Angular structure of many-body correlations in atomic nuclei: From nuclear deformations to diffractive vector meson production in $\gamma A$ collisions

Giuliano Giacalone; Jean-Paul Blaizot

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Angular structure of many-body correlations in atomic nuclei: From nuclear deformations to diffractive vector meson production in $\gamma A$ collisions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deformed nucleus's random rotation imprints a universal $\cos(2\varphi_{12})$ correlation on its ground state, and diffractive vector meson production can expose it.

desk verdict A clean analytic derivation connecting rotational averaging to a cos(2φ12) density correlation and to diffractive γA observables; the universality claim is plausible but the quantitative prediction needs a microscopic check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15421 v1 pith:Q6ICSMRW submitted 2025-04-21 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Jean-Paul Blaizot , Giuliano Giacalone This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex

keywords nucleardeformationquadrupoletwo-bodydensitycorrelationsrotormodeldiffractivevectormesonproductionincoherentdiffractionisobarcollisionsultra-peripheral

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 argues that the ground state of any axially symmetric nucleus with a stable quadrupole deformation carries an angular correlation inherited from the rotation of its intrinsic shape: once the nucleus is averaged over random orientations, the two-body density develops a modulation proportional to $\cos(2\varphi_{12})$ in the relative azimuthal angle of two nucleons, with amplitude growing toward the nuclear edge. The authors establish this pattern analytically in several rotor models (thin rod, dumbbell, deformed Gaussian) and in a harmonic-oscillator model of $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$. They then show that the incoherent diffractive production of vector mesons in $\gamma A$ collisions measures the Fourier transform of this same two-body correlation, so the deformation should appear as a localized enhancement in the isobar ratio of cross sections near the coherent diffraction minimum, about 20% for $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$. If correct, high-energy scattering becomes a direct probe of ground-state correlations that low-energy spectroscopy reaches only indirectly through matrix elements such as $B(E2)$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the rotor-model decomposition of the ground state as a rigidly rotating intrinsic state: the lab-frame probability is an angular average over orientations (Eq. (21)), and the intrinsic two-body density factorizes into a product of one-body densities (Eq. (24)). Under this ansatz all angular correlations come from the object $G(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{b}') = \int (d\Omega/4\pi)\, t^{(1)}_\Omega(\mathbf{b})\,t^{(1)}_\Omega(\mathbf{b}')$, whose connected part $G_c$ carries the $\cos(2\varphi_{12})$ modulation. The Fourier transform $G_c(\Delta)$ enters the incoherent diffractive cross section through $\sigma_{\rm inc}/\sigma_0 = 1 - G(\Delta) + A G_c(\Delta)$, which is how the deformation shows up in $\gamma A$ scattering; the small-deformation radial weighting $r_1^2 r_2^2$ is what sends the effect to the nuclear edge and locates the observable signal at the coherent diffraction minimum.

What would settle it

Measure the total diffractive vector-meson cross-section ratio for an isobar pair (for example $\gamma+^{96}\mathrm{Ru}$ versus $\gamma+^{96}\mathrm{Zr}$, or a $\gamma+^{8}\mathrm{Be}$ surrogate) as a function of $|t|$: the claim predicts a distinct enhancement peak localized at the coherent diffraction minimum, near $|t|\approx0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ for $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$, with the ratio returning to unity at small and large $|t|$; the absence of that peak, or a peak at a substantially different momentum transfer, would falsify the orientation-averaging mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For small axial quadrupole deformation, the orientation-averaged connected two-body density correlation in the laboratory frame takes the form $G_c(r_1,r_2,\varphi_{12}) \sim \delta^2 r_1^2 r_2^2 \cos(2\varphi_{12})$, with peaks at $\varphi_{12}=0,\pi$ and a minimum at $\varphi_{12}=\pi/2$; the radial prefactor $r_1^2 r_2^2$ pushes the modulation toward the nuclear edge. The paper claims this pattern is universal for axially symmetric nuclei with stable ground-state quadrupole deformation, emerging identically in a thin rod, a dumbbell, a deformed Gaussian, and a harmonic-oscillator model of $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$. Fourier transforming this correlation gives the connected part $A G_c(\Delta)$ of the incoherent diffractive cross section, and for $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$ the isobar ratio of total cross sections shows a roughly 20% enhancement near $|t|\approx0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, localized at the coherent diffraction minimum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a deformed nucleus rotates rigidly and that, inside the intrinsic state, nucleon positions are uncorrelated, so all angular structure comes from averaging over orientations; if short-range quantum effects or center-of-mass motion produce comparable angular correlations, the predicted $\cos(2\varphi_{12})$ pattern and the deformation extracted from scattering data would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Incoherent diffractive vector meson production gives direct access to the Fourier transform of the ground-state density-density correlation, so the angular structure of deformed nuclei can be imaged at high energy rather than inferred only from low-energy electromagnetic transitions.
The deformation signal is maximal in the $|t|$ window around the coherent diffraction minimum, so future $\gamma A$ measurements should concentrate statistics there rather than at very small or very large momentum transfer.
For a fictitious spherical isobar of $^{8}\mathrm{Be}$, the total cross-section ratio is predicted to rise by about 20% near $|t|\approx0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, with normalization uncertainties cancelling in the ratio.
The same rotation-induced angular correlations should appear in three-body and higher $n$-point densities, and analogous modulations are expected for octupole and triaxial ground states.
Because the pattern is geometric in origin, the authors expect it to survive more sophisticated microscopic treatments that go beyond the classical rotor approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the universality claim holds, the deformation parameter could be extracted from the measured height and location of the isobar-ratio peak without input from low-energy $B(E2)$ systematics.
The existing ultra-peripheral Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr isobar data provide a ready test: a clean peak in the cross-section ratio at the coherent diffraction minimum would confirm the orientation-averaging mechanism, while a null result would point to correlations beyond the rotor picture.
An ab initio calculation of the ground-state two-body density for a light deformed nucleus could directly check the predicted small-deformation scaling $G_c^{\max} \simeq \varepsilon^2/(2e^2)$ at $R\Delta=2$, quantifying the role of short-range and center-of-mass correlations that the classical model omits.
The same orientation-averaged two-body correlation may enter the nuclear matrix element of neutrinoless double beta decay in deformed parent nuclei, since that matrix element is also a Fourier transform of a two-body operator; the paper notes the resemblance but does not quantify it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a clean analytic derivation of a specific angular correlation signature from rotational averaging, and a sensible bridge to diffractive γA observables. The universality claim is plausible but not yet established beyond toy models.

What is actually new: the rotor-model origin of angular correlations is known from earlier work by Jia and others, but this paper makes the small-deformation expansion explicit, obtains Gc ~ δ² r1² r2² cos(2φ12), demonstrates the edge enhancement in several toy densities, and connects the correlation function directly to incoherent vector meson production. That connection, including the isobar-ratio prediction near the diffraction minimum, is the genuinely new piece. The derivations are explicit and internally consistent; the correlation formula is derived, not fitted, and the free parameters are stated. The paper is honest about its own limitations.

Soft spots: the central result rests on Eq. (24), which factorizes the intrinsic two-body density and drops Pauli, short-range, and center-of-mass correlations. For 8Be with A=8, these are not negligible. The authors flag CM correlations in footnote 3 and Section 4.1, but the quantitative 20% prediction near |t| ≈ 0.1 GeV² is made without estimating their impact. That means the amplitude of the effect—and any extracted deformation—is an assumption until checked with ab initio or DFT wave functions. The universality claim is an extrapolation from simple models; it may survive, but it is not proven. That is the right thing for a referee to push on. Also, the isobar 8X is fictional; the Ru/Zr discussion is more realistic but only qualitative here.

The citation pattern is fine: the self-citations are to prior rotor-model work that this paper extends, not to the target result, so there is no circularity problem.

Who it is for: nuclear structure and high-energy scattering people, especially those working on ultraperipheral collisions, isobar runs, or deformation signatures. It deserves a serious referee: the analytic core is solid and the idea is worth testing. I would send it to review and ask for a discussion of the correlation assumptions, plus a clear separation of the robust cos(2φ12) structure from the model-dependent amplitude.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the angular structure of two-body correlations in deformed nuclei. Working with a classical rotor picture, the authors define the connected density-density correlation function S and its Fourier transform, then compute it for three toy intrinsic densities: a thin rod, a dumbbell, and a deformed Gaussian. For small axial quadrupole deformation they obtain the closed-form result Gc ~ δ² r1² r2² cos(2φ12) (Eq. (67)), with amplitude increasing toward the nuclear edge, and they argue this modulation is universal for axially symmetric nuclei with stable quadrupole deformation. In the second part, a harmonic-oscillator model of 8Be is used to compute coherent and incoherent diffractive vector meson photoproduction cross sections, and an isobar ratio (Eq. (102)) is proposed that shows a ~20% enhancement near the coherent diffraction minimum. The paper is explicitly presented as a semi-classical, partly academic study.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a simple analytical bridge between nuclear deformation and high-energy scattering observables, and the isobar-ratio prescription is a clean way to suppress non-nuclear uncertainties. The derivations are explicit and internally consistent, with no fitted parameters in the correlation functions, and the cross-section ratio of Eq. (102) indeed cancels the overall dipole cross section and proton form factor. The main value is conceptual: it isolates the kinematically generated quadrupole angular correlation. However, the quantitative universality claim rests on two assumptions (Eqs. (21) and (24)) that are not tested microscopically; the paper's own footnote 3 concedes that omitted correlations can be sizable for light nuclei. The results are therefore best viewed, at present, as a well-founded conjecture within the classical rotor framework.

major comments (2)

[Section 2, Eqs. (21)-(24), footnote 3] The central result, Eq. (67), and the 20% isobar ratio of Eq. (102) rest on two assumptions that are stated but not tested: Eq. (21) replaces the coherent J=0 ground state by an incoherent orientation average, and Eq. (24) factorizes the intrinsic two-body density, dropping Pauli, short-range, and center-of-mass correlations. The manuscript itself notes (footnote 3) that CM correlations can be sizable for light nuclei, and for 8Be the Pauli exchange contribution to the two-body density is not a small correction. Because S(Δ) is probed precisely at |t|≈0.1 GeV² where the predicted enhancement peaks, these omitted correlations could change the amplitude of the cos(2φ12) term and hence the extracted deformation. I recommend either adding a microscopic check within the same harmonic-oscillator model (e.g., compute the Slater-determinant one- and two-body densities including exchange and the CM factor) or explicitly demoting the universality claim of Sections 1 and 5 to a conjecture supported only within the classical rotor picture.
[Sections 1 and 5; Eq. (67)] The claim that the cos(2φ12) modulation is a 'universal' feature of axially symmetric nuclei with stable quadrupole deformation is stronger than the evidence presented. The three rotor models (rod, dumbbell, deformed Gaussian) all implement the same two assumptions of rigid rotation and factorized intrinsic densities, so they do not provide independent tests; the quadrupole modulation is essentially kinematically built into the orientation average of any quadrupole-deformed shape. To support universality in the sense used in the Introduction, at least one calculation that goes beyond the classical approximation (for example, a projected mean-field or Slater-determinant state for a light deformed nucleus) is needed. Without it, the quantitative amplitude of the effect, and not just its cos(2φ12) structure, remains an assumption.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2.3, after Eq. (50)] The inequalities in the discussion of the peak of ⟨t(Δ)⟩ appear reversed: for w/L > 0.7 the Gaussian factor does not stay flat until LΔ ≫ 1, and the sentence 'For small deformation (w/L < 0.7)' should presumably read 'w/L > 0.7' given the separatrix w/L = 1/√2 and the behavior shown in Fig. 6.
[Eq. (83)] The notation '4 Nx = Ny = 1, Nz = 2' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the intended values are Nx = Ny = 4, Nz = 8 or some normalized set satisfying Nxωx = Nyωy = Nzωz with ωx/ωz = 2.
[Eq. (91)] The expression for ⟨tπ/2(r)⟩ contains α_y in the combination α_x² + α_y², but α_y is not defined in the text; presumably α_y = α_x as in Eq. (87).
[Section 4.3, Eq. (102)] The cancellation of σ0 and tG(Δ) in the isobar ratio is only approximate for real isobars, since the dipole-nucleon amplitude and the proton/neutron composition differ between isobars; the paper should state this limitation explicitly or estimate the size of the isospin-breaking correction.
[Reference [57]] Reference [57] is a Wikipedia page; it should be replaced by a primary reference for the alpha-decay instability of 8Be.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted correlations and cross-section ratios are analytic consequences of the stated rotor assumptions, not fitted or citation-defined.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (67), is obtained by direct analytic expansion of the orientation-averaged two-point function defined in Eqs. (26)-(27) under the explicitly stated approximations of Eqs. (21) and (24). No output quantity is fitted to data: the deformation parameter delta for 8Be follows from the harmonic-oscillator filling, Eq. (83), and the standard value hbar omega0 = 40 A^{-1/3} MeV, not from the diffractive cross sections computed later. The isobar ratio in Eq. (102) is a model prediction built from the same G and <t>, and the 20% enhancement near the diffraction minimum is a consequence, not an input, of the calculation. The self-citations, e.g., Ref. [40] for the orientation-averaging strategy in flow analyses and Refs. [41,66] for context, are motivational and do not supply any theorem or parameter on which the derivation rests. The acknowledged limitations, footnote 3 on neglected short-range, Pauli, and center-of-mass correlations, and Section 5 on expecting the features to survive microscopic treatment, are assumptions about the model's domain of validity, not circular definitions or fitted inputs. Accordingly there is no circular step to quote, and the derivation is self-contained within the rotor-model ansatz.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result is derived analytically with no fitted parameters. Model knobs such as w/L and δ are varied only to illustrate regimes. The quantitative 8Be prediction uses a phenomenological oscillator scale and standard dipole/proton form factor inputs. The fictional 8X is a baseline device, not a physical claim.

free parameters (2)

dumbbell width ratio w/L = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 (illustrative)
Hand-chosen in Section 3.2 to probe large to small deformation; not fit to data, but it controls the correlation shape in the dumbbell model.
deformed Gaussian deformation δ = 1, 2, 4 (illustrative)
Hand-chosen to show small to large deformation; the small-δ expansion in Eq. (67) is the basis of the cos(2φ12) claim.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ground state of a deformed nucleus is the angular average over a rigidly rotating intrinsic state (Eq. (21)).
This is the rotor-model assumption; it is the source of all correlations in the calculation and is not derived from the many-body Hamiltonian.
domain assumption Intrinsic-state nucleons are uncorrelated: t^(2)_Ω(b,b') = t^(1)_Ω(b)t^(1)_Ω(b') (Eq. (24)).
Explicitly ignores short-range, Pauli, and center-of-mass correlations; the authors note these could be sizable for light nuclei.
domain assumption High-energy scattering is eikonal/Glauber with a single dipole-nucleon interaction; multiple scattering and saturation are neglected (Section 4.2).
Maps the diffractive cross section to the Fourier transform of the density-density correlation; standard for small nuclei and moderate |t| but not exact.
domain assumption Classical approximation: configurations at the instant of measurement are drawn from |Ψ0|² and the orientation is well defined on the short interaction time scale (Section 2).
Justifies averaging over orientations to generate correlations; quantum interference between orientations is neglected.
domain assumption Harmonic oscillator mean field with volume conservation and isotropy conditions for 8Be (Eqs. (81), (82)); empirical ℏω0 = 40A^-1/3 MeV (Eq. (86)).
Provides the intrinsic density of 8Be and the deformation δ=0.69; the qualitative predictions should not depend on this specific model, but the quoted 20% enhancement does.

invented entities (1)

Fictitious isobar 8X (spherical partner of 8Be)
purpose: Provides a baseline to define the cross-section ratio (Eq. (102)) that isolates deformation effects.
No such nucleus exists; it is a calculational device. The real predictive content is the comparison of deformed 8Be against a spherical target of equal size, and the analogous Ru/Zr ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angular structure of many-body correlations in atomic nuclei: From nuclear deformations to diffractive vector meson production in $\gamma A$ collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6ICSMRW

@misc{pith2026250415421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angular structure of many-body correlations in atomic nuclei: From nuclear deformations to diffractive vector meson production in $\gamma A$ collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6ICSMRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15421}
}

abstract

There is growing evidence that high-energy scattering processes involving nuclei can offer unique insights into the many-body correlations present in nuclear ground states, in particular those of deformed nuclei. These processes involve, for instance, the collective anisotropic flows in heavy-ion collisions, or the diffractive production of vector mesons in photo-nuclear ($\gamma A$) interactions. In this paper, we use a classical approximation and simple analytical models in order to exhibit characteristic and universal features of ground-state correlation functions that result from the presence of a deformed intrinsic state. In the case of a small axial quadrupole deformation, we show that the random rotation of the intrinsic density of the nucleus leads to a specific quadrupole modulation of the lab-frame two-body density as a function of the relative azimuthal angle. As a phenomenological, albeit academic application, we analyze the diffractive production of vector mesons in high-energy $\gamma+^8$Be collisions. This demonstrates with the simplest deformed nucleus how the two-body correlations impact the $|t|$ dependence of the incoherent cross sections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15421 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Imaging two-body correlations in atomic nuclei via low- and high-energy processes
nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Ground-state two-body correlations in light nuclei are better probed by high-energy eccentricity variances than by low-energy Kumar operators, whose deformation interpretation is shown to fail.
Impacts of isolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O collisions
nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Applying rejection sampling to 16O configurations constrained by a Fermi density and a two-nucleon distance distribution reproduces the initial-state eccentricities and energy fluctuations of NLEFT and VMC ab-initio m...
Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars
nucl-ex 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

RHIC isobar data are explained by different shapes of 96Ru and 96Zr, with 96Zr showing a large octupole deformation, so nuclear structure uncertainty, not the magnetic field, dominates the observed ratios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Challenges in Nuclear Structure Theory

W. Nazarewicz, J. Phys. G 43, no.4, 044002 (2016) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/4/044002 [arXiv:1603.02490 [nucl-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[2]

Bohr and B

A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol. II: Nuclear Deformation (W. A. Benjamin, Reading, Mas- sachusetts, USA, 1975)

work page 1975
[3]

Heyde and J

K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Phys. Scripta 91, no.8, 083008 (2016) doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083008

work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083008 2016
[4]

Cline, Ann

D. Cline, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 36, 683-716 (1986) doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.36.120186.003343

work page arXiv 1986
[5]

X. F. Yang, S. J. Wang, S. G. Wilkins and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104005 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104005 [arXiv:2209.15228 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2023
[6]

J. Jia, G. Giacalone, B. Bally, J. D. Branden- burg, U. Heinz, S. Huang, D. Lee, Y. J. Lee, C. Loizides and W. Li, et al. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, no.12, 220 (2024) doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01589-w [arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2024
[7]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.22, 222301 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.222301 [arXiv:1505.07812 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2015
[8]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 784, 82-95 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.059 [arXiv:1805.01832 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2018

Show all 66 references

[9]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. C 100, no.4, 044902 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044902 [arXiv:1901.07997 [hep-ex]]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C 101, no.2, 024906 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.024906 [arXiv:1911.04812 [nucl-ex]]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Abdallah et al

M. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 105, no.1, 014901 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014901 [arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]]

2022
[12]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 834, 137393 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137393 [arXiv:2111.06106 [nucl-ex]]

2022
[13]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C 107, no.5, 054910 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054910 [arXiv:2205.00039 [nucl-ex]]

2023 arXiv
[14]

M. I. Abdulhamid et al. [STAR], Nature 635, no.8037, 67-72 (2024) doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08097-2 [arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], [arXiv:2409.04343 [nucl-ex]]
[16]

H. j. Xu, W. Zhao, H. Li, Y. Zhou, L. W. Chen and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, no.1, L011902 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L011902 [arXiv:2111.14812 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Nijs and W

G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. C 106, no.4, 044903 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044903 [arXiv:2110.13153 [nucl-th]]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Zhang and J

C. Zhang and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.2, 022301 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.022301 [arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]]

2022 arXiv
[19]

S. Zhao, H. j. Xu, Y. X. Liu and H. Song, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137838 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137838 [arXiv:2204.02387 [nucl-th]]

2023
[20]

Ryssens, G

W. Ryssens, G. Giacalone, B. Schenke and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.21, 212302 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.212302 [arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[21]

N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 111, no.1, 014901 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.014901 [arXiv:2308.09816 [nucl-th]]

2025 arXiv
[22]

Giacalone, B

G. Giacalone, B. Bally, G. Nijs, S. Shen, T. Duguet, J. P. Ebran, S. Elhatisari, M. Frosini, T. A. L¨ ahde and D. Lee, et al. [arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[23]

H. j. Xu, J. Zhao and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.26, 262301 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.262301 [arXiv:2402.16550 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[24]

N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 111, no.1, L011901 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.L011901 [arXiv:2405.17526 [nucl-th]]

2025 arXiv
[25]

Giacalone, W

G. Giacalone, W. Zhao, B. Bally, S. Shen, T. Duguet, J. P. Ebran, S. Elhatisari, M. Frosini, T. A. L¨ ahde and D. Lee, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.8, 082301 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.082301 [arXiv:2405.20210 [nucl-th]]

2025 arXiv
[26]

M¨ antysaari, B

H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.5, 054913 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.054913 [arXiv:2409.19064 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[27]

H. Li, H. j. Xu, J. Zhao, Z. W. Lin, H. Zhang, X. Wang, C. Shen and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 98, no.5, 054907 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054907 [arXiv:1808.06711 [nucl-th]]

2018 arXiv
[28]

H. j. Xu, H. Li, X. Wang, C. Shen and F. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136453 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136453 [arXiv:2103.05595 [nucl-th]]

2021
[29]

Giacalone, G

G. Giacalone, G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.20, 20 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.202302 [arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Q. Liu, S. Zhao, H. j. Xu and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C109, no.3, 034912 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.034912 [arXiv:2311.01747 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Y. Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H. j. Xu and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C 109, no.5, L051904 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L051904 [arXiv:2401.15723 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[32]

X. L. Zhao, G. L. Ma, Y. Zhou, Z. W. Lin and C. Zhang, [arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th]]
[33]

Prasad, N

S. Prasad, N. Mallick, R. Sahoo and G. G. Bar- naf¨ oldi, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139145 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139145 [arXiv:2407.15065 [nucl-th]]

2025
[34]

H. C. Wang, S. J. Li, L. M. Liu, J. Xu and Z. Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.3, 034909 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034909 [arXiv:2409.02452 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[35]

L. M. Liu, H. C. Wang, S. J. Li, C. Zhang, J. Xu, Z. Z. Ren, J. Jia and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 111, no.2, L021901 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.L021901 [arXiv:2502.08057 [nucl-th]]

2025 arXiv
[36]

Abdallah et al

M. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Sci. Adv. 9, no.1, eabq3903 (2023) doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq3903 [arXiv:2204.01625 [nucl-ex]]

2023
[37]

M¨ antysaari, B

H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.6, 062301 19 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.062301 [arXiv:2303.04866 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[38]

M¨ antysaari, F

H. M¨ antysaari, F. Salazar, B. Schenke, C. Shen and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 109, no.2, 024908 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.024908 [arXiv:2310.15300 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[39]

S. Lin, J. Y. Hu, H. J. Xu, S. Pu and Q. Wang, [arXiv:2405.16491 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[40]

Giacalone, Eur

G. Giacalone, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, no.12, 297 (2023) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01200-7 [arXiv:2305.19843 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Duguet, G

T. Duguet, G. Giacalone, S. Jeon and A. Tichai, [arXiv:2504.02481 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[42]

Jia, Phys

J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.1, 014905 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014905 [arXiv:2106.08768 [nucl-th]]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Jia, Phys

J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.4, 044905 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.044905 [arXiv:2109.00604 [nucl-th]]

2022 arXiv
[44]

Caldwell and H

A. Caldwell and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. C 81, 025203 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.025203

2010 doi
[45]

Kesler, A

M. Kesler, A. I. Sheikh, R. Ma, Z. Tu, T. Ullrich and Z. Xu, [arXiv:2502.15596 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[46]

Poves, F

A. Poves, F. Nowacki and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. C 101, no.5, 054307 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.054307 [arXiv:1906.07542 [nucl-th]]

2020 arXiv
[47]

Raman, C

S. Raman, C. W. G. Nestor, Jr and P. Tikka- nen, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 78, 1-128 (2001) doi:10.1006/adnd.2001.0858

2001
[48]

Pritychenko, M

B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh and M. Horoi, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 107, 1-139 (2016) [er- ratum: Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 114, 371-374 (2017)] doi:10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.001 [arXiv:1312.5975 [nucl-th]]

2016 arXiv
[49]

Kumar, Phys

K. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 249-253 (1972) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.249

1972 doi
[50]

M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205- 243 (2007) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025 [nucl-ex]]

2007
[51]

Loizides, J

C. Loizides, J. Nagle and P. Steinberg, Soft- wareX 1-2, 13-18 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.softx.2015.05.001 [arXiv:1408.2549 [nucl-ex]]

2015 arXiv
[52]

d’Enterria and C

D. d’Enterria and C. Loizides, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 315-344 (2021) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419- 060007 [arXiv:2011.14909 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[53]

Alvioli, H

M. Alvioli, H. Holopainen, K. J. Eskola and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034902 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.034902 [arXiv:1112.5306 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[54]

J. P. Blaizot, W. Broniowski and J. Y. Olli- trault, Phys. Rev. C 90, no.3, 034906 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.034906 [arXiv:1405.3274 [nucl-th]]

2014 arXiv
[55]

Alvioli and M

M. Alvioli and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C 100, no.2, 024912 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.024912 [arXiv:1811.10078 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[56]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139322 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139322 [arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]]

2025
[57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium-8
[58]

Zhao, Presented at the 9th Asian Triangle Heavy- Ion Conference (ATHIC 2023), https://indico.cern

J. Zhao, Presented at the 9th Asian Triangle Heavy- Ion Conference (ATHIC 2023), https://indico.cern. ch/event/1176274/contributions/5323680/

2023
[59]

Bally, M

B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.8, 082301 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.082301 [arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl-th]]

2022 arXiv
[60]

Mariani [LHCb], EPJ Web Conf

S. Mariani [LHCb], EPJ Web Conf. 296, 08003 (2024) doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429608003

2024
[61]

Alemany Fernandez, PoS LHCP2024, 335 (2025) doi:10.22323/1.478.0335

R. Alemany Fernandez, PoS LHCP2024, 335 (2025) doi:10.22323/1.478.0335

2025 doi
[62]

Magdy, M

N. Magdy, M. Hegazy, A. Rafaat, W. Li, A. Desh- pande, A. M. H. Abdelhady, A. Y. Ellithi, R. A. Lacey and Z. Tu, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, no.10, 212 (2024) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01432-1 [arXiv:2405.07844 [nucl-th]]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Agostini, G

M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Men´ endez and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, no.2, 025002 (2023) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.025002 [arXiv:2202.01787 [hep-ex]]

2023 arXiv
[64]

J. M. Yao, J. Meng, Y. F. Niu and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 126, 103965 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103965 [arXiv:2111.15543 [nucl-th]]

2022
[65]

Zhang, C

X. Zhang, C. C. Wang, C. R. Ding and J. M. Yao, [arXiv:2408.13209 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[66]

Y. Li, X. Zhang, G. Giacalone and J. Yao, [arXiv:2502.08027 [nucl-th]]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Challenges in Nuclear Structure Theory

W. Nazarewicz, J. Phys. G 43, no.4, 044002 (2016) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/4/044002 [arXiv:1603.02490 [nucl-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[2] [2]

Bohr and B

A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol. II: Nuclear Deformation (W. A. Benjamin, Reading, Mas- sachusetts, USA, 1975)

work page 1975

[3] [3]

Heyde and J

K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Phys. Scripta 91, no.8, 083008 (2016) doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083008

work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083008 2016

[4] [4]

Cline, Ann

D. Cline, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 36, 683-716 (1986) doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.36.120186.003343

work page arXiv 1986

[5] [5]

X. F. Yang, S. J. Wang, S. G. Wilkins and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104005 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104005 [arXiv:2209.15228 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

J. Jia, G. Giacalone, B. Bally, J. D. Branden- burg, U. Heinz, S. Huang, D. Lee, Y. J. Lee, C. Loizides and W. Li, et al. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, no.12, 220 (2024) doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01589-w [arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.22, 222301 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.222301 [arXiv:1505.07812 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 784, 82-95 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.059 [arXiv:1805.01832 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2018