Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Preponderance of triaxial shapes in atomic nuclei predicted by the proxy-SU(3) symmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across the nuclear chart, zero-parameter proxy-SU(3) symmetry places substantial triaxiality ($15^\circ\le\gamma\le45^\circ$) in five stripes at nucleon numbers 22–26, 34–48, 74–80, 116–124, and 172–182, and B(E2) ratio data support the…

desk verdict A useful, transparent new map of triaxial stripes from proxy-SU(3), with an overstated parameter-free claim and an empirical test that needs a statistical baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12281 v1 pith:2KWZI3PQ submitted 2024-11-19 nucl-th

Dennis Bonatsos , Andriana Martinou , S.K. Peroulis , D. Petrellis , P. Vasileiou , T.J. Mertzimekis , N. Minkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V3522E70 PACS 21.60.Fw21.60.Cs
keywords triaxialnuclearshapesproxy-SU(3)symmetrySU(3)irreduciblerepresentationschartstripesgammadeformationB(E2)branchingratioshighestweightirrepsMonteCarloshellmodel
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 establish that triaxial deformation is not a scattered accident but a chart-wide, predictable pattern: the proxy-SU(3) approximation to the shell model yields, with no free parameters, a nonzero deformation angle $\gamma$ almost everywhere, with substantial values ($15^\circ\le\gamma\le45^\circ$) concentrated in horizontal and vertical stripes at nucleon numbers 22–26, 34–48, 74–80, 116–124, and 172–182. The stripes arise because those nucleon numbers are exactly where the highest-weight SU(3) representations of valence protons or neutrons are oblate-like ($\lambda\le\mu$), so they pull the total representation off axial symmetry. The paper argues the stripes are already visible in data: even–even nuclei with known $2_1^+$, $2_2^+$, and relevant B(E2)s preferentially satisfy the collective-model thresholds ($R<6.85$, $R_2>2.71$) inside the stripes, and detailed comparisons with Monte Carlo shell model calculations for the $N=94,96,98$ isotones agree except at $Z=70$ and $N=94$, where the highest-weight representation is fully symmetric ($\mu=0$). The proposed repair, mixing in the next-higher-weight representation at 50%, removes those discrepancies; if correct, this gives experimentalists a parameter-free map of where to look for $\gamma$ bands with strong interband transitions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the highest-weight SU(3) irreducible representation $(\lambda,\mu)$ assigned to each nucleus's valence protons and neutrons, selected by the exclusion principle and the short-range nature of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The identity that converts it into a shape is Eq. (1), $\gamma=\arctan\!\left(\sqrt{3}(\mu+1)/(2\lambda+\mu+3)\right)$, inherited from the mapping of the collective variables onto the invariants of the SU(3) algebra. A nucleus is predicted substantially triaxial when its total representation has $\lambda\le\mu$, which occurs for the listed stripe nucleon numbers. The machinery also includes a repair rule: when the highest-weight irrep is fully symmetric ($\mu=0$), the paper replaces it by a 50% average with the next-higher-weight irrep, which restores the $\mu\ge4$ content needed to place the ground, $\gamma$, and $\gamma\gamma$ bands in one representation.

What would settle it

Measure the energy ratio $R=E(2_2^+)/E(2_1^+)$ and branching ratio $R_2=B(E2;2_2^+\to2_1^+)/B(E2;2_2^+\to0_1^+)$ for an even–even nucleus squarely inside one of the predicted stripes, for example a nucleus with neutron number 76–78 and proton number 58–62. The stripe claim requires $R<6.85$ and $R_2>2.71$; observing $R>6.85$ and $R_2<2.71$ for such a nucleus would contradict the central prediction because the paper's own survey lists no exception inside the stripes. For the specific $\mu=0$ case of $Z=70,N=94$, the amended prediction is a large jump in $\gamma$ from about $1^\circ$ to about $23^\circ$, so the same two-ratio measurement decides which side of the repair is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is a parameter-free global map of triaxiality from the proxy-SU(3) symmetry. Each nucleus is assigned the highest-weight SU(3) irreducible representation $(\lambda,\mu)$ of its valence protons combined with that of its valence neutrons, and the standard invariant mapping gives $\gamma = \arctan\!\left(\sqrt{3}(\mu+1)/(2\lambda+\mu+3)\right)$. Because the symmetry tables place oblate-like representations with $\lambda\le\mu$ only at valence nucleon numbers inside the listed ranges, the predicted $\gamma$ map shows stripes of $15^\circ$–$45^\circ$ triaxiality at those nuclides. Testing the map against the compiled even–even data with the collective-model filters $R<6.85$ and $R_2>2.71$ leaves most candidates in the stripes, and the Monte Carlo shell model comparison for the $N=94,96,98$ isotones confirms the picture aside from the fully symmetric ($\mu=0$) cases at $Z=70$ and $N=94$, which the paper treats as an artifact and amends by averaging in the next-higher-weight representation.

Load-bearing premise

The stripe map assumes that a single most-symmetric SU(3) representation, chosen by a highest-weight rule, fully determines each nucleus's shape, with $\gamma$ read from the invariant mapping; the paper itself shows this fails when that representation has $\mu=0$, and the repair (mixing in the next representation at an ad hoc 50% weight) is not derived from the symmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nuclei inside the five stripes should systematically show $\gamma$ between $15^\circ$ and $45^\circ$, so the two observables used in the paper ($R<6.85$ and $R_2>2.71$) should select them; a clean $\gamma$ band with strong $2_2^+\to2_1^+$ interband B(E2) relative to $2_2^+\to0_1^+$ is the experimental fingerprint.
  • The agreement with Monte Carlo shell model results means the cheapest possible symmetry prediction and the most expensive shell-model diagonalization track each other, so the cheap stripe map can guide where expensive calculations are worth doing.
  • The $\mu=0$ cases at $Z=70$ and $N=94$ are predicted to be artificial: after the next-higher-weight correction, proxy-SU(3) aligns with the $R$-based empirical $\gamma$, not with a low-$\gamma$ axially deformed picture.
  • The stripe pattern should extend to superheavy nuclei by the same argument, a direction the paper calls straightforward; this gives a concrete target list beyond the experimentally charted region.
  • The stripes realize the older particle–hole idea: triaxiality appears when one kind of valence nucleon is particle-like and the other hole-like, connecting the symmetry prediction to the proton–neutron boson picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the stripe map is correct, the paper's own distinction between rigid and soft triaxiality, which it leaves untreated, implies that most stripe nuclei should be $\gamma$-soft rather than rigid, because the symmetry produces triaxiality through mixed representations rather than through a deep triaxial minimum; a survey of $\gamma$-band staggering inside the stripes would test this.
  • The $\mu=0$ repair rule generates new predictions by itself: the paper's tables show fully symmetric highest-weight irreps for valence nucleon numbers $M=2,6,12,20,30,42$, so analogous dips should appear at other fully symmetric nuclei, and each is a ready test of the 50% averaging prescription.
  • Because the stripes are keyed to valence nucleon number, an isotopic chain crossing a stripe boundary should show a sharp rise in predicted $\gamma$ at the boundary, whereas gradual collectivity evolution or shape coexistence might smear that jump; high-precision B(E2) data along such a chain could distinguish a hard symmetry-stripe effect from a soft structural transition.
  • The connection to the dual-shell magic numbers that the paper uses for shape coexistence suggests that triaxial stripe boundaries may be good places to look for coexisting prolate and oblate structures, since the same shell-filling regions that produce $\lambda\le\mu$ irreps are tied to the magic numbers that drive coexistence.
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 manuscript uses the proxy-SU(3) shell-model symmetry to predict, from highest-weight SU(3) irreducible representations and the Castaños-Draayer-Leschber mapping of Eq. (1), the collective deformation variable γ across the nuclear chart. The central claim is that substantial triaxiality with 15° ≤ γ ≤ 45° is expected along horizontal and vertical stripes covering nucleon numbers 22-26, 34-48, 74-80, 116-124, and 172-182, and that this is supported by empirical energy and B(E2) ratios as well as by Monte Carlo shell model results for N=94, 96, 98 isotones. The paper also proposes an amendment for highest-weight irreps with μ=0 by averaging with next-higher-weight irreps.

Significance. If the stripe predictions survive scrutiny, the paper would provide a simple, computationally inexpensive and falsifiable map of where triaxial shapes should be common, which is useful for planning experiments and for testing algebraic shell-model methods. Strengths of the manuscript include the explicit use of irreps computed by the UNTOU3 code, the attempt to confront the predictions with a large body of empirical energy and B(E2) data, and the direct comparison with state-of-the-art MCSM calculations. The central algebraic mechanism, that a substantial μ component in the total SU(3) irrep raises the predicted γ, is transparent and testable. However, the paper's own tables and formulas contain load-bearing inconsistencies that currently prevent acceptance of the full stripe list and of the 'parameter-free' characterization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Table II] The claimed 22-26 stripe is not supported by Table II for the U(10) shell. For M=2, 4, and 6 valence nucleons in the 20-40 shell, the highest-weight irreps are (6,0), (8,2), and (12,0), respectively; none has λ≤μ, and Eq. (1) gives γ≈6.6°, 13.9°, and 3.7°, all below the 15° threshold. The text only establishes λ≤μ for M=14-20 in U(10), i.e., nucleon numbers 34-40, not for 22-26. If the 22-26 entry is intended to be based on hole irreps in the 20-40 shell, that counting is not stated, and the conjugate irreps would give γ values above 45°, outside the claimed band. This inconsistency directly undermines the 'proved' stripe list in the abstract and Section II, and it must be corrected or the 22-26 stripe removed.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (5)] As printed, Eq. (5) gives R2=0 at both γ=0° and γ=30°, because the sin²3γ factor vanishes at both endpoints and the bracketed factor also vanishes at both endpoints. This contradicts the text's statement that R2 starts from 1.43 at γ=0 and rises to infinity at γ=30°. The numerical threshold R2=2.71 at γ=15° quoted in the text appears to require a division by the bracketed factor rather than a multiplication. Since the empirical classification of nuclei in Table I and Fig. 5 depends on this formula, the expression must be corrected and the affected entries re-evaluated.
  3. [Appendix B and Conclusions] The amendment for irreps with μ=0 introduces a free parameter: the 50% average of the highest-weight and next-higher-weight irrep values is chosen by hand, and the paper states that MCSM calculations provide guidance for the amendment. This contradicts the abstract's and Section II's claim that the predictions are 'completely parameter-free'. The authors should explicitly distinguish the parameter-free highest-weight prediction from the phenomenological 50% mixing correction, and refrain from describing the amended values as parameter-free.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The condition 'N ≤ 18 ≤ 124' should read '18 ≤ N ≤ 124'.
  2. [Section IV, first paragraph] The phrase 'to what extend' should be 'to what extent'.
  3. [Section III, text after Eq. (5)] The sentence describing R2 should be checked against the corrected version of Eq. (5); the current wording 'starting from 1.43 at γ=0 and raising towards infinity at γ=30' is not consistent with the printed formula.
  4. [Abstract and Section II] The expression 'proved to be expected' is stronger than the derivation supports, given the reliance on the highest-weight irrep assumption and on the phenomenological mapping of Eq. (1); 'predicted' would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited highest-weight-irrep selection and a post-hoc 50% mixing correction in Appendix B; the central stripe prediction remains externally testable.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section II, second paragraph under 'PROXY-SU(3) PREDICTIONS']
    "It has been shown [57] that the highest weight irrep is the most symmetric irrep allowed by the restrictions imposed by the Pauli principle and the short range nature of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The necessary SU(3) irreps for the valence protons or neutrons are easily obtained from Table I of Ref. [35]... Additional tables are given in Ref. [58]."

    The predictive input of the paper is the single highest-weight SU(3) irrep assigned to each nucleus. That assignment is justified by citing Ref. [57], whose authors overlap with the present authors, and the stripe regions are read off from the authors' own prior tables [35,58]. The present manuscript does not rederive this assignment or exhibit the stripe irreps for all claimed regions; its only in-paper irrep table, Table II, lists for U(10) the h.w. irreps (6,0), (8,2), (12,0) for M=2,4,6, none of which satisfy lambda<=mu. The 'proof' of the stripes is therefore inherited from self-citations rather than demonstrated here, though Ref. [57] is an external publication, so this is not complete circularity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A/B and right column of Fig. 6 in Section IV]
    "As a simple approximation, we assume a 50% contribution from each of the two irreps. Replacing the original values gamma_hw by the average of the values of gamma_hw and gamma_nhw of Table III in Fig. 6, we obtain the panels in its right column. The sudden drops of the proxy-SU(3) predictions at Z = 70 have been eliminated."

    The 50% mixing weight is not derived from SU(3), the Pauli principle, or the short-range interaction; it is introduced only for the Z=70 and N=94 cases where the h.w. irrep has mu=0 and Eq. (1) gives gamma too low. The amended value is (gamma_hw + gamma_nhw)/2 by construction, so the elimination of the drops and the closer agreement with the empirical R values in the right column of Fig. 6 are built into the ad hoc averaging rather than independently predicted. This makes the right-column comparison no longer parameter-free, contrary to the paper's framing of the proxy-SU(3) predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction, the triaxiality stripes, is not derived by fitting to data; it follows from Eq. (1) applied to highest-weight SU(3) irreps taken from the authors' prior tables. The sharpest circularity is the invocation of Refs. [57],[35],[58] to justify the h.w. irrep selection, which is the load-bearing input. Additionally, Appendix B introduces a 50/50 hw+nhw averaging weight without derivation, then presents the right column of Fig. 6 as improved predictions; the improvement is built into the averaging. These self-citations and the fitted mixing parameter prevent a score of 0-2, but the empirical comparisons against R, R2 and MCSM are external checks, so total circularity is only partial. Note also an internal inconsistency: Table II gives U(10) h.w. irreps (6,0), (8,2), (12,0) for M=2,4,6, which do not have lambda<=mu, so the claimed 22-26 stripe is not supported by the paper's own table; this is a correctness issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The main inputs not paid for upstream are the proxy-SU(3) approximation, the highest-weight selection rule, the Eq. (1) shape mapping, and, added ad hoc, the 50% mixing weight used to repair the mu=0 underprediction. The free-parameter count is one explicit hand-picked weight, though the paper's headline claim is 'parameter-free'.

free parameters (1)
  • hw-nhw mixing weight = 0.50
    In Appendix B the gamma predictions for nuclei with hw irrep having mu=0 (e.g., 164Yb, N=94 isotones) are replaced by the arithmetic mean of gamma from the hw and nhw irreps. The 50% weight is chosen by hand to remove the discrepancy with data and MCSM; it is not derived from the Pauli principle or SU(3) structure, making the amended predictions in Fig. 6 (right column) partially fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Proxy-SU(3) approximation: deserting orbitals act as proxies for intruder orbitals, restoring SU(3) symmetry beyond the sd shell
    This is the foundation of the irreps used in Sec. II. It is imported from the authors' earlier publications [34-36] and is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Highest-weight irrep determines nuclear deformation: the relevant SU(3) irrep is the most stretched one allowed by the Pauli principle and short-range NN force
    The irreps in Table II and Fig. 1 come from this rule, attributed to Ref. [57]. The paper's own failures at Z=70 and N=94 demonstrate this is not universally valid.
  • domain assumption Castanos-Draayer-Leschber mapping, Eq. (1): gamma = arctan(sqrt(3)(mu+1)/(2 lambda + mu + 3))
    All predicted gamma values are computed from this 1988 formula, which is imported from Ref. [37]. It is an algebraic bridge between SU(3) labels and the collective model, not a first-principles derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Davydov rigid-rotor interpretation for empirical gamma extraction (Eqs. 3 and 5)
    In Sec. III the measured R and R2 ratios are converted to gamma using Davydov-model formulas. This presumes the selected nuclei behave as rigid triaxial rotors; the paper notes that R=2 also fits U(5) vibrators but does not exclude them.
  • ad hoc to paper 50% mixing of hw and nhw irreps (Appendix B)
    The paper assumes equal, 50% contributions of the highest-weight and next-higher-weight irreps for the problematic mu=0 cases. This weight is not derived and is only introduced after seeing the deviations, so it is an ad hoc element of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preponderance of triaxial shapes in atomic nuclei predicted by the proxy-SU(3) symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KWZI3PQ

@misc{pith2026241112281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preponderance of triaxial shapes in atomic nuclei predicted by the proxy-SU(3) symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KWZI3PQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12281}
}
read the original abstract

The proxy-SU(3) symmetry predicts, in a parameter-free way, based only on the Pauli principle and the short-range nature of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, non-vanishing values of the collective variable gamma almost everywhere across the nuclear chart. Substantial triaxiality with gamma between 15 and 45 degrees is proved to be expected along horizontal and vertical stripes on the nuclear chart, covering the nucleon numbers 22-26, 34-48, 74-80, 116-124, 172-182. Empirical support for these stripes is found by collecting all even-even nuclei for which the first two excited 2+ states are known, along with the B(E2)s connecting them, as well as the second 2+ state to the ground state. The stripes are related to regions in which oblate SU(3) irreducible representations appear, bearing similarity to the appearance of triaxiality within the SU(3)* dynamical symmetry of the interacting boson model-2. Detailed comparisons of the proxy-SU(3) predictions to the data and to predictions by state-of-the-art Monte Carlo shell model calculations for deformed N=94, 96, 98 isotones in the rare earth region show good overall agreement, with the exception of Z=70 and N=94, which correspond to fully symmetric proxy-SU(3) irreps, suggesting that the latter are an artifact of the method which can be amended by considering the influence of the neighboring irreps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Proxy-SU(3) predictions, taken from Eq. (1), for the deformation variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Same as Fig. 1, but only for nuclei having 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The theoretical energy ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Nuclei with experimentally known 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Nuclei with experimentally known 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Left column: Parameter-free proxy-SU(3) predictions (labeled as proxy-SU(3)) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    The proxy-SU(3) predictions are close to the em- pirical R values, except for N = 94, in which they are lower

    work page

  2. [3]

    The above observations reveal that there is a prob- lem of underestimation of the γ value in proxy-SU(3) for Z = 70 and N = 94

    The proxy-SU(3) predictions for Z = 70 are too low in all cases. The above observations reveal that there is a prob- lem of underestimation of the γ value in proxy-SU(3) for Z = 70 and N = 94. This problem appears to be due to the fact that the relevant h.w. irreps, which are (20,0) and (36,0) respectively, as one can see in Table I of Ref. [34], have µ =...

    work page

  3. [4]

    Davydov A S and Rostovsky V S 1959 Nucl. Phys. 12 58 Relative transition probabilities between rotational levels of non-axial nuclei

    work page 1959

  4. [5]

    The MCSM predictions are in general close to the empirical R2 values, with the exception of the predictions for the ground state band atN = 94, which are somewhat lower

    work page

  5. [6]

    The proxy-SU(3) predictions are close to the empir- ical R values

    work page

  6. [7]

    It can therefore be concluded that the MCSM calcula- tions provide guidance for the amendment of the proxy- SU(3) scheme in the cases in which irreps with µ = 0 appear

    The sudden drops of the proxy-SU(3) predictions at Z = 70 have been eliminated. It can therefore be concluded that the MCSM calcula- tions provide guidance for the amendment of the proxy- SU(3) scheme in the cases in which irreps with µ = 0 appear. V. CONCLUSIONS The main conclusions of the present work are summa- rized here. a) The proxy-SU(3) symmetry p...

    work page

  7. [8]

    Dieperink A E L and Bijker R 1982 Phys. Lett. B 116 77 On triaxial features in the neutron-proton IBA

    work page 1982

  8. [9]

    Bohr A 1952 Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 26 no. 14 The cou- pling of nuclear surface oscillations to the motion of in- dividual nucleons

    work page 1952

Show all 80 references
  1. [10]

    II: Nuclear Deformations (Singapore: World Scientific)

    Bohr A and Mottelson B R 1988 Nuclear Structure Vol. II: Nuclear Deformations (Singapore: World Scientific)

    1988

  2. [11]

    Davydov A S and Filippov G F 1958 Nucl. Phys. 8 237 Rotational states in even atomic nuclei

    1958

  3. [12]

    Girod M and Grammaticos B 1983 Phys. Rev. C 27 2317 Triaxial Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculations with D1 effective interaction

    1983

  4. [13]

    Meyer-Ter-Vehn J 1975 Nucl. Phys. A 249 111 Collec- tive model description of transitional odd-A nuclei: (I). The triaxial-rotor-plus-particle model

    1975

  5. [14]

    Arima A and Iachello F 1975 Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 1069 Collective Nuclear States as Representations of a SU(6) Group

    1975

  6. [15]

    Iachello F and Arima A 1987 The Interacting Boson Model (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press)

    1987

  7. [16]

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

    1949

  8. [17]

    Walet N R and Brussaard P J 1987 Nucl. Phys. A 474 61 A study of the SU(3) ∗ limit of IBM-2

    1987

  9. [18]

    Giraud B and Sauer P U 1969 Phys. Lett. B 30 218 Restoration of rotational symmetry for triaxial Hartree- Fock solutions

    1969

  10. [19]

    Girod M and Grammaticos B 1978 Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 361 Quest for Triaxial Nuclei: Some Hartree-Bogoliubov Predictions

    1978

  11. [20]

    in 1999 with the introduction of the triaxial pro- jected shell model (TPSM), in which triaxiality is explic- itly taken into account and 3-dimensional angular mo- mentum projection is performed from the triaxial Nils- son+BCS wave function [20]. Since the computational effort...

    1973 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Hayashi A, Hara K and Ring P 1984 Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 337 Existence of Triaxial Shapes in Transitional Nuclei

    1984

  13. [22]

    Yao J M, Meng J, Ring P and Vretenar D 2010 Phys. Rev. C 81 044311 Configuration mixing of angular- momentum-projected triaxial relativistic mean-field wave functions

    2010

  14. [23]

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

    1949

  15. [24]

    Otsuka T, Tsunoda Y, Utsuno Y, Shimizu N, Abe T and Ueno H 2024 arXiv: 2303.11299v5 [nucl-th] Prevailing 7 Triaxial Shapes in Heavy Nuclei Driven by Nuclear Ten- sor Force

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Mayer M G and Jensen J H D 1955 Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure (New York: Wiley) 1955

    1955

  17. [26]

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

    1955

  18. [27]

    Nilsson S G and Ragnarsson I 1995 Shapes and Shells in Nuclear Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press)

    1995

  19. [28]

    Sheikh J A and Hara K 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 3968 Triaxial Projected Shell Model Approach

    1999

  20. [29]

    Rouoof S P, Nazir N, Jehangir S, Bhat G H, Sheikh J A, Rather N and Frauendorf S 2024 Eur. Phys. J. A 60 40 Fingerprints of the triaxial deformation from energies and B(E2) transition probabilities of γ-bands in transitional and deformed nuclei

    2024

  21. [30]

    Honma M, Mizusaki T and Otsuka T 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 1284 Diagonalization of Hamiltonians for Many- Body Systems by Auxiliary Field Quantum Monte Carlo Technique

    1995

  22. [31]

    Tsunoda Y and Otsuka T 2021 Phys. Rev. C 103 L021303 Triaxial rigidity of 166Er and its Bohr-model re- alization

    2021

  23. [32]

    Zuker A P, Retamosa J, Poves A and Caurier E 1995 Phys. Rev. C 52 R1741(R) Spherical shell model descrip- tion of rotational motion

    1995

  24. [33]

    Elliott J P 1958 Proc. Roy. Soc. A Ser. A 245 128 Col- lective motion in the nuclear shell model. I. Classification schemes for states of mixed configurations

    1958

  25. [34]

    Elliott J P 1958 Proc. Roy. Soc. A Ser. A 245 562 Col- lective motion in the nuclear shell model II. The intro- duction of intrinsic wave-functions

    1958

  26. [35]

    As one can see in Table III, the value of λ + µ is changed very little when passing from the original to the new irrep, thus β remains practically unchanged

    for further details). As one can see in Table III, the value of λ + µ is changed very little when passing from the original to the new irrep, thus β remains practically unchanged. d) The values of β predicted by proxy-SU(3) in a parameter-free way are in good agreement with th...

  27. [36]

    Elliott J P and Harvey M 1963 Proc. Roy. Soc. A Ser. A 272 557 Collective motion in the nuclear shell model III. The calculation of spectra

    1963

  28. [37]

    Wybourne B G 1974 Classical Groups for Physicists (New York: Wiley)

    1974

  29. [38]

    Ratna Raju R D, Draayer J P and Hecht K T 1973 Nucl. Phys. A 202 433 Search for a coupling scheme in heavy deformed nuclei: The pseudo SU(3) model

    1973

  30. [39]

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

  31. [40]

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

    1984

  32. [41]

    Zuker A P, Poves A, Nowacki F, Lenzi S M 2015 Phys. Rev. C 92 024320 Nilsson-SU3 self-consistency in heavy N=Z nuclei

    2015

  33. [42]

    Bonatsos D, Assimakis I E, Minkov N, Martinou A, Cakirli R B, Casten R F and Blaum K 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95 064325 Proxy-SU(3) symmetry in heavy deformed nuclei

    2017

  34. [43]

    Bonatsos D, Assimakis I E, Minkov N, Martinou A, Sarantopoulou S, Cakirli R B, Casten R F and Blaum K 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95 064326 Analytic predictions for nuclear shapes, prolate dominance, and the prolate- oblate shape transition in the proxy-SU(3) model

    2017

  35. [44]

    Bonatsos D, Martinou A, Peroulis S K, Mertzimekis T J and Minkov N 2023 Symmetry 15 169 The Proxy-SU(3) Symmetry in Atomic Nuclei

    2023

  36. [45]

    Casta˜ nos O, Draayer J P and Leschber Y 1988 Z. Phys. A 329 33 Shape variables and the shell model

    1988

  37. [46]

    Bhat G H, Dar W A, Sheikh J A and Sun Y 2014 Phys. Rev. C 89 014328 Nature of γ deformation in Ge and Se nuclei and the triaxial projected shell model description

    2014

  38. [47]

    Zhang C L, Bhat G H, Nazarewicz W, Sheikh J A, and Shi Y 2015 Phys. Rev. C 92 034307 Theoretical study of triaxial shapes of neutron-rich Mo and Ru nuclei

    2015

  39. [48]

    Jehangir S, Bhat G H, Sheikh J A, Frauendorf S, Li W, Palit R, and Rather N 2021 Eur. Phys. J. A 57 308 Triaxial projected shell model study of γ-bands in atomic nuclei

    2021

  40. [49]

    Rajput M, Singh S, Verma P, Rani V, Bharti A, Bhat G H and Sheikh J A 2022 Nucl. Phys. A 1019 122383 Triaxial projected shell model study of γ-bands in even even 104−122Cd nuclei

    2022

  41. [50]

    Heenen P-H, Bonche P, Dobaczewski J, Flocard H 1993 Nucl. Phys. A 561 367 Generator-coordinate method for triaxial quadrupole dynamics in Sr isotopes (II). Results for particle-number-projected states

    1993

  42. [51]

    Oi M and Walker P M 2003 Phys. Lett. B 576 75 Three-dimensional rotation of even–even triaxial nuclei

    2003

  43. [52]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an R, Sarriguren P, Robledo L M and Garc ´ ıa-Ramos J E 2010Phys. Rev. C 81 024310 Mean field study of structural changes in Pt isotopes with the Gogny interaction

  44. [53]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an R, Sarriguren P, Robledo L M and Perez-Martin S 2010 Phys. Lett. B 691 202 Charge radii and structural evolution in Sr, Zr, and Mo isotopes

    2010

  45. [54]

    Chen F-Q and Egido J L 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95 024307 Triaxial shape fluctuations and quasiparticle excitations in heavy nuclei

    2017

  46. [55]

    Nikˇ si´ c T, Ring P, Vretenar D, Tian Y and Ma Z-Y 2010 Phys. Rev. C 81 054318 3D relativistic Hartree- Bogoliubov model with a separable pairing interaction: Triaxial ground-state shapes

    2010

  47. [56]

    Xiang J, Yao J M, Fu Y, Wang Z H, Li Z P and Long W H 2016 Phys. Rev. C 93 054324 Novel triaxial structure in low-lying states of neutron-rich nuclei around A ≈ 100

    2016

  48. [57]

    Abusara H, Ahmad S and Othman S 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95 054302 Triaxiality softness and shape coexistence in Mo and Ru isotopes

    2017

  49. [58]

    Yang X Q, Wang L J, Xiang J, Wu X Y and Li Z P 2021 Phys. Rev. C 103 054321 Microscopic analysis of prolate-oblate shape phase transition and shape coexis- tence in the Er-Pt region

    2021

  50. [59]

    Nomura K, Vretenar D, Li Z P and Xiang J 2021 Phys. Rev. C 103 054322 Coupling of pairing and triaxial shape vibrations in collective states of γ-soft nuclei

    2021

  51. [60]

    Nomura K, Vretenar D, Li Z P and Xiang J 2021 Phys. Rev. C 104 024323 Interplay between pairing and tri- axial shape degrees of freedom in Os and Pt nuclei

    2021

  52. [61]

    El Bassem Y, El Adri M, El Batoul A and Oulne M 2024 Nucl. Phys. A 1043 122831 Shape evolution and shape coexistence in even-even Mo isotopic chain

    2024

  53. [62]

    Martinou A, Bonatsos D, Metzimekis T J, Karakatsanis K E, Assimakis I E, Peroulis S K, Sarantopoulou S and Minkov N 2021 Eur. Phys. J. A 57 84 The islands of shape coexistence within the Elliott and the proxy-SU(3) Models

    2021

  54. [63]

    Martinou A, Bonatsos D, Peroulis S K, Karakatsanis K E, Mertzimekis T J and Minkov N 2023 Symmetry 15 29 Islands of Shape Coexistence: Theoretical Predictions and Experimental Evidence

    2023

  55. [64]

    Bonatsos, A

    D. Bonatsos, A. Martinou, S. K. Peroulis, Mertzimekis T J and Minkov N 2023 Atoms 11 117 Shape Coexistence in Even-Even Nuclei: A Theoretical Overview

    2023

  56. [65]

    Martinou A, Bonatsos D, Karakatsanis K E, Saran- topoulou S, Assimakis I E, Peroulis S K and Minkov N 2021 Eur. Phys. J. A 57 83 Why nuclear forces fa- vor the highest weight irreducible representations of the fermionic SU(3) symmetry

    2021

  57. [66]

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

    2017

  58. [67]

    Martinou A, Bonatsos D, Minkov N, Assimakis I E, Per- oulis S K, Sarantopoulou S and Cseh J 2020 Eur. Phys. J. A 56 239 Proxy-SU(3) symmetry in the shell model basis

    2020

  59. [68]

    Sorlin O and Porquet M-G 2008 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61 602 Nuclear magic numbers: New features far from stability

    2008

  60. [69]

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

  61. [70]

    Grosse E and Junghans A R 2022 Phys. Lett. B 833 137328 Broken axial symmetry as essential feature for a consistent modelling of various observables in heavy 8 nuclei

    2022

  62. [71]

    Bonatsos D, Martinou A, Sarantopoulou S, Assimakis I E, Peroulis S and Minkov N 2020 Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 229 2367 Parameter-free predictions for the col- lective deformation variables β and γ within the pseudo- SU(3) scheme

    2020

  63. [72]

    Casten R F 2000 Nuclear Structure from a Simple Per- spective (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    2000

  64. [73]

    Otsuka T, Tsunoda Y, Abe T, Shimizu N and Van Dup- pen P 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 222502 Underlying Structure of Collective Bands and Self-Organization in Quantum Systems

    2019

  65. [74]

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

    2020

  66. [75]

    Zamfir N V and Casten R F 1991 Phys. Lett. B 260 265 Signatures of γ softness or triaxiality in low energy nuclear spectra

    1991

  67. [76]

    McCutchan E A, Bonatsos D, Zamfir N V and Casten R F 2007 Phys. Rev. C 76 024306 Staggering in γ-band energies and the transition between different structural symmetries in nuclei

    2007

  68. [77]

    Casten R F, Cakirli R B, Bonatsos D and Blaum K 2020 Phys. Rev. C 102 054310 Simple new signature of struc- ture in deformed nuclei: Distinguishing the nature of ax- ial asymmetry

    2020

  69. [78]

    Bonatsos D, Assimakis I E, Martinou A, Sarantopoulou S, Peroulis S K and Minkov N 2021 Nucl. Phys. A 1009 122158 Energy differences of ground state and γ1 bands as a hallmark of collective behavior

    2021

  70. [79]

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

    1989

  71. [80]

    Data Nucl

    Pritychenko B, Birch M, Singh B and Horoi M 2016 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 107 1 Tables of E2 transition probabilities from the first 2 + states in even–even nuclei 9 TABLE I: Nuclei with experimentally known 2 + 1 and 2 + 2 levels, as well as known B(E2; 2+ 2 → 0+ 1 ) and B(...

    2016

  72. [81]

    nuclei with 18 ≤ Z ≤ 80 and N ≤ 18 ≤ 124. See Sec. II for further discussion. 13 86 82 78 74 70 66 62 58 54 50 46 42 38 34 30 26 22 18 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98102106110114118122126130 number of neutrons 15-20 20-25 25-30 40-45 35-40 30-35 ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.