A 694, 63 (2001), ISSN 0375-9474, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0375947401009769

    2001

  60. [72]

    S. Wang, Y. Liu, T. Komatsubara, Y. Ma, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 74, 017302 (2006), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.017302

    2006 doi

  61. [73]

    E. S. Paul, D. B. Fossan, Y. Liang, R. Ma, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 40, 619 (1989), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.40.619

    1989 doi

  62. [74]

    A. J. Simons, P. Joshi, D. G. Jenkins, P. M. Rad- don, R. Wadsworth, D. B. Fossan, T. Koike, C. Vaman, K. Starosta, E. S. Paul, et al., Journal of Physics G: Nu- clear and Particle Physics 31, 541 (2005), URL https: //doi.org/10.1088%2F0954-3899%2F31%2F7%2F001

    2005

  63. [75]

    Rainovski, E

    G. Rainovski, E. S. Paul, H. J. Chantler, P. J. Nolan, D. G. Jenkins, R. Wadsworth, P. Raddon, A. Si- mons, D. B. Fossan, T. Koike, et al., Phys. Rev. C 68, 024318 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.024318

    2003 doi

  64. [3554]

    FPA2015-65929-MINECO and FIS2015- 63770-MINECO

    The work of LMR was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) Grants No. FPA2015-65929-MINECO and FIS2015- 63770-MINECO

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.