Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 105 references

Impact of tensor forces on quasifission product yield distributions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 Tensor force reshapes quasifission yields only in a narrow parameter region

desk verdict A solid, honest extension of the group's earlier tensor-force quasifission work, with a real second-system test; the central 'specific region' claim is weakened by the TIJ refit confound but is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18057 v1 pith:7DDO3HZ3 submitted 2024-11-27 nucl-th

Liang Li , Lu Guo , K. Godbey , A. S. Umar This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords quasifissiontensorforceSkyrmeenergydensityfunctionaltime-dependentHartree-Fockshelleffectssuperheavyelementsyielddistributionsisoscalarandisovectorcouplings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) simulations to ask whether the tensor part of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction changes the products of quasifission reactions, the process that competes with compound-nucleus formation toward superheavy elements. Comparing five Skyrme parametrizations for the reactions $^{48}$Ca+$^{249}$Bk and $^{48}$Ti+$^{238}$U, it finds that the fragment yield distributions fall into two groups: SLy5t and T31 show clearly stronger spherical shell effects, with peaks pulled toward the magic numbers $N=126$ and $Z=82$, while SLy5, T44, and T62 all behave similarly to the original force without tensor terms. The paper concludes that the tensor force's influence on quasifission is not monotonic in the coupling constants: it matters only in a specific region of the isoscalar/isovector tensor coupling-constant space. A careful reader will care because quasifission hinders superheavy element synthesis, and this result says which effective interactions are adequate for describing that hindrance.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Skyrme energy density functional with a two-body tensor interaction, whose strength is summarized by the isoscalar and isovector tensor coupling constants $C^J_0$ and $C^J_1$ (Eq. 2). TDHF evolves Slater-determinant many-body states on a 3D grid for each orientation and impact parameter, and the fragment neutron/proton numbers are histogrammed into yield distributions (Eq. 4). The comparison across SLy5, SLy5t, and the three TIJ parametrizations (T31, T44, T62) is what isolates the tensor-force effect; the yield peaks at magic numbers and the width of the distributions are the readout of shell-effect prominence.

What would settle it

Perform TDHF quasifission calculations for a family of Skyrme interactions that vary only $C^J_0$ and $C^J_1$, holding all other parameters fixed at SLy5 values, and test whether the yield peaks shift from the deformed shells to $N=126$/$Z=82$ when the constants move from the T44/T62 corner to the T31 corner; if the grouping disappears, the effect is not carried by the tensor coupling constants themselves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that 'the influence of tensor forces on quasifission fragments is reflected in the prominence of shell effects,' and this influence appears to be sensitive only in specific regions within the isoscalar and isovector coupling constant parameter space. Concretely, for $^{48}$Ca+$^{249}$Bk the neutron and proton yield distributions computed with SLy5t and T31 cluster around the spherical shell closures $N=126$ and $Z=82$, whereas SLy5, T44, and T62 produce peaks close to the deformed shells ($N=56$, $Z=36$). In $^{48}$Ti+$^{238}$U the same grouping appears, and in addition the SLy5t/T31 yields are narrower around the spherical shells, a second signal of stronger shell effects. The charge distributions from the TDHF runs are compared with the experimental data of Ref. [26]; the body text states that the SLy5t yield matches experiment better than SLy5, and that T31 matches better than T62, although the abstract lists the pairing as SLy5t/T62 versus SLy5/T31, an inconsistency the authors should correct. The paper also explores single-particle level gaps for one collision event, but explicitly labels that analysis as supplementary rather than definitive evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The paper attributes the yield differences between T31, T44, and T62 to their isoscalar and isovector tensor coupling constants, but these parametrizations were fully refitted and differ in all other Skyrme parameters simultaneously, so if those other parameter changes drive the effect the central claim about a sensitive region in the coupling-constant map would lose support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $^{48}$Ca+$^{249}$Bk, using SLy5t or T31 instead of SLy5/T44/T62 shifts predicted quasifission fragment peaks toward the spherical magic numbers $N=126$ and $Z=82$.
  • For $^{48}$Ti+$^{238}$U, the same functional choice narrows the quasifission yield distribution around $Z=82$, a second experimental fingerprint of the tensor force.
  • Because quasifission competes with fusion, the choice of Skyrme parametrization changes predictions for superheavy-element formation cross sections in hot-fusion reactions.
  • The grouping of T44/T62 with the no-tensor SLy5 implies that large tensor coupling constants alone do not change quasifission; the sign/combination matters, locating the sensitive region near negative $C^J_1$.
  • The method of reading shell-effect strength from yield-peak location and width can be applied to other deformed target/projectile combinations for which experimental charge distributions exist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editor's note: the abstract assigns the better experimental charge-distribution match to 'SLy5t and T62' versus 'SLy5 and T31,' while the body text (Figs. 9 and 11 and Sec. IV) assigns it to SLy5t over SLy5 and T31 over T62; the abstract pairing is presumably a typographical error and should be corrected before the results are quoted.
  • The 'sensitive region' conclusion rests on only five points in the $C^J_0$–$C^J_1$ plane; a systematic scan with all other Skyrme parameters held fixed (e.g., by building a TIJ-style family that varies only the tensor coupling constants) would test whether the T31 boundary is truly where the effect switches on.
  • The same shell-effect mechanism should be visible in fission fragment yields from actinide nuclei, since those also reflect the competition between spherical and deformed shell gaps; a TDHF fission calculation with SLy5t versus SLy5 would give a testable prediction.
  • The observed threshold that shell effects dominate only for contact times longer than about 5 zs suggests that experiments at higher bombarding energies or with lighter projectiles, which produce shorter contact times, should show little sensitivity to the tensor force.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper uses TDHF theory to compute quasifission fragment yield distributions for 48Ca+249Bk and 48Ti+238U with several Skyrme energy density functionals: SLy5, SLy5t, and three fully refitted TIJ parametrizations (T31, T44, T62). It reports that SLy5t and T31 produce yield peaks closer to spherical shell closures (N=126, Z=82) and, for 48Ti+238U, narrower distributions, while SLy5, T44, and T62 behave similarly. The authors conclude that tensor forces influence the prominence of shell effects in quasifission and that this influence is confined to a specific region of the isoscalar/isovector tensor coupling constant plane.

Significance. If established, the result is valuable: it connects a specific detail of the Skyrme EDF, the tensor term, to quasifission observables and to the superheavy-element fusion problem. The cleanest comparison, SLy5 versus SLy5t, isolates the tensor contribution in a controlled way and shows a consistent effect across two reaction systems; the 48Ti+238U comparison with experimental data from Ref. [26] is a useful test. The TIJ family adds breadth, but because those parametrizations are fully refitted, the inference to the C_J0-C_J1 plane is not yet controlled. The paper is transparent about computational constraints and explicitly labels its single-particle gap analysis as approximate (Sec. III A), which strengthens credibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. II and III A, Figs. 2-4, Eq. (2)] The central attribution of the T31, T44, and T62 yield differences to the tensor coupling constants is confounded. The TIJ forces are fully refitted (Sec. II, Ref. [78]), and Eq. (2) shows that C_J0 and C_J1 are linear combinations of t1, t2, x1, x2, te, and to; moving among T31, T44, and T62 therefore changes the entire Skyrme EDF, not only the tensor strengths. The observed grouping of SLy5 with T44/T62 and SLy5t with T31 may consequently be driven by other fitted parameters. In particular, Sec. III A notes that SLy5 (no tensor) and T62 (large C_J0, C_J1) give nearly identical yields, which is difficult to reconcile with the C-coordinates being the controlling variable unless the relevant cancellations are demonstrated. A control calculation in which only te and to (or C_J0 and C_J1) are varied while all other parameters are held fixed is needed to support the attribution; without it, the 'specific region' claim in the abstract and Sec. IV is not established.
  2. [Sec. III A and Sec. IV] The conclusion that the influence of tensor forces is 'sensitive only in specific regions' of the C_J0-C_J1 map is under-sampled. Only three TIJ points (T31, T44, T62) plus the SLy5/SLy5t pair are computed, and the TIJ points are isolated corners of the map rather than a systematic grid; no neighboring parametrizations define the boundary of the claimed sensitive region. Given the full-refit confound, the data cannot distinguish a genuinely narrow sensitive region from a threshold effect or from correlations among other Skyrme parameters. The wording should be softened to a statement that the results are consistent with sensitivity near the SLy5t/T31 parameters, or the claim should be supported by additional EDFs that vary only the tensor couplings.
  3. [Sec. III B, Figs. 8-11] The orientation sampling for the 48Ti+238U system is not fully specified. The text says that two orientations of the prolate 48Ti nucleus are considered and that this 'doubles' the computational effort relative to the 48Ca+249Bk case, but 238U is also prolate deformed; it is not stated whether and how the target orientation was sampled or fixed in this system. Because the yield distributions and the experimental comparison in Figs. 8-11 depend on the averaging in Eq. (4), the ambiguity prevents reproduction and could affect the reported peak shifts and distribution widths.
  4. [Sec. III B, Figs. 9 and 11] The statement that SLy5t and T31 show 'much better agreement with experimental results' rests on horizontally aligning the theoretical and experimental maxima, with yields in arbitrary units. No quantitative metric (e.g., chi-squared or Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance) or uncertainty estimate is provided, and after arbitrary alignment only the shape and width around the peak can be meaningfully compared. Please provide a quantitative comparison or explicitly present the agreement as qualitative.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B] There are typographical errors: 'Sly5t' in the caption of Fig. 8 should be 'SLy5t', and '48Ca+238Bk' in Sec. III B should be '48Ca+249Bk'.
  2. [Sec. III A] In the discussion of Fig. 5, 'most T31 points fall bellow the N=56 line' should read 'below'.
  3. [Sec. III A and Fig. 4] The text says the SLy5t and T31 peaks are 'almost perfectly aligned'; it would be clearer to state explicitly whether the full distributions or only the peak centroids are being compared, since the subsequent width discussion is important for the 48Ti+238U case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TDHF yields are computed from externally fixed Skyrme parametrizations, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This is a forward simulation study rather than a fitting exercise. The fragment yield distributions are generated by solving the TDHF equations with several fixed Skyrme parametrizations (SLy5, SLy5t, T31, T44, T62) taken from independent published fits (Refs. [75], [78], [95]); no parameter of the model is fitted to the quasifission yields that are subsequently reported. The comparison with the 48Ti+238U experimental charge distribution (Ref. [26]) is an external benchmark and not an input to the calculations. The conclusion that tensor effects appear only in a particular region of the C_J0-C_J1 map is an interpretation of the computed differences, not a quantity defined in terms of those coupling constants. Equation (2) merely defines C_J0 and C_J1 in terms of the Skyrme parameters and is not inverted to construct the yields. The self-citation of Ref. [54] provides context and a previously reported analysis method, but this paper contains new TDHF results for both systems and does not rest its central claim solely on that citation. The full-refit confound within the TIJ family (T31, T44, and T62 differ in all Skyrme parameters, not only in tensor couplings) is a genuine attribution limitation, and the paper itself flags related caveats for the single-particle analysis, but this is an interpretation or correctness concern rather than a circular definition or a fitted-input-as-prediction structure. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or argument chain, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No parameters are fitted to data in this work; the EDFs are inputs from the literature. The key unexamined premise is that yield differences across the fully refitted TIJ forces can be assigned to the tensor coupling constants rather than to other changes in the parametrizations. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TDHF mean-field evolution approximates quasifission dynamics.
    The entire method section relies on this; correlations beyond the mean field, such as pairing and fluctuations, are neglected and could affect fragment yields.
  • domain assumption Skyrme EDF parameters fitted to nuclear structure are transferable to reaction dynamics without renormalization.
    SLy5, SLy5t, T31, T44, and T62 are used as fixed inputs; the paper assumes no additional reaction-specific adjustments are needed.
  • ad hoc to paper Comparing fully refitted TIJ EDFs isolates the effect of tensor coupling constants.
    T31 and T62 differ in all Skyrme parameters, not only C_J0 and C_J1; the paper's interpretation of yield differences as tensor effects assumes other refitted parameter differences are irrelevant, which is not established.
  • domain assumption Shell closure positions N=126, N=56, Z=82, and Z=36 serve as reliable markers of spherical and deformed shell effects in quasifission fragments.
    Used to interpret peak positions in Figs. 2-5 and 8-11; this is standard nuclear-structure knowledge but its application to dynamical fragments is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of tensor forces on quasifission product yield distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DDO3HZ3

@misc{pith2026241118057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of tensor forces on quasifission product yield distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DDO3HZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18057}
}
read the original abstract

We employ the microscopic time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) theory to study the 48Ca+249Bk and 48Ti+238U systems, taking into account the dependence on orientation for deformed nuclei and full range of impact parameters. By analyzing fragment distributions of neutron and proton numbers, we assess the influence of different isoscalar and isovector tensor coupling constants of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction. The quasifission yield distributions of 48Ca + 249Bk collision system utilizing SLy5t and T31 parametrizations exhibit more pronounced spherical shell effects compared to those using SLy5, T44 and T62 sets. Furthermore, within each parametrization group, the distributions for SLy5t and T31 are closely aligned, as are those for SLy5, T44, and T62. Similarly, the yield distributions for the 48Ti + 238U system using SLy5t and T31 also reflect the more pronounced spherical shell effects relative to SLy5 and T62, while the charge distribution shows much better agreement with experimental results for the SLy5t and T62 parametrizations compared to SLy5 and T31. The yield distributions for the 48Ca+249Bk and 48Ti+238U systems, when compared across the SLy5, SLy5t, T31, T44, and T62 parametrizations, indicate that the influence of tensor forces on quasifission fragments is reflected in the prominence of shell effects. This influence appears to be sensitive only in specific regions within the isoscalar and isovector coupling constant parameter space. In the 48Ti + 238U system, the prominence of shell effects is manifested not only through shifts in peak positions but also through narrower yield distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Fragment yields for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. TKE-mass distribution of QF fragments in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Proton number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Single-particle energy levels for the heavy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Quasifission reaction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Charge distribution for the quasifission reactions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    E. M. Kozulin, G. N. Knyazheva, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, A. A. Bogachev, L. Krupa, T. A. Loktev, S. V. Smirnov, V. I. Zagrebaev, J. Äystö, W. H. Trzaska, V. A. Rubchenya, E. Vardaci, A. M. Stefanini, M. Cin- ausero, L. Corradi, E. Fioretto, P. Mason, G. F. Prete, R. Silvestri, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, F. Hanappe, S. V. Khlebnikov, J. Kl...

    work page 2010

  2. [78]

    Hellemans, P.-H

    V. Hellemans, P.-H. Heenen, and M. Bender, Tensor part of the Skyrme energy density functional. III. Time- odd terms at high spin, Phys. Rev. C85, 014326 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [1]

    a limited study

    However, the ex- tensive number of parametrizations makes the TIJ family less practical for use in dynamical calculations as the re- action calculations are computationally demanding. The relationship between the coupling constantsC J 0 and C J 1 and the Skyrme interaction parameters is given by C J 0 = 1 16 (t1 − t2) − 1 8 (t1x1 + t2x2) + 5 16 te + 15 16...

  4. [2]

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

    1948

  5. [3]

    W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear masses and deformations, Nucl. Phys.81, 1 (1966)

    1966

  6. [4]

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

    1949

  7. [5]

    Haxel, J

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

    1949

  8. [6]

    Sobiczewski, F

    A. Sobiczewski, F. A. Gareev, and B. N. Kalinkin, Closed shells for Z>82 and N>126 in a diffuse potential well, Phys. Lett.22, 500 (1966)

    1966

Show all 105 references
  1. [7]

    Ćwiok, J

    S. Ćwiok, J. Dobaczewski, P.-H. Heenen, P. Magierski, and W. Nazarewicz, Shell structure of the superheavy elements, Nucl. Phys. A611, 211 (1996)

    1996

  2. [8]

    Bender, K

    M. Bender, K. Rutz, P.-G. Reinhard, J. A. Maruhn, and W. Greiner, Shell structure of superheavy nuclei in self- consistent mean-field models, Phys. Rev. C60, 034304 (1999)

    1999

  3. [9]

    A. T. Kruppa, M. Bender, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Rein- hard, T.Vertse,andS.Ćwiok,Shellcorrectionsofsuper- heavy nuclei in self-consistent calculations, Phys. Rev. C 61, 034313 (2000)

    2000

  4. [10]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, A. A. Voinov, G. G. Gul- bekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezent- sev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, K. Sub- otic, V. I...

    2006

  5. [11]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Y. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shi- rokovsky, Y. S. Tsyganov, A. A. Voinov, A. N. Mezent- sev, V. G.Subbotin, A.M. Sukhov, K.Subotic, V. I.Za- grebaev, S. N. Dmitriev, R. A. Henderson, K. J. Moody, J. M. K...

    2009

  6. [12]

    Hofmann, S

    S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, G. Münzen- berg, S. Antalic, W. Barth, H. G. Burkhard, L. Dahl, K. Eberhardt, R. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Hen- derson, J. M. Kenneally, B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, R. Lang, B. Lommel, K. Miernik, D. Miller, K. J. Moody, K. Morita...

    2016

  7. [13]

    Khuyagbaatar, A

    J. Khuyagbaatar, A. Yakushev, C. E. Düllmann, D. Ackermann, L.-L. Andersson, M. Asai, M. Block, 12 R. A. Boll, H. Brand, D. M. Cox, M. Dasgupta, X. Derkx, A. Di Nitto, K. Eberhardt, J. Even, M. Evers, C. Fahlander, U. Forsberg, J. M. Gates, N. Gharibyan, P. Golubev, K. E. Greg...

    2020

  8. [14]

    Tanaka, P

    M. Tanaka, P. Brionnet, M. Du, J. Ezold, K. Felker, B. J. Gall, S. Go, R. K. Grzywacz, H. Haba, K. Hagino, S. Hogle, S. Ishizawa, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, T. T. King, Y. Komori, R. K. Lemon, M. G. Leonard, K. Mori- moto, K. Morita, D. Nagae, N. Naito, T. Niwase, B. C. Rasco, J. B. ...

    2022

  9. [15]

    Vardaci, M

    E. Vardaci, M. G. Itkis, I. M. Itkis, G. Knyazheva, and E. M. Kozulin, Fission and quasifission toward the su- perheavy mass region, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 103002 (2019)

    2019

  10. [16]

    B. B. Back, R. R. Betts, K. Cassidy, B. G. Glagola, J. E. Gindler, L. E. Glendenin, and B. D. Wilkins, Ex- perimental Signatures of Quasifission Reactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 818 (1983)

    1983

  11. [17]

    W. Q. Shen, J. Albinski, A. Gobbi, S. Gralla, K. D. Hildenbrand, N. Herrmann, J. Kuzminski, W. F. J. Müller, H. Stelzer, J. Tõke, B. B. Back, S. Bjørn- holm, and S. P. Sørensen, Fission and quasifission in U-induced reactions, Phys. Rev. C36, 115 (1987)

    1987

  12. [18]

    Nishio, S

    K. Nishio, S. Mitsuoka, I. Nishinaka, H. Makii, Y. Wak- abayashi, H. Ikezoe, K. Hirose, T. Ohtsuki, Y. Aritomo, and S. Hofmann, Fusion probabilities in the reactions 40,48Ca +238U at energies around the Coulomb barrier, Phys. Rev. C86, 034608 (2012)

    2012

  13. [19]

    D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, J. R. Leigh, J. P. Lestone, J. C. Mein, C. R. Morton, J. O. Newton, and H. Tim- mers, Fusion-Fission versus Quasifission: Effect of Nu- clear Orientation, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1295 (1995)

    1995

  14. [20]

    Hammerton, Z

    K. Hammerton, Z. Kohley, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, A. Wakhle, E. Williams, V. E. Oberacker, A. S. Umar, I. P. Carter, K. J. Cook, J. Greene, D. Y. Jeung, D. H. Luong, S. D. McNeil, C. S. Palshetkar, D. C. Rafferty, C. Simenel, and K. Stiefel, Reduced quasifission com- petition...

    2015

  15. [21]

    A. Yu. Chizhov, M. G. Itkis, I. M. Itkis, G. N. Kniajeva, E. M. Kozulin, N. A. Kondratiev, I. V. Pokrovsky, R. N. Sagaidak, V. M. Voskressensky, A. V. Yeremin, L. Cor- radi, A. Gadea, A. Latina, A. M. Stefanini, S. Szilner, M. Trotta, A. M. Vinodkumar, S. Beghini, G. Mon- tagn...

    2003

  16. [22]

    Wakhle, C

    A. Wakhle, C. Simenel, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, M. Evers, D. H. Luong, R. du Rietz, and E. Williams, Interplay between Quantum Shells and Orientation in Quasifission, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 182502 (2014)

    2014

  17. [23]

    A. Pal, S. Santra, P. C. Rout, A. Kundu, D. Chattopad- hyay, R. Gandhi, P. N. Patil, R. Tripathi, B. J. Roy, Y. Sawant, T. N. Nag, A. Baishya, T. Santhosh, P. K. Rath, and N. Deshmukh, Experimental evidence of shell effects in slow quasifission, Phys. Rev. C110, 034601 (2024)

    2024

  18. [24]

    Gippner, K

    P. Gippner, K. D. Schilling, W. Seidel, F. Stary, E. Will, H. Sodan, S. M. Lukyanov, V. S. Salamatin, Y. E. Pe- nionzhkevich, G. G. Chubarian, and R. Schmidt, Shell effects in the evolution of the mass asymmetry in heavy- ion collisions leading to composite systems with Z=108,...

    1986

  19. [25]

    M. G. Itkis, J. Äystö, S. Beghini, A. A. Bogachev, L. Corradi, O. Dorvaux, A. Gadea, G. Giardina, F. Hanappe, I. M. Itkis, M. Jandel, J. Kliman, S. V. Khlebnikov, G. N. Kniajeva, N. A. Kondratiev, E. M. Kozulin, L. Krupa, A. Latina, T. Materna, G. Mon- tagnoli, Yu. Ts. Oganess...

    2004

  20. [27]

    Morjean, D

    M. Morjean, D. J. Hinde, C. Simenel, D. Y. Jeung, M. Airiau, K. J. Cook, M. Dasgupta, A. Drouart, D. Jacquet, S. Kalkal, C. S. Palshetkar, E. Prasad, D. Rafferty, E. C. Simpson, L. Tassan-Got, K. Vo- Phuoc, and E. Williams, Evidence for the Role of Pro- ton Shell Closure in Qu...

    2017

  21. [28]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Char- acteristics of quasifission products within the dinuclear system model, Phys. Rev. C68, 034601 (2003)

    2003

  22. [29]

    L. Zhu, J. Su, and F.-S. Zhang, Influence of the neu- tron numbers of projectile and target on the evapora- tion residue cross sections in hot fusion reactions, Phys. Rev. C 93, 064610 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Z.-Q.Feng, G.-M.Jin,andJ.-Q.Li,Productionofheavy isotopes in transfer reactions by collisions of238U+238U, Phys. Rev. C80, 067601 (2009)

    2009

  24. [31]

    Wang, E.-G

    N. Wang, E.-G. Zhao, W. Scheid, and S.-G. Zhou, Theo- retical study of the synthesis of superheavy nuclei with Z = 119 and 120 in heavy-ion reactions with trans– 13 uranium targets, Phys. Rev. C85, 041601 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    S.Q.Guo, Y.Gao, J.Q.Li,andH.F.Zhang,Dynamical deformation in heavy ion reactions and the characteris- tics of quasifission products, Phys. Rev. C96, 044622 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Valery Zagrebaev and Walter Greiner, Shell effects in damped collisions: A new way to superheavies, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.34, 2265 (2007)

    2007

  27. [34]

    Schmitt, K

    C. Schmitt, K. Mazurek, and P. N. Nadtochy, New pro- cedure to determine the mass-angle correlation of quasi- fission, Phys. Rev. C100, 064606 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Amano, Y

    S. Amano, Y. Aritomo, and M. Ohta, Modes of mas- sive nucleon transfer appearing in quasifission processes for collisions of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C106, 024610 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    N. Wang, K. Zhao, and Z. Li, Fusion and quasi-fission dynamics in nearly-symmetric reactions, Sci. China- Phys. Mech. Astron.58, 112001 (2015)

    2015

  30. [37]

    K. Zhao, Z. Li, Y. Zhang, N. Wang, Q. Li, C. Shen, Y. Wang, and X. Wu, Production of unknown neutron– rich isotopes in 238U +238U collisions at near–barrier energy, Phys. Rev. C94, 024601 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    C. Li, P. Wen, J. Li, G. Zhang, B. Li, X. Xu, Z. Liu, S. Zhu, and F.-S. Zhang, Production mechanism of new neutron-rich heavy nuclei in the136Xe +198Pt reaction, Phys. Lett. B776, 278 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Reinhard, Lu Guo, and J

    P.-G. Reinhard, Lu Guo, and J. A. Maruhn, Nuclear giant resonances and linear response, Eur. Phys. J. A 32, 19 (2007)

    2007

  33. [40]

    L. Guo, J. A. Maruhn, and P.-G. Reinhard, Boost- invariant mean field approximation and the nuclear Landau-Zener effect, Phys. Rev. C76, 014601 (2007)

    2007

  34. [41]

    L. Guo, J. A. Maruhn, P.-G. Reinhard, and Y. Hashimoto, Conservation properties in the time- dependent Hartree Fock theory, Phys. Rev. C 77, 041301 (2008)

    2008

  35. [42]

    A. S. Umar, V. E. Oberacker, and C. Simenel, Shape evolution and collective dynamics of quasifission in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approach, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024621 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    L. Guo, K. Godbey, and A. S. Umar, Influence of the tensor force on the microscopic heavy-ion interaction potential, Phys. Rev. C98, 064607 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Wu and L

    Z. Wu and L. Guo, Microscopic studies of production crosssectionsinmultinucleontransferreaction 58Ni+124 Sn, Phys. Rev. C100, 014612 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    Wu and L

    Z. Wu and L. Guo, Production of proton-rich actinide nucleiinthemultinucleontransferreaction 58Ni+232Th, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 242021 (2020)

    2020

  39. [46]

    Jiang and N

    X. Jiang and N. Wang, Probing the production mecha- nism of neutron-rich nuclei in multinucleon transfer re- actions, Phys. Rev. C101, 014604 (2020)

    2020

  40. [47]

    Sun and L

    X.-X. Sun and L. Guo, Microscopic study of fusion reac- tions with a weakly bound nucleus: Effects of deformed halo, Phys. Rev. C107, L011601 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Sun and L

    X.-X. Sun and L. Guo, Microscopic study of the hot- fusion reaction 48Ca +238 U with the constraints from time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory, Phys. Rev. C107, 064609 (2023)

    2023

  42. [49]

    A. S. Umar and V. E. Oberacker, Time-dependent HF approach to SHE dynamics, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 238 (2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    Simenel and A

    C. Simenel and A. S. Umar, Heavy-ion collisions and fission dynamics with the time–dependent Hartree-Fock theory and its extensions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.103, 19 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    L. Guo, C. Simenel, L. Shi, and C. Yu, The role of tensor force in heavy-ion fusion dynamics, Phys. Lett. B782, 401 (2018)

    2018

  45. [52]

    L. Guo, C. Shen, C. Yu, and Z. Wu, Isotopic trends of quasifission and fusion-fission in the reactions 48Ca + 239,244Pu, Phys. Rev. C98, 064609 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    P. D. Stevenson and M. C. Barton, Low–energy heavy- ion reactions and the Skyrme effective interaction, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104, 142 (2019)

    2019

  47. [54]

    Godbey and A

    K. Godbey and A. S. Umar, Quasifission Dynamics in Microscopic Theories, Front. Phys.8, 40 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    L. Li, L. Guo, K. Godbey, and A. S. Umar, Impact of tensor force on quantum shell effects in quasifission reactions, Phys. Lett. B833, 137349 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    Kedziora and Cédric Simenel, New inverse quasifission mechanism to produce neutron-rich trans- fermium nuclei, Phys

    David J. Kedziora and Cédric Simenel, New inverse quasifission mechanism to produce neutron-rich trans- fermium nuclei, Phys. Rev. C81, 044613 (2010)

    2010

  50. [57]

    V. E. Oberacker, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Dissipa- tive dynamics in quasifission, Phys. Rev. C90, 054605 (2014)

    2014

  51. [58]

    P. M. Goddard, P. D. Stevenson, and A. Rios, Fis- sion dynamics within time-dependent Hartree-Fock: deformation-induced fission, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054610 (2015)

    2015

  52. [59]

    A. S. Umar, V. E. Oberacker, and C. Simenel, Fusion and quasifission dynamics in the reactions48Ca +249Bk and 50Ti +249Bk using a time-dependent Hartree-Fock approach, Phys. Rev. C94, 024605 (2016)

    2016

  53. [60]

    Evers, D

    E.Prasad, A.Wakhle, D.J.Hinde, E.Williams, M.Das- gupta, M. Evers, D. H. Luong, G. Mohanto, C. Simenel, and K. Vo-Phuoc, Exploring quasifission characteristics for 34S +232Th forming 266Sg, Phys. Rev. C93, 024607 (2016)

    2016

  54. [61]

    Wang and L

    N. Wang and L. Guo, New neutron-rich isotope produc- tion in 154Sm +160Gd, Phys. Lett. B760, 236 (2016)

    2016

  55. [62]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Time-dependent Hartree- Fock calculations for multinucleon transfer and quasi- fission processes in the64Ni +238U reaction, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054616 (2016)

    2016

  56. [63]

    China Phys.60, 092011 (2017)

    Chong Yu and Lu Guo, Angular momentum dependence of quasifission dynamics in the reaction48Ca +244Pu, Sci. China Phys.60, 092011 (2017)

    2017

  57. [64]

    X. Li, Z. Wu, and L. Guo, Entrance-channel dynamics in the reaction 40Ca +208Pb, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 122011 (2019)

    2019

  58. [65]

    Godbey, A

    K. Godbey, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Deformed shell effectsin 48Ca+249Bkquasifissionfragments,Phys.Rev. C 100, 024610 (2019)

    2019

  59. [66]

    Sekizawa, Microscopic description of production cross sections including deexcitation effects, Phys

    K. Sekizawa, Microscopic description of production cross sections including deexcitation effects, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014615 (2017)

    2017

  60. [67]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Hagino, Time-dependent Hartree- Fock plus Langevin approach for hot fusion reactions to synthesize theZ = 120superheavy element, Phys. Rev. C 99, 051602 (2019)

    2019

  61. [68]

    Phys.7, 20 (2019)

    Kazuyuki Sekizawa, TDHF Theory and Its Extensions fortheMultinucleonTransferReaction: AMiniReview, Front. Phys.7, 20 (2019)

    2019

  62. [69]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Impact of pear-shaped fis- sion fragments on mass-asymmetric fission in actinides, Nature 564, 382 (2018)

    2018

  63. [70]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Effect of shell structure 14 on the fission of sub–lead nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 100, 041602(R) (2019)

    2019

  64. [71]

    Bender, R

    M. Bender, R. Bernard, G. Bertsch, S. Chiba, J. J. Dobaczewski, N. Dubray, S. Giuliani, K. Hagino, D. Lacroix, Z. Li, P. Magierski, J. Maruhn, W. Nazarewicz, J. Pei, S. Péru-Desenfants, N. Pillet, J. Randrup, D. Regnier, P.-G. Reinhard, L. M. Robledo, W. Ryssens, J. Sadhukhan,...

    2020

  65. [72]

    Huang, X.-X

    Y. Huang, X.-X. Sun, and L. Guo, Fission fragment distributions within time-dependent density functional theory, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 100 (2024)

    2024

  66. [73]

    Simenel, P

    C. Simenel, P. McGlynn, A. S. Umar, and K. Godbey, Comparison of fission and quasi-fission modes, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136648 (2021)

    2021

  67. [74]

    McGlynn and C

    P. McGlynn and C. Simenel, Time-dependent Hartree- Fock study of quasifission trajectories in reactions form- ing 294Og, Phys. Rev. C107, 054614 (2023)

    2023

  68. [75]

    H. Lee, P. McGlynn, and C. Simenel, Shell effects in quasifission in reactions forming the 226Th compound nucleus, Phys. Rev. C110, 024606 (2024)

    2024

  69. [76]

    G. Colò, H. Sagawa, S. Fracasso, and P. F. Bortignon, Spin–orbit splitting and the tensor component of the Skyrme interaction, Phys. Lett. B646, 227 (2007)

    2007

  70. [77]

    R. N. Bernard, N. Pillet, L. M. Robledo, and M. An- guiano, Description of the asymmetric to symmetric fission transition in the neutron-deficient thorium iso- topes: Role of the tensor force, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044615 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Lesinski, M

    T. Lesinski, M. Bender, K. Bennaceur, T. Duguet, and J. Meyer, Tensor part of the Skyrme energy density functional: Spherical nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014312 (2007)

    2007

  72. [80]

    Sagawa and G

    H. Sagawa and G. Colò, Tensor interaction in mean- field and density functional theory approaches to nu- clear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.76, 76 (2014)

    2014

  73. [81]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Evolution of Nuclear Shells due to the Ten- sor Force, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 232502 (2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Matsuo, and D. Abe, Mean Field with TensorForceandShellStructureofExoticNuclei,Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 162501 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, M. Honma, Y. Utsuno, N. Tsun- oda, K. Tsukiyama, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Novel Fea- tures of Nuclear Forces and Shell Evolution in Exotic Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 012501 (2010)

    2010

  76. [84]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ut- suno, Evolution of nuclear structure in exotic nuclei driven by nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    C. L. Bai, H. Q. Zhang, X. Z. Zhang, F. R. Xu, H. Sagawa, and G. Colò, Quenching of Gamow-Teller strength due to tensor correlations in90Zr and 208Pb, Phys. Rev. C79, 041301 (2009)

    2009

  78. [86]

    C. L. Bai, H. Q. Zhang, H. Sagawa, X. Z. Zhang, G. Colò, and F. R. Xu, Effect of the Tensor Force on the Charge Exchange Spin–Dipole Excitations of208Pb, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 072501 (2010)

    2010

  79. [87]

    Godbey, L

    K. Godbey, L. Guo, and A. S. Umar, Influence of the tensor interaction on heavy-ion fusion cross sections, Phys. Rev. C100, 054612 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    X.-X. Sun, L. Guo, and A. S. Umar, Microscopic study of the fusion reactions40,48Ca +78 Ni and the effect of the tensor force, Phys. Rev. C105, 034601 (2022)

    2022

  81. [89]

    Sun and L

    X.-X. Sun and L. Guo, Effects of the tensor force on low-energy heavy-ion fusion reactions: a mini review, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 097302 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    G.-F. Dai, L. Guo, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Dissipa- tion dynamics and spin–orbit force in time–dependent Hartree–Fock theory, Phys. Rev. C90, 044609 (2014)

    2014

  83. [91]

    P. D. Stevenson, E. B. Suckling, S. Fracasso, M. C. Bar- ton, and A. S. Umar, Skyrme tensor force in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 054617 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, The effective nuclear potential, Nu- clear Phys. B9, 615 (1958)

    1958

  85. [93]

    A. S. Umar, M. R. Strayer, and P.-G. Reinhard, Res- olution of the Fusion Window Anomaly in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 2793 (1986)

    1986

  86. [94]

    Reinhard, A

    P.-G. Reinhard, A. S. Umar, K. T. R. Davies, M. R. Strayer, and S.-J. Lee, Dissipation and forces in time- dependent Hartree-Fock calculations, Phys. Rev. C37, 1026 (1988)

    1988

  87. [95]

    A. S. Umar, M. R. Strayer, P.-G. Reinhard, K. T. R. Davies, and S.-J. Lee, Spin-orbit force in time- dependent Hartree-Fock calculations of heavy-ion col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C40, 706 (1989)

    1989

  88. [96]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, A Skyrme parametrization from subnu- clear to neutron star densities Part II. Nuclei far from stabilities, Nucl. Phys. A635, 231 (1998)

    1998

  89. [97]

    A. S. Umar and V. E. Oberacker, Three-dimensional unrestricted time-dependent Hartree-Fock fusion calcu- lations using the full Skyrme interaction, Phys. Rev. C 73, 054607 (2006)

    2006

  90. [98]

    Kazuyuki Sekizawa and Kazuhiro Yabana, Time- dependent Hartree-Fock calculations for multinucleon transfer processes in40,48Ca +124Sn, 40Ca +208Pb, and 58Ni +208Pb reactions, Phys. Rev. C88, 014614 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    J. A. Maruhn, P.-G. Reinhard, P. D. Stevenson, and A. S. Umar, The TDHF Code Sky3D, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2195 (2014)

    2014

  92. [100]

    Schuetrumpf, P.-G

    B. Schuetrumpf, P.-G. Reinhard, P. D. Stevenson, A. S. Umar, and J. A. Maruhn, The TDHF code Sky3D ver- sion 1.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.229, 211 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    Stevenson, Y

    Abhishek, P. Stevenson, Y. Shi, E. Yüksel, and A. S. Umar, The TDHF code Sky3D version 1.2, Comp. Phys. Comm. 301, 109239 (2024)

    2024

  94. [102]

    D. A. Pigg, A. S. Umar, and V. E. Oberacker, Eulerian rotations of deformed nuclei for TDDFT calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1410 (2014)

    2014

  95. [103]

    E. M. Kozulin, G. N. Knyazheva, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, Y. S. Mukhamejanov, A. A. Bogachev, K. V. Novikov, V. V. Kirakosyan, D. Kumar, T. Banerjee, M. Cheralu, M. Maiti, R. Prajapat, R. Kumar, G. Sarkar, W. H. Trzaska, A. N. Andreyev, I. M. Harca, A. Mitu, and E. Vardaci, Fi...

    2022

  96. [104]

    Godbey, A

    K. Godbey, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Theoretical uncertainty quantification for heavy-ion fusion, Phys. Rev. C 106, L051602 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Bonilla, P

    E. Bonilla, P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, and D. Lee, Training 15 and projecting: A reduced basis method emulator for many-body physics, Phys. Rev. C106, 054322 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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