Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Proton-neutron pair correlations in neutron-rich nuclei

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper claims that the relative strength of spin-triplet versus spin-singlet proton–neutron pairing can be read from a ratio of pair-transfer polarizabilities, and that this ratio exposes a shell effect in neutron-rich calcium, nickel…

desk verdict A careful, honest theory paper that predicts non-monotonic spin-triplet pn pairing in neutron-rich nuclei; the f-dependence is the main caveat but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13963 v1 pith:QH7XWWUI submitted 2024-11-21 nucl-th nucl-ex

Kenichi Yoshida This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex MSC 81V35
keywords proton-neutronpairingspin-tripletpairpolarizabilityquasiparticlerandom-phaseapproximationenergydensityfunctionalneutron-richnucleishelleffecttransfer
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

Proton–neutron (pn) pairing can align the two nucleons' spins in opposite directions (spin-singlet, the familiar BCS-type pairing) or in the same direction (spin-triplet), and the strength of the spin-triplet channel in nuclei has been debated for decades. This paper establishes a way to compare the two channels without needing absolute reaction cross sections: compute the static polarizability of the nucleus in response to adding or removing an L=0 pn pair, then take the ratio $R_{01} = 3\alpha_{01}/\alpha_{10}$. Applying this to Ca, Ni, and Sn isotopes with a Skyrme energy-density functional plus quasiparticle random-phase approximation, the paper finds that the spin-singlet polarizability falls monotonically away from $N=Z$, whereas the spin-triplet one is non-monotonic and is enhanced just past $N=40$ in Ni and $N=64$ in Sn. The enhancement comes from low-energy pn-pair removal modes built on the $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ configuration. If correct, this gives a concrete, shell-structured observable that could settle how strong spin-triplet pn pairing is in medium-heavy nuclei.

What carries the argument

The central object is the static pn-pair polarizability $\alpha_{ST} = 2 \sum_n |\langle n| \hat{P}^{A}_{ST} |0\rangle|^2 / \omega_n$, an inversely-energy-weighted sum of the response to L=0 pn-pair addition and removal operators for $(S,T)=(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$, evaluated in the quasiparticle random-phase approximation on top of a Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov ground state. The spin-degeneracy-corrected ratio $R_{01} := 3\alpha_{01}/\alpha_{10}$ cancels the overall operator normalization, so that $R_{01} > 1$ means spin-singlet pn pairing dominates and $R_{01} < 1$ means spin-triplet dominates. The mechanism that carries the argument is the occupation of the spin-orbit partner orbital just below the intruder: as neutrons fill the $j_<$ orbital, the $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ pair—allowed only in the spin-triplet channel—forms a low-energy removal mode that raises $\alpha_{10}$ while leaving $\alpha_{01}$ monotonic.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio of pn-pair transfer cross sections to the lowest $1^+$ and $0^+$ states of the odd-odd neighbours of neutron-rich Ni and Sn isotopes near $N=40$ and $N=64$ (for example, around $^{68}$Ni and $^{114}$Sn). If $R_{01}$ stays well above unity with no dip at those neutron numbers—or if the $1^+$ state sits above the $0^+$ state with no enhanced strength—the predicted spin-triplet enhancement would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the spin-singlet pn-pair correlation is strongest at $N=Z$ and decreases monotonically with neutron excess, while the spin-triplet pn-pair correlation depends non-monotonically on neutron number and is enhanced when pn-pair removal modes involving the $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ configuration occur at low energy. Consequently the relative strength of spin-triplet to spin-singlet pn-pair correlations, encoded in $R_{01}$, becomes large in neutron-rich isotopes when neutrons occupy the $j_<$ orbital. The mechanism is the spin-orbit splitting that separates the $j_>$ and $j_<$ partner orbitals: in $N\approx Z$ medium-heavy nuclei only the $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_>$ or $\pi j_< \otimes \nu j_<$ configurations contribute to spin-triplet pairing and that contribution is suppressed; as neutrons fill the $j_<$ orbital, the exclusively spin-triplet $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ pair appears at low energy and drives the polarizability. The paper argues that this shell effect is a key indicator of the strength of pn-pair correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted shell effect appears only if the spin-triplet pn-pair interaction is nearly as strong as the spin-singlet one (the factor $f\approx 1$); for heavier neutron-rich nuclei this strength is assumed rather than measured, and with $f=0$ the spin-triplet polarizability is flat and the enhancement disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ratio $R_{01}$, extractable from pn-transfer reactions such as $(p,{}^3\mathrm{He})$ and $({}^3\mathrm{He},p)$, carries direct information on the relative pairing strength, with systematic uncertainties largely cancelling.
  • A minimum in $R_{01}$ at $N=40$ in Ni and $N=64$ in Sn is predicted; observing $R_{01}$ dip toward or below unity there would indicate that spin-triplet pn pairing dominates over spin-singlet.
  • The spin-singlet pn-pair correlation is monotonic and strongest at $N=Z$, so any non-monotonic isotopic structure in pn-pair transfer strength is a fingerprint of the spin-triplet channel.
  • The enhancement is tied to low-energy $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ configurations, meaning the effect should be sought in neutron-rich isotopes where neutrons occupy the orbital just below the intruder ($f_{5/2}$ for Ni, $g_{7/2}$ for Sn).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $R_{01}$ logic could be applied to other mass regions or to deformed nuclei, where the $j_>$ and $j_<$ labels generalize to pseudo-spin partners, potentially extending the diagnostic beyond spherical Ca, Ni, and Sn isotopes.
  • The prediction could be tested by measuring the lowest $1^+$ and $0^+$ states in the odd-odd neighbours of the neutron-rich isotopes: if the $1^+$ state lies below the $0^+$ and carries enhanced transfer strength around $N=40$ or $N=64$, that would be direct evidence for spin-triplet pairing.
  • Because the effect appears only when the spin-triplet interaction is strong enough ($f\sim 1$), the predicted dip in $R_{01}$ itself constitutes a measurement of that untested strength: a null observation would constrain $f$ downward toward zero for these isotopes.
  • The author's emphasis on removal modes suggests that $(p,{}^3\mathrm{He})$ reactions, which remove a pn pair, are more promising than addition reactions for locating the spin-triplet enhancement in neutron-rich targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a measure of proton–neutron (pn) pair correlations in medium-heavy nuclei: the static polarizability of the response to L=0 pn pair-addition and pair-removal operators, computed in the Skyrme HFB+QRPA framework. The spin-singlet (S=0,T=1) and spin-triplet (S=1,T=0) pn pair polarizabilities are calculated for Ca, Ni, and Sn isotopes, and their ratio R01=3α01/α10 is introduced to quantify the relative strength of the two pairing channels. The central result is that α10 depends non-monotonically on neutron number, with enhanced spin-triplet collectivity at N≈40 (Ni) and N≈64 (Sn) when the S=1 pairing interaction is scaled by a factor f>0; the enhancement is attributed to low-energy πj>⊗νj< pair-removal modes. The paper concludes that the spin-triplet pn-pair correlation can be comparable to or stronger than the spin-singlet one in neutron-rich isotopes, and proposes R01 as a key observable for pn pair transfer reactions.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper provides a concrete, experimentally accessible indicator of spin-triplet pn pairing away from the N=Z line, where previous studies have concentrated. The framework is standard and the use of the inverse-energy-weighted sum (dielectric theorem) to define pair polarizability is rigorous. The paper is transparent in varying the spin-triplet pairing strength f and in testing the dependence on the form factor of the pair transfer operator. The main weakness is that the quantitative conclusion depends on an input parameter f that is not directly constrained in the neutron-rich region of interest, and no uncertainty estimates are provided. With that caveat, the paper offers a falsifiable prediction—the isotopic dependence of R01—that could be tested by pn transfer experiments once the reaction link is established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II C and Sec. III B (Fig. 4)] The central claim that the spin-triplet pn-pair correlation can become stronger than the spin-singlet one at N=40 and N=64 is contingent on the parameter f that scales the S=1 pairing energy density functional. The paper shows that for f=0 the spin-triplet polarizability is flat and no minimum appears in R01 (Sec. III A, Fig. 3). The paper also states in Sec. III A that f=1.3 makes the 1+ state lie below the 0+ state in 42Sc and 38K, inconsistent with experiment, so f=1.3 is an upper bound at N=Z. The value f=1.0 is motivated by Gamow–Teller studies in light N≈Z nuclei and by beta-decay half-lives of Ni isotopes, but no direct constraint is given for the neutron-rich Ca, Ni, and Sn isotopes where the prediction is made. Please quantify the sensitivity of R01 to f around 1.0 (e.g., f=0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1) and, if possible, benchmark f against measured low-lying 0+ and 1+ states in odd-odd nuclei in the N≈40 and N≈64 regions; otherwise the headline conclusion remains conditional.
  2. [Sec. III B (Figs. 4 and 5)] The statement that the S=1 pn-pair correlation is stronger than the S=0 one at N=40 and N=64 is not accompanied by any uncertainty estimate or a quantitative comparison with data. The calculated IEWS in Fig. 5 are shown only for f=1.0, and the ratio minima in Fig. 4 are shown for three f values; the reader cannot assess whether the predicted R01<1 crossing is robust to reasonable variations in the energy density functional, the pairing functional, or the truncation parameters. Please provide a systematic variation (e.g., a second Skyrme functional and/or pairing strength) or at least a conservative uncertainty band for the R01 values at the minima.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II B] The heading contains a typo: "Polalizability" should be "Polarizability".
  2. [Sec. III A (Fig. 3 caption)] The caption contains a typo: "Polarizalibities" should be "Polarizabilities".
  3. [Sec. III B] The text uses "IWSEs" where "IEWS" (inversely-energy-weighted sum) is meant; the abbreviation should be used consistently.
  4. [Sec. II B (Eq. 15)] The relation between R01 and the ratio of pn-transfer cross sections is stated as an expectation rather than a derivation; the reaction-mechanism factors that are assumed to cancel should be listed, or the sentence should be softened to indicate that R01 is a structure indicator rather than a direct cross-section prediction.
  5. [Sec. III A] The surface-type form factor test is presented only for 40Ca with f=1.3; for completeness, show the form-factor independence for f=1.0 and for at least one Ni or Sn isotope, since those are the cases where the shell-effect conclusion is drawn.
  6. [Sec. IV] The summary states that the relative strength of spin-triplet and spin-singlet pn-pair correlations "becomes large" in neutron-rich isotopes without repeating the caveat from Sec. III A that f=1.3 is already excluded at N=Z; the conclusion should explicitly state the dependence on the assumed S=1 pairing strength.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the spin-triplet enhancement is a conditional QRPA result, not a re-statement of the input f.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a QRPA result conditional on an explicit interaction parameter f. The polarizability α_ST is computed from the response functions, and the ratio R01 is defined as 3α01/α10; neither definition injects the conclusion. The non-monotonic spin-triplet enhancement at N=40 and N=64 is not put in by hand: it emerges from the HFB single-particle structure (πj>⊗νj< configurations) and appears only when the S=1 residual interaction is active. Varying f from 0 to 1.3 is a sensitivity study, not a fit; f is not adjusted to reproduce any of the predicted α or R01 values. The only self-reference is Ref. [37] in the parenthetical support for f∼1; because the shell-effect locations are independent of that citation and because Refs. [34–36] cite external Gamow–Teller data, this is not load-bearing circularity. The paper itself cautions that f=1.3 is too strong at N=Z because it inverts the observed 1+/0+ ordering in 42Sc and 38K, showing that f is not fine-tuned to force the conclusion. Concern that the realistic f might be smaller, weakening R01<1, is a parameter-uncertainty issue, which belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity. Under the hard rules requiring a specific equation-level reduction or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no such reduction is present in the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All predictions come from a phenomenological EDF with the spin-triplet pairing strength set by hand. The main free parameter is f; the conclusions about non-monotonic spin-triplet correlation require f>0. The remaining parameters are either standard external inputs or are tested for robustness.

free parameters (2)
  • f: scaling factor for S=1 pairing EDF = 0, 1.0, 1.3 (hand-set)
    Controls the strength of the dynamical spin-triplet pn-pair interaction in the QRPA. The predicted non-monotonic enhancement and the ratio R01 depend strongly on f; for f=0 no enhancement is seen.
  • Woods-Saxon form factor parameters R and a = R = 1.27 A^{1/3} fm, a = 0.67 fm
    Define the spatial profile of the pn-pair transfer operator. The paper tests a surface-type form factor and finds the R01 ratio is almost unaffected, so this parameter set is not load-bearing.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Skyrme EDF with the SGII functional and the pairing functional of Ref. [33] accurately describes ground states and pair responses of the studied nuclei.
    All results follow from this phenomenological input. The paper does not validate the functional against data for neutron-rich Ca, Ni, and Sn isotopes.
  • domain assumption No pn-pair condensation with Tz=0 occurs in the ground states, so the polarizability formula in Eq. (14) applies.
    The paper assumes zero ground-state expectation of the pn-pair operators and notes the polarizability would diverge or the RPA would become imaginary if the system approached condensation. This is a structural assumption, not an empirical fact for these nuclei.
  • standard math The dielectric theorem equates the static polarizability to the inverse-energy-weighted sum of the QRPA strength.
    Standard linear response identity; not original to this paper, but it is what turns the computed strength functions into polarizabilities.
  • domain assumption Two-quasiparticle truncation at 60 MeV and the box/mesh parameters give converged low-energy response.
    The author cites convergence checks from prior work, but the QRPA space is finite.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proton-neutron pair correlations in neutron-rich nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QH7XWWUI

@misc{pith2026241113963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proton-neutron pair correlations in neutron-rich nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QH7XWWUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13963}
}
abstract

[Background] Nuclear pairing is a well-established many-body correlation, particularly among like particles in a spin-singlet state. However, the strength of spin-triplet proton-neutron (pn) pairing in nuclei has remained a long-standing and unresolved issue. [Purpose] The relative strength of spin-triplet pn pairing compared to spin-singlet one is investigated by introducing and analyzing the polarizability of the response to pn pair transfers. [Method] The nuclear energy-density functional method is employed. The ground state of the target nucleus is described using the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov approximation, which accounts for the conventional superfluidity of like-particle pairs. The response to pn pair transfers is then analyzed using the pn quasiparticle random-phase approximation. [Results] The spin-singlet pn-pair correlation is strongest at $N=Z$ and decreases monotonically with the increasing number of excess neutrons, whereas the spin-triplet pn-pair correlation is shown to depend non-monotonically on the neutron number and can be enhanced in cases where the pn-pair transfers involving the $\pi j_> \otimes \nu j_<$ configuration occur at low energy. [Conclusions] The shell effect, which uniquely appears in spin-triplet pn-pair correlation, serves as a key indicator of the strength of pn-pair correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Calculated pair addition and removal strengths in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The inversely-energy-weighted sum of the pn-pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a): Polarizalibities for the pn-pair transfers with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. IEWS of the pn-pair addition and removal strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Micro- scopic theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 106, 162 (1957)

    1957

  2. [2]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure: Volume II, Nuclear Deformations(Benjamin, 1969)

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    Ring and P

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

    1980

  4. [4]

    G. F. Bertsch, Nuclear pairing: Basic phenomena revis- ited, in Fifty Years of Nuclear BCS, pp. 26–39

    work page

  5. [5]

    Yoshida, Note on the two-nucleon stripping reaction, Nucl

    S. Yoshida, Note on the two-nucleon stripping reaction, Nucl. Phys. 33, 685 (1962)

    work page 1962

  6. [6]

    Goswami and L

    A. Goswami and L. S. Kisslinger, Particle correlation arising from isospin pairing in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. 140, B26 (1965)

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    A. L. Goodman, Proton-neutron pairing in Z = N nuclei with A = 76–96, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014311 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Mixed-Spin Pairing Condensates in Heavy Nuclei

    A. Gezerlis, G. F. Bertsch, and Y. L. Luo, Mixed-spin pairing condensates in heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252502 (2011), arXiv:1103.5793 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Poves and G

    A. Poves and G. Martinez-Pinedo, Pairing and the struc- ture of the pf -shell N ∼ Z nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 430, 203 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    G. F. Bertsch and Y. Luo, Spin-triplet pairing in large nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064320 (2010), arXiv:0912.2533 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    T. Alm, G. R¨ opke, and M. Schmidt, Neutron-proton pair- ing in symmetric nuclear matter, Z. Phys. A 337, 355 (1990)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Vonderfecht, C

    B. Vonderfecht, C. Gearhart, W. Dickhoff, A. Polls, and A. Ramos, Bound pair states in nuclear matter, Phys. Lett. B 253, 1 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    Baldo, I

    M. Baldo, I. Bombaci, and U. Lombardo, Nuclear matter superfluidity in the S–D channel, Phys. Lett. B 283, 8 (1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    Takatsuka and R

    T. Takatsuka and R. Tamagaki, Superfluidity in Neu- tron Star Matter and Symmetric Nuclear Matter, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 112, 27 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Frauendorf and A

    S. Frauendorf and A. O. Macchiavelli, Overview of neu- tron–proton pairing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 78, 24 (2014), arXiv:1405.1652 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Capelli, G

    L. Capelli, G. Colo, and J. Li, Dielectric theorem within the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov framework, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054329 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Tamii, I

    A. Tamii, I. Poltoratska, P. von Neumann-Cosel, Y. Fu- jita, T. Adachi, C. A. Bertulani, J. Carter, M. Do- zono, H. Fujita, K. Fujita, K. Hatanaka, D. Ishikawa, M. Itoh, T. Kawabata, Y. Kalmykov, A. M. Krumbholz, E. Litvinova, H. Matsubara, K. Nakanishi, R. Neveling, H. Okamur...

    2011

  10. [18]

    Piekarewicz, B

    J. Piekarewicz, B. K. Agrawal, G. Colo, W. Nazarewicz, N. Paar, P. G. Reinhard, X. Roca-Maza, and D. Vretenar, Electric dipole polarizability and the neutron skin, Phys. Rev. C 85, 041302 (2012), arXiv:1201.3807 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Roca-Maza and N

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Nuclear equation of state from ground and collective excited state properties of nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 96 (2018), arXiv:1804.06256 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Takahashi, Y

    K. Takahashi, Y. Matsuda, and M. Matsuo, Higgs re- sponse and pair condensation energy in superfluid nuclei, PTEP 2023, 083D01 (2023), arXiv:2302.14214 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yoshida, Isovector giant monopole and quadrupole resonances in a Skyrme energy density functional ap- proach with axial symmetry, Phys

    K. Yoshida, Isovector giant monopole and quadrupole resonances in a Skyrme energy density functional ap- proach with axial symmetry, Phys. Rev. C 104, 044309 (2021), arXiv:2107.00867 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Frobrich, Enhancement of deuteron transfer reactions by neutron-proton pairing correlations, Phys

    P. Frobrich, Enhancement of deuteron transfer reactions by neutron-proton pairing correlations, Phys. Lett. B 37, 338 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    P. V. Isacker, D. D. Warner, and A. Frank, Deuteron Transfer in N = Z Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 162502 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    J. Lay, Y. Ayyad, and A. Macchiavelli, Neutron-proton pair transfer reactions and corresponding weisskopf-type units, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136789 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    K. Yoshida, Spin–isospin response of deformed neutron- rich nuclei in a self-consistent Skyrme energy-density- functional approach, PTEP 2013, 113D02 (2013), [Erra- tum: PTEP 2021, 019201 (2021)], arXiv:1308.0424 [nucl- th]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dobaczewski, H

    J. Dobaczewski, H. Flocard, and J. Treiner, Hartree- Fock-Bogolyubov descriptions of nuclei near the neutrino dripline, Nucl. Phys. A 422, 103 (1984)

    1984

  19. [27]

    Kasuya and K

    H. Kasuya and K. Yoshida, Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory for odd-mass nuclei with a time-odd constraint and application to deformed halo nuclei, PTEP 2021, 013D01 (2021), arXiv:2005.03276 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nakatsukasa, K

    T. Nakatsukasa, K. Matsuyanagi, M. Matsuo, and K. Ya- bana, Time-dependent density-functional description of nuclear dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045004 (2016), arXiv:1606.04717 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yoshida and N

    K. Yoshida and N. Van Giai, Deformed quasiparticle- random-phase approximation for neutron-rich nuclei us- ing the Skyrme energy density functional, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064316 (2008), arXiv:0809.0169 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ebata, T

    S. Ebata, T. Nakatsukasa, T. Inakura, K. Yoshida, Y. Hashimoto, and K. Yabana, Canonical-basis time- dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory and linear- 8 response calculations, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034306 (2010), arXiv:1007.0785 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Scamps and D

    G. Scamps and D. Lacroix, Systematic study of isovec- tor and isoscalar giant quadrupole resonances in normal and superfluid deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034314 (2014), arXiv:1401.5211 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    van Giai and H

    N. van Giai and H. Sagawa, Spin-isospin and pairing properties of modified Skyrme interactions, Phys. Lett. B 106, 379 (1981)

    1981

  25. [33]

    Yamagami, Y

    M. Yamagami, Y. R. Shimizu, and T. Nakatsukasa, Opti- mal pair density functional for description of nuclei with large neutron excess, Phys. Rev. C 80, 064301 (2009), arXiv:0812.3197 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fujita, H

    Y. Fujita, H. Fujita, T. Adachi, C. L. Bai, A. Al- gora, G. P. A. Berg, P. von Brentano, G. Col` o, M. Csatl´ os, J. M. Deaven, E. Estevez-Aguado, C. Fransen, D. De Frenne, K. Fujita, E. Ganio˘ glu, C. J. Guess, J. Guly´ as, K. Hatanaka, K. Hirota, M. Honma, D. Ishikawa, E. Ja...

    2014

  27. [35]

    low- energy super-Gamow-Teller state

    Y. Fujita, H. Fujita, T. Adachi, G. Susoy, A. Algora, C. L. Bai, G. Col` o, M. Csatl´ os, J. M. Deaven, E. Estevez- Aguado, C. J. Guess, J. Guly´ as, K. Hatanaka, K. Hirota, M. Honma, D. Ishikawa, A. Krasznahorkay, H. Matsub- ara, R. Meharchand, F. Molina, H. Nakada, H. Oka- m...

    2015

  28. [36]

    Fujita, Y

    H. Fujita, Y. Fujita, Y. Utsuno, K. Yoshida, T. Adachi, A. Algora, M. Csatl´ os, J. M. Deaven, E. Estevez-Aguado, C. J. Guess, J. Guly´ as, K. Hatanaka, K. Hirota, R. Hut- ton, D. Ishikawa, A. Krasznahorkay, H. Matsubara, F. Molina, H. Okamura, H. J. Ong, G. Perdikakis, B. Rub...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Yoshida, Suddenly shortened half-lives beyond 78Ni: N = 50 magic number and high-energy non-unique first- forbidden transitions, Phys

    K. Yoshida, Suddenly shortened half-lives beyond 78Ni: N = 50 magic number and high-energy non-unique first- forbidden transitions, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024316 (2019), arXiv:1903.03310 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yoshida, Proton-neutron pairing vibrations in N = Z nuclei: Precursory soft mode of isoscalar pairing conden- sation, Phys

    K. Yoshida, Proton-neutron pairing vibrations in N = Z nuclei: Precursory soft mode of isoscalar pairing conden- sation, Phys. Rev. C 90, 031303 (2014), arXiv:1409.4884 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Broglia and D

    R. Broglia and D. Bes, High-lying pairing resonances, Phys. Lett. B 69, 129 (1977)

    1977

  32. [40]

    Cappuzzello, D

    F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, M. Bond ` ı, C. Agodi, F. Azaiez, A. Bonaccorso, A. Cunsolo, L. For- tunato, A. Foti, S. Franchoo, E. Khan, R. Linares, J. Lu- bian, J. A. Scarpaci, and A. Vitturi, Signatures of the Giant Pairing Vibration in the 14C and 15C atomic nu...

    2015

  33. [41]

    Assi´ e, C

    M. Assi´ e, C. H. Dasso, R. J. Liotta, A. O. Macchiavelli, and A. Vitturi, The giant pairing vibration in heavy nu- clei, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 245 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Cavallaro, F

    M. Cavallaro, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, and C. Agodi, Giant pairing vibrations in light nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 244 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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