Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Nuclear structure study using a hybrid approach of shell model and Gogny-type density functionals

T0 review · 4 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 shell-model Hamiltonian built from the Gogny D1S density functional, with no fitting to shell-model spectra, reproduces experimental ground-state energies and low-lying spectra of O, Ne, Mg, and Ca isotopes about as well as the…

desk verdict A careful but incremental extension of the Gogny-to-shell-model hybrid to sd-shell and Ca nuclei, with an accuracy claim that outruns the paper's own O and Ca spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01072 v2 pith:AXG7R44N submitted 2025-05-02 nucl-th

Kota Yoshinaga , Noritaka Shimizu , Takashi Nakatsukasa This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35
keywords nucleardensityfunctionaltheoryshell-modelcalculationGognyinteractionsd-shellnucleicalciumisotopeseffectivebeyond-mean-fieldcorrelationselectromagnetictransition
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 attempts to show that the shell model can be powered by an energy density functional instead of an interaction fitted to nuclear spectra. The authors build the shell-model Hamiltonian from the Gogny D1S functional, computing the two-body matrix elements with harmonic-oscillator wave functions and iterating the density self-consistently from the shell-model ground state. They compare with the empirical USDB interaction in the sd shell and SDPF-MU in the pf shell, finding comparable accuracy for ground-state energies and low-lying spectra of even-even O, Ne, Mg, and Ca isotopes. If this stands, it would make shell-model calculations available for mass regions where empirical interactions have not been fit. The paper also identifies a clear limitation: excitation energies near the closed 16O and 40Ca cores are systematically underestimated, which it attributes to neglected core excitations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shell-model Hamiltonian built from the Gogny D1S finite-range density-dependent interaction: single-particle energies come from the one-body terms normal-ordered with respect to the inert core, and the two-body matrix elements are computed with harmonic-oscillator basis states at a frequency set by an empirical mass-dependent formula. The density entering the density-dependent term is updated iteratively from the shell-model ground-state wave function until convergence, mimicking self-consistent mean-field practice. This is what turns a mean-field energy functional into a configuration-interaction Hamiltonian without empirical shell-model fitting.

What would settle it

Repeat the calculation for 18O, 20O, 22O, and the Ca isotopes with a model space enlarged to include core-excited configurations, allowing nucleons to leave the 16O or 40Ca cores. If the 2+ excitation energies remain systematically below experiment even with core excitations included, then the frozen-core assumption is not the cause, and the claim of accuracy comparable to empirical interactions would be contradicted in those nuclei.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Gogny D1S two-body matrix elements, evaluated with harmonic-oscillator orbitals and a self-consistently iterated ground-state density, produce shell-model results for even-even O, Ne, Mg, and Ca isotopes whose low-lying spectra and ground-state energies match experiment with accuracy comparable to the empirically fitted USDB interaction in the sd shell and SDPF-MU in the pf shell. The hybrid calculation correctly reproduces the N=16 subshell gap in 24O, the drop of the 2_2+ state in 26Mg, and the doubly magic character of 48Ca, while systematically underestimating excitation energies in 18-22O and the Ca isotopes, an effect the authors attribute to omitted core excitations.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the inert 16O and 40Ca cores stay completely frozen, so only the valence orbits participate; if those cores need to be excited, the claimed accuracy near closed-shell and neutron-rich nuclei would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single density functional can supply useful shell-model Hamiltonians for more than one valence space, here the sd shell and the pf shell, removing the need to fit single-particle energies and two-body matrix elements separately for each space.
  • The model reproduces the neutron dripline at 24O, a case where the Gogny mean-field calculation fails, showing that the beyond-mean-field correlations of the shell model add essential physics.
  • The N=16 subshell closure in 24O and the doubly magic character of 48Ca emerge from the interaction without being fitted, supporting the claim that the functional contains the relevant shell structure.
  • The systematic underestimation of excitation energies in 18-22O and the Ca isotopes indicates that enlarging the valence space to include core excitations would be the next step, as the paper states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the density-functional-derived two-body matrix elements remain stable when the valence space is extended, the hybrid approach could be pushed into medium-mass and deformed nuclei, where empirical fits are harder to obtain; that is a natural next test not performed here.
  • Because the B(E2) values in Mg are systematically low with the USDB-tuned effective charges, a fairer comparison might renormalize charges for the Gogny interaction or test whether transition strengths improve once core-excited configurations are added.
  • The mass dependence of the USDB interaction is already mimicked by the Gogny functional, so the hybrid scheme may carry an implicit mass dependence; comparing isotopes far from stability would test whether that dependence is quantitatively right.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports shell-model calculations with a Hamiltonian derived from the Gogny-D1S density functional. The single-particle energies and two-body matrix elements are obtained from the Gogny interaction in a 0ℏω harmonic-oscillator basis, with the density in the density-dependent term determined iteratively from shell-model ground states. Ground-state energies, low-lying spectra, and B(E2) values for O, Ne, Mg, and Ca isotopes are compared with experiment and with the empirical USDB and SDPF-MU interactions. The authors find good agreement for Ne and Mg, systematic underestimation of excitation energies in O and Ca, and reasonable but underestimated B(E2) values in Mg. The paper concludes that the hybrid model reproduces spectra with accuracy comparable to empirical interactions across all four isotope chains, and suggests future extensions to heavier nuclei.

Significance. The paper proposes a hybrid shell-model density-functional approach in which the two-body matrix elements of a Gogny-D1S EDF are evaluated in a 0ℏω valence space with a self-consistently determined density. The method is a step toward non-empirical shell-model interactions applicable across a broad mass range. Strengths include the use of a well-established EDF, the reproduction of the N=16 subshell closure in 24O, the overall good agreement for Ne and Mg spectra, and the careful treatment of center-of-mass corrections. However, the headline claim of accuracy comparable to empirical interactions is not supported for O and Ca isotopes, and the B(E2) comparison relies on effective charges fitted to a different interaction. With a revised claim and clarified methodology, the paper would be a useful contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV and Figs. 5, 8] The summary claim that the model reproduces energy spectra "with an accuracy comparable to the existing empirical interactions in O, Ne, Mg, and Ca isotopes" is not supported by the results shown. In 18O, 20O, and 22O the calculated 2+ energies are sizably below both experiment and USDB (Fig. 5), and in the Ca isotopes the 2+ energies are systematically compressed, including 48Ca where a large 2+ energy is a key feature (Fig. 8). The paper attributes these deficiencies to the inert-core/0ℏω truncation, but does not quantify where the 0ℏω space is adequate. Please either narrow the claim to the nuclei where the agreement holds (notably Ne and Mg), or provide a quantitative measure (e.g., RMS deviations relative to experiment and to USDB/SDPF-MU) and a demonstration that core excitations are the cause.
  2. [§III, Fig. 9] The B(E2) comparison uses effective charges (ep,en)=(1.36,0.45)e that were fitted to the USDB interaction, not to the D1S-based Hamiltonian. Judging the D1S wavefunctions with USDB-fitted charges is not a fair test of the hybrid model and is likely responsible for part of the systematic underestimation. Please fit effective charges to the D1S interaction or present the results as a qualitative sensitivity study; in either case, the statement that the B(E2) values show "reasonable agreement" needs to be justified quantitatively.
  3. [§II, Eq. (3) and following paragraph] The iterative construction of ρ(r) is incompletely specified. It is not stated whether the density ρ used in the density-dependent term includes the core density plus the valence-shell density, or only the valence density. Since the initial Woods-Saxon density presumably describes the full nucleus, while the "ground-state density given by the shell model wave function" contains only valence nucleons, the procedure is ambiguous. Please specify the total density construction and state the convergence criterion for the iteration.
  4. [§II, Eq. (4)] The core energy E_Core is introduced but never defined. It should be clarified how E_Core is computed (e.g., from a spherical Hartree-Fock calculation with the same interaction) and whether it is consistent with the single-particle energies TSPE in Eq. (2). The empirical Coulomb formula of Ref. [17] should be written out explicitly, since the ground-state-energy comparison in Figs. 2 and 3 depends on these choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II] In Eq. (2) and the following line, "Valance" should be "Valence."
  2. [§III] The claim that the USDB mass-dependence factor (A/18)^{-0.3} "is well described by the Gogny ones" is not supported by any quantitative analysis in Fig. 1; consider fitting the A-dependence or removing the claim.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1 states that the Ca calculations adopt only the pf shell; this important model-space statement should appear in the main text as well.
  4. [§III] The sentence "The points are somewhat scattered but close to the diagonal line, and the Gogny-D1S TBMEs agree with the empirical ones roughly within 2 MeV" would be more informative with an RMS deviation or correlation coefficient for the TBME comparison.
  5. [§III, Eq. (5)] The discussion of the center-of-mass correction states that the two-body correction vanishes in the 0ℏω model space; a brief justification (e.g., the momentum operator changes the oscillator quantum number by one) would aid the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hybrid interaction is constructed from the external Gogny-D1S functional and tested against experimental data not used to fit its TBMEs.

full rationale

The paper builds the shell-model Hamiltonian from the Gogny-D1S density functional, which is an external benchmark with parameters fixed by prior nuclear-matter and finite-nucleus fits, not by the data used for validation here. The TBMEs are computed from the Gogny potential in Eq. (3) using harmonic-oscillator wave functions, with the density determined iteratively from the shell-model ground-state density. This is a self-consistency condition (fixed-point calculation) analogous to mean-field self-consistency, not a logical circularity: the Hamiltonian and the density are determined jointly from the same external functional, and the resulting spectra are then compared with experimental levels and with empirical interactions (USDB, SDPF-MU) that were not used in constructing the Gogny TBMEs. The only fitted inputs are effective charges carried over from the USDB fit for the B(E2) comparison, and these do not enter the energy spectra that constitute the paper's central claim; the paper also shows results with typical effective charges, so the B(E2) test is not a fitted prediction. The empirical \hbar\omega and Coulomb formulas are standard external inputs, not fitted to the target observables. The prior work Ref. [12] is by Jiang et al., not by the present authors, and is followed as a construction method rather than used to justify the accuracy claim. Citations to the authors' own KSHELL code and future Monte Carlo methods are computational tools, not load-bearing evidence for the physics results. The paper does admit systematic underestimates in O and Ca isotopes and attributes them to the 0\hbar\omega valence-space truncation; that is a correctness/model-space concern, not a circularity, because the validation data are external and the failure is an honest discrepancy rather than a result forced by the input. No step reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or to a self-citation by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of a mean-field-calibrated functional to a truncated configuration-interaction space, on the inert-core approximation, and on several empirical inputs (harmonic-oscillator frequency, Coulomb formula, effective charges). No new entities are postulated. The upstream D1S fit is the most significant non-derived input.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective charges (ep, en) for E2 transitions = (1.36, 0.45) e and (1.5, 0.5) e
    Used in the B(E2) calculations for Mg isotopes. The first set was obtained by chi-squared fitting to USDB results, not to the Gogny-D1S model; the second is a standard typical choice. They directly set the scale of the predicted B(E2) values.
  • Harmonic oscillator frequency hbar-omega = 45 A^{-1/3} - 25 A^{-2/3} MeV
    Determines the harmonic-oscillator single-particle basis and therefore the TBMEs. Taken from an empirical radius formula, not fitted to the data in this paper.
  • Gogny D1S parameter set = Standard D1S values (Berger, Girod, Gogny 1991)
    The functional parameters (mu, W, B, H, M, WLS, t3, x0, alpha) were fitted in the original D1S calibration to nuclear matter and finite nuclei. This paper treats them as fixed input, so predictions inherit that upstream fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Gogny density functional, designed and calibrated for mean-field calculations, remains a valid effective interaction when its matrix elements are used in a truncated shell-model (configuration-interaction) space.
    Entered in Section II; the entire paper is a test of this transferability, so it is load-bearing rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The 0 hbar-omega valence model space with inert 16O and 40Ca cores is sufficient for the states of interest.
    Invoked in Section II (off-diagonal one-body terms omitted; spherical harmonic-oscillator basis) and discussed in Section III; the paper attributes systematic underestimation of excitation energies to the neglect of core excitations.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical formula hbar-omega = 45 A^{-1/3} - 25 A^{-2/3} MeV gives an adequate single-particle basis for all isotopes studied.
    Section II; the paper itself notes this may be inadequate for neutron-rich ground-state energies.
  • domain assumption The Coulomb energy can be added perturbatively via an empirical formula under isospin symmetry.
    Section III, Equation (4); the Coulomb interaction is excluded from the shell-model diagonalization and added as a correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear structure study using a hybrid approach of shell model and Gogny-type density functionals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXG7R44N

@misc{pith2026250501072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear structure study using a hybrid approach of shell model and Gogny-type density functionals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXG7R44N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01072}
}
abstract

Nuclear density functional theory (DFT) is able to reproduce the saturation properties of nuclear matter, as well as properties of finite nuclei. Consequently, the DFT calculations are applicable to nuclei across a wide range of masses on nuclear chart. The Gogny-type density functional, which is equivalent to the mean-field calculations with finite-range density-dependent effective interactions, is a successful example. In contrast, the shell-model (configuration-interaction) calculation is a powerful tool to describe nuclear structure, especially spectroscopic properties. The shell model is able to take into account correlations beyond mean field in a truncated model space. In this work, we report investigation on $\textit{sd}$-shell nuclei and Ca isotopes using a hybrid approach of the shell model and Gogny-type DFT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison of the two-body matrix elements (TBMEs) given by the Gogny-D1S functional and those of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ground-state energies of the O, Ne, and Mg isotopes against the neutron number. The solid line, dotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Ground-state energies of even-mass Ca isotopes. See the caption of Figure 2 for details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Contribution of the center-of-mass correction for the O isotopes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Calculated excitation spectra with Gogny D1S and USDB, compared with the experimental data [20–31] for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as Fig. 5, but for even-even Ne isotopes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Same as Fig. 5, but for even-even Mg isotopes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same as Fig. 5, but for even-even Ca isotopes. The valence space is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Gogny-force-derived effective shell-model Hamiltonian

    Jiang, W.G.; Hu, B.S.; Sun, Z.H.; Xu, F.R. Gogny-force-derived effective shell-model Hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. C 2018, 98, 044320. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.044320

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.98.044320 2018

  2. [17]

    Systematic shell-model study of β-decay properties and Gamow-Teller strength distributions inA ≈ 40 neutron-rich nuclei

    Yoshida, S.; Utsuno, Y.; Shimizu, N.; Otsuka, T. Systematic shell-model study of β-decay properties and Gamow-Teller strength distributions inA ≈ 40 neutron-rich nuclei. Phys. Rev. C 2018, 97, 054321. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC. 97.054321

    doi:10.1103/physrevc 2018

  3. [1]

    Inhomogeneous Electron Gas

    Hohenberg, P.; Kohn, W. Inhomogeneous Electron Gas. Phys. Rev. 1964, 136, B864–B871. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.136.B864

    work page 1964

  4. [2]

    Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects.Phys

    Kohn, W.; Sham, L.J. Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects.Phys. Rev. 1965, 140, A1133– A1138. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133

    doi:10.1103/physrev.140.a1133 1965

  5. [3]

    The Nuclear Many-Body Problem ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1980

    Ring, P.; Schuck, P. The Nuclear Many-Body Problem ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1980

    work page 1980

  6. [4]

    Collective Motions in Nuclei by the Method of Generator Coordinates

    Griffin, J.J.; Wheeler, J.A. Collective Motions in Nuclei by the Method of Generator Coordinates. Phys. Rev. 1957, 108, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.311

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.108.311 1957

  7. [5]

    New “USD” Hamiltonians for the sd shell

    Brown, B.A.; Richter, W.A. New “USD” Hamiltonians for the sd shell. Phys. Rev. C 2006, 74, 034315. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.034315

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.74.034315 2006

  8. [6]

    Shape transitions in exotic Si and S isotopes and tensor-force-driven Jahn-Teller effect

    Utsuno, Y.; Otsuka, T.; Brown, B.A.; Honma, M.; Mizusaki, T.; Shimizu, N. Shape transitions in exotic Si and S isotopes and tensor-force-driven Jahn-Teller effect. Phys. Rev. C 2012, 86, 051301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86. 051301

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.86 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    The effective nuclear potential

    Skyrme, T. The effective nuclear potential. Nucl. Phys. 1958, 9, 615–634. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0029-5582(58)90345-6

    1958

  2. [8]

    Hartree-Fock Calculations with Skyrme’s Interaction

    Vautherin, D.; Brink, D.M. Hartree-Fock Calculations with Skyrme’s Interaction. I. Spherical Nuclei. Phys. Rev. C 1972, 5, 626–647. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.5.626

    1972 doi

  3. [9]

    Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculations with theD1 effective interaction on spherical nuclei

    Decharg´ e, J.; Gogny, D. Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculations with theD1 effective interaction on spherical nuclei. Phys. Rev. C 1980, 21, 1568–1593. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.21.1568

    1980 doi

  4. [10]

    Shell-model calculations with a skyrme-type effective interaction

    Sagawa, H.; Brown, B.; Scholten, O. Shell-model calculations with a skyrme-type effective interaction. Phys. Lett. B 1985, 159, 228–232. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(85)90240-0

    1985 doi

  5. [11]

    Shell-model description of nuclei with 4≥ A ≥ 16 using Skyrme forces

    G´ omez, J.; Cerd´ an, J.; Prieto, C. Shell-model description of nuclei with 4≥ A ≥ 16 using Skyrme forces. Nucl. Phys. A 1993, 551, 451–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(93)90457-9

    1993 doi

  6. [13]

    Collective 0 − vibrations in even spherical nuclei with tensor forces

    Blomqvist, J.; Molinari, A. Collective 0 − vibrations in even spherical nuclei with tensor forces. Nucl. Phys. A 1968, 106, 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(68)90515-0

    1968 doi

  7. [14]

    Time-dependent quantum collective dynamics applied to nuclear fission

    Berger, J.; Girod, M.; Gogny, D. Time-dependent quantum collective dynamics applied to nuclear fission. Comput. Phys. Commun. 1991, 63, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(91)90263-K

    1991 doi

  8. [15]

    Thick-restart block Lanczos method for large-scale shell-model calculations

    Shimizu, N.; Mizusaki, T.; Utsuno, Y.; Tsunoda, Y. Thick-restart block Lanczos method for large-scale shell-model calculations. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2019, 244, 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011

    2019 doi

  9. [16]

    The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II)

    Wang, M.; Huang, W.; Kondev, F.; Audi, G.; Naimi, S. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references. Chin. Phys. C 2021, 45, 030003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Axially deformed solution of the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations using the transformed harmonic oscillator basis (II) HFBTHO v2.00d: 10 A new version of the program

    Stoitsov, M.; Schunck, N.; Kortelainen, M.; Michel, N.; Nam, H.; Olsen, E.; Sarich, J.; Wild, S. Axially deformed solution of the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations using the transformed harmonic oscillator basis (II) HFBTHO v2.00d: 10 A new version of the program. Compu...

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    New type of density-dependent effective interaction and its applications to exotic nuclei

    Abe, D. New type of density-dependent effective interaction and its applications to exotic nuclei. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tokyo, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation

    Audi, G.; Wapstra, A. The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation. Nucl. Phys. A 1995, 595, 409–480. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(95)00445-9

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    Energy levels of light nuclei, A = 20

    Tilley, D.; Cheves, C.; Kelley, J.; Raman, S.; Weller, H. Energy levels of light nuclei, A = 20. Nucl. Phys. A 1998, 636, 249–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00129-8

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 22

    Basunia, M.S. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 22. Nucl. Data Sheets 2015, 127, 69–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds. 2015.07.002

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A=24

    Basunia, M.S.; Chakraborty, A. Nuclear Data Sheets for A=24. Nucl. Data Sheets 2022, 186, 3–262. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nds.2022.11.002

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 26

    Basunia, M.; Hurst, A. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 26. Nucl. Data Sheets 2016, 134, 1–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.nds.2016.04.001

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 28

    Shamsuzzoha Basunia, M. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 28. Nucl. Data Sheets 2013, 114, 1189–1291. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nds.2013.10.001

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 30

    Basunia, M.S.; Chakraborty, A. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 30. Nucl. Data Sheets 2024, 197, 1–258. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nds.2024.08.001

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Nuclear Structure and Decay Data for A = 44 Isobars

    Chen, J.; Singh, B. Nuclear Structure and Decay Data for A = 44 Isobars. Nucl. Data Sheets 2023, 190, 1–318. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2023.06.001

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 46

    Wu, S.C. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 46. Nucl. Data Sheets 2000, 91, 1–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/ndsh.2000.0014

    2000

  21. [30]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 48

    Chen, J. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 48. Nucl. Data Sheets 2022, 179, 1–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2021. 12.001

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 50

    Chen, J.; Singh, B. Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 50. Nucl. Data Sheets 2019, 157, 1–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nds.2019.04.001

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Tables of E2 transition probabilities from the first 2+ states in even–even nuclei

    Pritychenko, B.; Birch, M.; Singh, B.; Horoi, M. Tables of E2 transition probabilities from the first 2+ states in even–even nuclei. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 2016, 107, 1–139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.001

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    Monte Carlo shell model studies with massively parallel supercomputers

    Shimizu, N.; Abe, T.; Honma, M.; Otsuka, T.; Togashi, T.; Tsunoda, Y.; Utsuno, Y.; Yoshida, T. Monte Carlo shell model studies with massively parallel supercomputers. Phys. Scr. 2017, 92, 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ aa65e4

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    Variational approach with the superposition of the symmetry-restored quasiparticle vacua for nuclear shell-model calculations

    Shimizu, N.; Tsunoda, Y.; Utsuno, Y.; Otsuka, T. Variational approach with the superposition of the symmetry-restored quasiparticle vacua for nuclear shell-model calculations. Phys. Rev. C 2021, 103, 014312. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.103.014312

    2021

  26. [35]

    Shape transition of Nd and Sm isotopes and the neutrinoless double- β-decay nuclear matrix element of 150Nd

    Tsunoda, Y.; Shimizu, N.; Otsuka, T. Shape transition of Nd and Sm isotopes and the neutrinoless double- β-decay nuclear matrix element of 150Nd. Phys. Rev. C 2023, 108, L021302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L021302

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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