Symmetry energy and neutron matter equation of state at $\rho_0/3$ from the electric dipole polarizability in $^{48}$Ca, $^{68}$Ni and $^{208}$Pb

Lie-Wen Chen; Mengying Qiu; Yi Fei Niu; Zheng Zheng Li; Zhen Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 72 references

Symmetry energy and neutron matter equation of state at $\rho_0/3$ from the electric dipole polarizability in $^{48}$Ca, $^{68}$Ni and $^{208}$Pb

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measured dipole polarizabilities of 48Ca, 68Ni, and 208Pb, analyzed with 63 functionals, fix the symmetry energy at 17.8 MeV and the neutron-matter energy at 9.1 MeV, above most ab initio predictions.

desk verdict Solid calibration of the alpha_D symmetry-energy probe across three nuclei and 63 EDFs; the Pb-dominated constraint and the DDPC offset make the claimed tension with chiral EFT real but not yet airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08778 v1 pith:DHQ5KVP7 submitted 2025-06-10 nucl-th

Mengying Qiu , Lie-Wen Chen , Zheng Zheng Li , Yi Fei Niu , Zhen Zhang This is my paper

classification nucl-th PACS 21.65.Ef24.30.Cz21.60.Jz

keywords nuclearsymmetryenergyneutronmatterequationofstateelectricdipolepolarizabilityquasiparticlerandomphaseapproximationfiniteamplitudemethodrelativisticmean-fieldmodelssubsaturationdensityBayesianinference

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to turn measurements of the electric dipole polarizability, a measure of how easily a nucleus's protons and neutrons are separated by an electric field, into constraints on the symmetry energy and the pure-neutron-matter equation of state at the subsaturation density $\rho_0/3$. Using 63 energy density functionals, the authors compute the polarizabilities of $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$, $^{68}\mathrm{Ni}$, and $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ within the quasiparticle random phase approximation and find strong linear correlations between the inverse polarizability $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ and both $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho_0/3)$ and $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$. A Bayesian analysis of the measured polarizabilities yields $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho_0/3)=17.8^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$ MeV and $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)=9.1^{+0.8}_{-0.9}$ MeV at 68% confidence. The extracted neutron-matter energy lies above most microscopic many-body predictions, which the paper identifies as a mild tension between energy-density-functional and ab initio descriptions of neutron-rich matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electric dipole polarizability $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$, defined through the inverse energy-weighted sum rule $m_{-1}$ of the isovector dipole strength, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}=(8\pi e^2/3)m_{-1}$. The machinery is the quasiparticle random phase approximation implemented via the finite amplitude method (QFAM) for relativistic mean-field models, extended here to nonlinear meson-exchange Lagrangians, with Skyrme-EDF predictions taken from the literature; the sum rule is evaluated by contour integration in the complex frequency plane. What carries the argument is the linear regression of $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ against $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho_0/3)$ and $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$ across 63 functionals, whose near-family-independence for $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ is what makes the Bayesian likelihood well constrained.

What would settle it

A measurement of the $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ dipole polarizability by an independent experimental method, or a re-analysis that removes the systematically high DDPC functionals from the correlation, would settle whether the $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$ estimate moves below about 8 MeV into the chiral-EFT band; if it does, the reported tension with microscopic calculations would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the inverse electric dipole polarizability of $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ is linearly correlated with the energy per particle of pure neutron matter at $\rho_0/3$ in a way that barely changes across four families of energy density functionals, and that comparable correlations also hold for $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$, $^{68}\mathrm{Ni}$, and for the symmetry energy. The paper combines these correlations with the measured values of $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ and obtains $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho_0/3)=17.8^{+1.1(1.8)}_{-0.9(1.6)}$ MeV and $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)=9.1^{+0.8(1.4)}_{-0.9(1.4)}$ MeV at 68% (90%) confidence. The result's headline is that the inferred neutron-matter energy sits above the uncertainty bands of chiral effective field theory and other microscopic calculations, so the paper concludes there is a mild tension between the EDF-based extraction and ab initio predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the linear relation between inverse polarizability and the nuclear-matter quantities, fitted to the spread of 63 energy density functionals, is an unbiased description of the real nuclei and that those models span the true theoretical uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The symmetry energy at $\rho_0/3$ is anchored at $17.8$ MeV, consistent with the IAS plus neutron-skin band, so the density dependence of the symmetry energy now has a well-defined low-density fixed point.
Because the $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$--$E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$ correlation for $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ is nearly model-independent, the dipole polarizability of this nucleus is a direct, clean probe of the neutron-matter equation of state at subsaturation density.
The combined constraint is dominated by $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$; improved precision on $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ of $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$ and $^{68}\mathrm{Ni}$ will tighten the result most if new data move them closer to the lead value.
If the extracted $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)=9.1$ MeV is correct, microscopic many-body calculations of low-density neutron matter must be revisited, or the energy density functionals carry a systematic isovector offset.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the systematic offset of the DDPC functionals for $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ is a testable sign of a missing isovector surface term; a functional set that removes that offset would shift the central value and is worth checking.
The same linear-correlation strategy could be applied to the polarizability of other neutron-rich medium-mass nuclei such as $^{132}\mathrm{Sn}$, which would test whether the $\rho_0/3$ anchor is universal or specific to the three nuclei studied here.
The reported mild tension could be resolved in either direction: improved chiral-EFT neutron-matter calculations at $\rho_0/3$, or density functionals with different pairing and isovector gradients, both make concrete predictions that the data can discriminate.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The genuinely new piece is the set of relativistic QRPA polarizabilities for 48Ca, 68Ni, and 208Pb computed with the finite-amplitude method across NL, DDME, and DDPC families, plus the combined Bayesian constraints on Esym(rho0/3) and E_PNM(rho0/3) using all 63 EDFs. The linear correlations are strong, and the analysis is straightforward and reproducible in structure. The paper is also honest: it flags the DDPC offset and calls the tension with chiral EFT 'mild.' That is fair.

The main soft spot is exactly the one the stress test identifies. Fig. 2(c) shows the DDPC family sitting systematically above the other three families for 208Pb, and Fig. 6 shows the combined posterior is essentially the 208Pb posterior. If that offset is a real deficiency of the DDPC family in 208Pb, rather than random scatter, then the pooled regression line is pulled upward and so is E_PNM(rho0/3). That means the 'nearly model-independent' phrasing in the abstract is too strong—it is model-independent within the chosen 63-member ensemble, not demonstrated across families. The error estimate in Eq. (21) also treats the 63 models as independent draws, which they are not; the DDPC models share a common framework and will be correlated. A leave-one-family-out analysis would show how much the headline numbers move, and I would ask for it before taking the chiral-EFT tension at face value.

I don't think the circularity concern is serious. This is a calibration: the EDFs map 1/alpha_D to E_PNM, and the experiment is inverted through that map. That is standard. The fact that the original correlation came from the same group is a citation pattern, not a flaw.

The quasi-deuteron correction for 208Pb is a smaller but real caveat; the extracted constraint depends on that subtraction. The lighter nuclei have weaker correlations and contribute little to the combined result, so the extra data are less informative than the title might suggest.

Overall: the paper is a solid extension of an established method, with new model calculations and a well-defined constraint. It deserves peer review. I would recommend publication after the authors quantify the family-level sensitivity and soften the model-independence claim. The reader's conditional verdict is about right.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes the electric dipole polarizability alpha_D of 48Ca, 68Ni, and 208Pb using the quasiparticle random phase approximation implemented with the finite amplitude method, based on 39 relativistic mean-field models from the NL, DDME, and DDPC families. These are combined with Skyrme predictions adopted from earlier work to form a set of 63 energy density functionals. The authors demonstrate strong linear correlations between 1/alpha_D and both Esym(rho0/3) and E_PNM(rho0/3), perform linear regressions, and use Bayesian inference with Gaussian likelihoods and uniform priors to obtain Esym(rho0/3) = 17.8(+1.1/-0.9) MeV and E_PNM(rho0/3) = 9.1(+0.8/-0.9) MeV at 68% confidence. They interpret the latter value as lying above most ab initio predictions and conclude there is a mild tension between EDF-based alpha_D constraints and microscopic many-body calculations.

Significance. If the extracted values are robust, the paper provides a valuable multi-nucleus constraint on the symmetry energy and neutron matter equation of state at subsaturation density, extending the established 208Pb probe to 48Ca and 68Ni. The Bayesian treatment is standard, the correlation coefficients are high (r >= 0.89 for all cases), the per-nucleus posteriors are presented, and the comparison set of microscopic predictions is broad. The appendix also documents a useful extension of the DIRQFM code to nonlinear meson-exchange models. The main weakness is that the theoretical error model treats the 63 EDFs as independent samples even though the model set is clustered into families with visible systematic offsets; because the combined posterior is dominated by 208Pb, this clustering directly affects the headline results.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III A, Eq. (21), Fig. 2(c), Fig. 6] The regression in Eq. (21) treats the 63 EDF predictions as independent, homoscedastic observations, yet Fig. 2(c) shows that the DDPC family systematically predicts higher 1/alpha_D for 208Pb than the NL, DDME, and Skyrme families. Because the combined posterior is dominated by 208Pb (Fig. 6), this family-level offset is a systematic rather than random contribution to the calibration line, and the prediction band in Eq. (21) cannot account for it. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of Eqs. (24) and (29) to the DDPC family, for example by removing the family, introducing a family-level random effect, or adopting a model-mixing prior. Absent such a test, the claim that the 208Pb correlation is 'nearly model-independent' is only ensemble-dependent.
[Sec. III B, Fig. 5] The comparison underlying the 'mild tension' claim is made at rho/rho0 = 1/3, but the ab initio curves in Fig. 5 use different saturation densities (rho0 = 0.17 fm^-3 for Drischler et al. and rho0 = 0.155 fm^-3 for Machleidt and Sammarruca, as noted in the text). At the plotted value rho/rho0 = 1/3, the physical densities therefore differ by about 6%, so the apparent displacement of the extracted E_PNM above the microscopic band may be partly an artifact of the horizontal rescaling. The authors should plot E_PNM as a function of the physical density or rescale the microscopic predictions to a common rho0, and state whether the tension survives.
[Sec. III A, Eq. (23)] The likelihood in Eq. (23) sums contributions from the three nuclei as if the theoretical errors were independent across nuclei. However, the 1/alpha_D predictions for 48Ca, 68Ni, and 208Pb are generated by the same 63 EDFs, so the model errors are correlated across nuclei; the combined posterior could therefore be overconfident. The posterior shown in Fig. 6 is dominated by 208Pb, so this may not change the central values, but the authors should either justify the independence assumption or implement a correlated error model for the theoretical uncertainties.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. III A] The experimental alpha_D values are said to be 'corrected for quasi-deuteron contributions [14]', but the size of this correction and whether it applies to all three nuclei are not stated; the authors should specify this and indicate whether the correction uncertainty is included in sigma_exp.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'quasiparicle' in the Sec. II D title, 'depcited' in the Fig. 3 caption, and 'an capped error bar' in Sec. III B; these should be corrected in a final proofread.
[Sec. III A, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The intercepts in the linear fits are quoted with uncertainties, but the strong correlation between intercept and slope in the regression is not reported; reporting the covariance or showing the fitted lines with the data would make the prediction bands in Figs. 2 and 4 easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extraction is a calibration of EDF predictions against external experimental polarizability data, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a calibration, not a derivation that assumes its own conclusion. For 63 energy density functionals, the inverse dipole polarizability 1/alpha_D is computed from QRPA/FAM, while Esym(rho0/3) and E_PNM(rho0/3) are taken from the same functionals; a linear regression then maps the observable to the target quantities. The experimental alpha_D values for 48Ca, 68Ni, and 208Pb are external inputs, and the Bayesian posterior simply inverts this model-based calibration. No target quantity is fed back into the calibration: none of the 63 functionals is fitted to alpha_D in this work, and the adopted Skyrme values from Ref. [15], although from same-group authors, are QRPA predictions rather than fits to the experimental polarizabilities used in the likelihood. The rho0/3 correlation originally proposed in Ref. [16] is re-derived here for the RMF families and Skyrme models in Figs. 2 and 4, so the central premise is not imported merely by citation. The documented DDPC offset for 208Pb is a model-uncertainty caveat, not a circular step. Consequently, the extracted Esym(rho0/3) = 17.8(+1.1/-0.9) MeV and E_PNM(rho0/3) = 9.1(+0.8/-0.9) MeV do not reduce to their inputs by construction, and the reported mild tension with ab initio calculations is an external comparison. No circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis has no new physical entities. The main items the reader gets on credit are the nuclear many-body framework, the pairing interaction, the experimental corrections, and the implicit representativeness of the 63-EDF set. The regression coefficients are fit parameters derived from the models, not from the experimental data being predicted.

free parameters (3)

Uniform prior range for Esym(rho0/3) and E_PNM(rho0/3) in Bayesian analysis = 0 to 30 MeV
Adopted in Sec. III A/B for the posterior. Wide and uninformed; the posterior is likelihood-dominated, so impact is small.
Quasi-deuteron correction for 208Pb alpha_D = about 0.5 fm^3 (from 20.1 to 19.6 fm^3)
Adopted from Ref. [14] to make the experimental value comparable to QRPA. Shifts the extracted E_PNM upward relative to the uncorrected value.
Linear regression slopes and intercepts for 1/alpha_D vs Esym and E_PNM = Equations (18)-(20) and (26)-(28)
Fit to the 63 EDF predictions. These parameters define the mapping used in the Bayesian likelihood; their uncertainty is propagated through Eq. (21).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory and QRPA provide an accurate description of the electric dipole response.
Used throughout Sec. II to compute alpha_D. This is the standard framework, but it omits effects beyond 1p-1h and mean-field ground states.
domain assumption Separable pairing interaction reproducing the D1S Gogny pairing gap is appropriate for 48Ca, 68Ni and 208Pb.
Stated in Sec. III; pairing treatment affects open-shell nuclei, though the selected nuclei are doubly or semi-magic.
domain assumption The parabolic approximation E_PNM(rho) approximately equals E0(rho) plus Esym(rho) is valid.
Used in Eq. (25) to motivate the sensitivity; the actual E_PNM values are computed directly from the EDFs, so this approximation is not load-bearing.
domain assumption The experimental alpha_D values and the quasi-deuteron correction are correct.
The constraints rely on Refs. [19,23,24] for alpha_D and on Ref. [14] for the correction. If the correction is wrong, the inferred E_PNM would shift.
ad hoc to paper The set of 63 EDFs is representative and its spread captures the theoretical uncertainty.
This is the core calibrating assumption of the analysis. The paper does not test the sensitivity to omitting any model family, and the DDPC offset suggests the set may be heterogeneous.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry energy and neutron matter equation of state at $\rho_0/3$ from the electric dipole polarizability in $^{48}$Ca, $^{68}$Ni and $^{208}$Pb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHQ5KVP7

@misc{pith2026250608778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry energy and neutron matter equation of state at $\rho_0/3$ from the electric dipole polarizability in $^48$Ca, $^68$Ni and $^208$Pb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHQ5KVP7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08778}
}

abstract

Based on the quasiparticle random phase approximation implemented via the finite amplitude method, we employ a set of representative relativistic mean-field models to investigate the sensitivity of the inverse electric dipole polarizability $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ in $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$, $^{68}\mathrm{Ni}$, and $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ to the symmetry energy $E_{\rm{sym}}(\rho)$ and the neutron matter equation of state $E_{\rm{PNM}}(\rho)$ at a subsaturation density of $\rho = \rho_0/3$. Combined with predictions from nonrelativistic Skyrme energy density functionals (EDFs), our results reveal strong linear correlations between $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ and both $E_{\rm{sym}}(\rho_0/3)$ and $E_{\rm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$. In particular, the $1/\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$--$E_{\rm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$ correlation for $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ is found to be nearly model-independent. A Bayesian analysis of the measured values of $\alpha_{\rm{D}}$ in $^{48}\mathrm{Ca}$, $^{68}\mathrm{Ni}$, and $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}$ yields quantitative constraints of $E_{\mathrm{sym}}(\rho_0/3) = 17.8^{+1.1(1.8)}_{-0.9(1.6)}~\mathrm{MeV}$ and $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3) = 9.1^{+0.8(1.4)}_{-0.9(1.4)}~\mathrm{MeV}$ at the 68\% (90\%) confidence level, respectively. The extracted value of $E_{\mathrm{PNM}}(\rho_0/3)$ exceeds most predictions from microscopic many-body theories, suggesting a mild tension between nuclear EDF-based constraints derived from $\alpha_{\mathrm{D}}$ data and results from \textit{ab initio} calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08778 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Inverse dipole polarizabilities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Constraints on the symmetry energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constraints and predictions on the pure neutron mat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distribution function of symmetry energy and neutron matter EOS at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

Baran, M

V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, and M. Di Toro, Re- action dynamics with exotic nuclei, Phys. Rep.410, 335 (2005)

work page 2005
[2]

A. W. Steiner, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and P. J. El- lis, Isospin asymmetry in nuclei and neutron stars, Phys. Rept.411, 325 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Neutron Star Observa- tions: Prognosis for Equation of State Constraints, Phys. Rept.442, 109 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

Li, L.-W

B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Recent Progress and New Challenges in Isospin Physics with Heavy-Ion Reactions, Phys. Rept.464, 113 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Roca-Maza and N

X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Nuclear equation of state from ground and collective excited state properties of nu- clei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.101, 96 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Machleidt and F

R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Recent advances in chiral EFT based nuclear forces and their applications, 10 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.137, 104117 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

Migdal, J

A. Migdal, J. Phys. (Moscow)8, 331 (1944)

work page 1944

Show all 72 references

[9]

Lipparini and S

E. Lipparini and S. Stringari, Surface symmetry energy and the dipole giant resonance, Phys. Lett. B99, 183 (1981)

1981
[10]

Krivine, C

H. Krivine, C. Schmit, and J. Treiner, The dipole polar- izability and the nuclear symmetry energies, Phys. Lett. B112, 281 (1982)

1982
[11]

Meyer, P

J. Meyer, P. Quentin, and B. Jennings, The isovec- tor dipole mode: A simple sum rule approach, Nuclear Physics A385, 269 (1982)

1982
[12]

P. G. Reinhard and W. Nazarewicz, Information content of a new observable: The case of the nuclear neutron skin, Phys. Rev. C81, 051303 (2010)

2010
[13]

Roca-Maza, M

X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, X. Vi˜ nas, M. Brenna, G. Col` o, B. K. Agrawal, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, and D. Vretenar, Electric dipole polarizability in 208P b: In- sights from the droplet model, Phys. Rev. C88, 024316 (2013)

2013
[14]

Roca-Maza, X

X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi˜ nas, M. Centelles, B. K. Agrawal, G. Colo’, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, and D. Vretenar, The neutron skin thickness from the measured electric dipole polarizability in 68Ni, 120Sn, and 208Pb, Phys. Rev. C92, 064304 (2015)

2015
[15]

Z. Li, Y. Niu, and W. Long, Electric dipole polarizability in neutron-rich Sn isotopes as a probe of nuclear isovector properties, Phys. Rev. C103, 064301 (2021)

2021
[16]

Zhang and L.-W

Z. Zhang and L.-W. Chen, Electric dipole polarizability in 208Pb as a probe of the symmetry energy and neutron matter aroundρ 0/3, Phys. Rev. C92, 031301 (2015)

2015
[17]

Bohigas, N

O. Bohigas, N. Van Giai, and D. Vautherin, Selfconsis- tent description of the static nuclear dipole polarizability, Phys. Lett. B102, 105 (1981)

1981
[18]

R. W. Fearicket al., Electric dipole polarizability of Ca40, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L022044 (2023)

2023
[19]

Birkhanet al., Electric dipole polarizability of 48Ca and implications for the neutron skin, Phys

J. Birkhanet al., Electric dipole polarizability of 48Ca and implications for the neutron skin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 252501 (2017)

2017
[20]

Brandhermet al., Electric dipole polarizability of Ni58, Phys

I. Brandhermet al., Electric dipole polarizability of Ni58, Phys. Rev. C111, 024312 (2025)

2025
[21]

Bassaueret al., Evolution of the dipole polarizability in the stable tin isotope chain, Phys

S. Bassaueret al., Evolution of the dipole polarizability in the stable tin isotope chain, Phys. Lett. B810, 135804 (2020)

2020
[22]

Hashimotoet al., Dipole polarizability of 120Sn and nuclear energy density functionals, Phys

T. Hashimotoet al., Dipole polarizability of 120Sn and nuclear energy density functionals, Phys. Rev. C92, 031305 (2015)

2015
[23]

Tamiiet al., Complete electric dipole response and the neutron skin in 208Pb, Phys

A. Tamiiet al., Complete electric dipole response and the neutron skin in 208Pb, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062502 (2011)

2011
[24]

D. M. Rossiet al., Measurement of the Dipole Polariz- ability of the Unstable Neutron-Rich Nucleus Ni68, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 242503 (2013)

2013
[25]

C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Neutron star structure and the neutron radius of Pb-208, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5647 (2001)

2001
[26]

Typel and H

S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Relativistic mean field calcu- lations with density dependent meson nucleon coupling, Nucl. Phys. A656, 331 (1999)

1999
[27]

Niksic, D

T. Niksic, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Relativistic Nuclear Energy Density Functionals: Adjusting parameters to binding energies, Phys. Rev. C78, 034318 (2008)

2008
[28]

Vretenar, A

D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Relativistic Hartree Bogoliubov theory: static and dynamic aspects of exotic nuclear structure, Phys. Rept.409, 101 (2005)

2005
[29]

J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Relativistic Continuum Hartree Bogoli- ubov theory for ground state properties of exotic nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.57, 470 (2006)

2006
[30]

N. Paar, P. Ring, T. Niksic, and D. Vretenar, Quasipar- ticle random phase approximation based on the relativis- tic Hartree-Bogoliubov model, Phys. Rev. C67, 034312 (2003)

2003
[31]

Liang, T

H. Liang, T. Nakatsukasa, Z. Niu, and J. Meng, Feasi- bility of the finite amplitude method in covariant density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C87, 054310 (2013)

2013
[32]

Ring and P

P. Ring and P. Schuck,The nuclear many-body problem (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

2004
[33]

Avogadro and T

P. Avogadro and T. Nakatsukasa, Finite amplitude method for the quasi-particle-random-phase approxima- tion, Phys. Rev. C84, 014314 (2011)

2011
[34]

Hinohara, M

N. Hinohara, M. Kortelainen, and W. Nazarewicz, Low- energy collective modes of deformed superfluid nuclei within the finite-amplitude method, Phys. Rev. C87, 064309 (2013)

2013
[35]

Nakatsukasa, T

T. Nakatsukasa, T. Inakura, and K. Yabana, Finite am- plitude method for the RPA solution, Phys. Rev. C76, 024318 (2007)

2007
[36]

Stoitsov, M

M. Stoitsov, M. Kortelainen, T. Nakatsukasa, C. Losa, and W. Nazarewicz, Monopole strength function of de- formed superfluid nuclei, Phys. Rev. C84, 041305 (2011)

2011
[37]

Oishi, M

T. Oishi, M. Kortelainen, and N. Hinohara, Finite am- plitude method applied to the giant dipole resonance in heavy rare-earth nuclei, Phys. Rev. C93, 034329 (2016)

2016
[38]

Kortelainen, N

M. Kortelainen, N. Hinohara, and W. Nazarewicz, Multi- pole modes in deformed nuclei within the finite amplitude method, Phys. Rev. C92, 051302 (2015)

2015
[39]

Sun and D

X. Sun and D. Lu, Implementation of a finite-amplitude method in a relativistic meson-exchange model, Phys. Rev. C96, 024614 (2017)

2017
[40]

Bjelˇ ci´ c and T

A. Bjelˇ ci´ c and T. Nikˇ si´ c, Implementation of the quasipar- ticle finite amplitude method within the relativistic self- consistent mean-field framework: The program DIRQ- F AM, Comput. Phys. Commun.253, 107184 (2020)

2020
[41]

Sun and J

X. Sun and J. Meng, Finite amplitude method on the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in con- tinuum: The isoscalar giant monopole resonance in exotic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C105, 044312 (2022)

2022
[42]

Hinohara, M

N. Hinohara, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, and E. Olsen, Complex-energy approach to sum rules within nuclear density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C91, 044323 (2015)

2015
[43]

B. Sun, S. Bhattiprolu, and J. M. Lattimer, Compiled properties of nucleonic matter and nuclear and neutron star models from nonrelativistic and relativistic interac- tions, Phys. Rev. C109, 055801 (2024)

2024
[44]

Vretenar, T

D. Vretenar, T. Niksic, and P. Ring, A Microscopic esti- mate of the nuclear matter compressibility and symmetry energy in relativistic mean field models, Phys. Rev. C68, 024310 (2003)

2003
[45]

Yuksel, T

E. Yuksel, T. Marketin, and N. Paar, Optimizing the relativistic energy density functional with nuclear ground state and collective excitation properties, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034318 (2019)

2019
[46]

Y¨ uksel and N

E. Y¨ uksel and N. Paar, Implications of parity-violating electron scattering experiments on 48Ca (CREX) and 208Pb (PREX-II) for nuclear energy density functionals, Phys. Lett. B836, 137622 (2023). 11

2023
[47]

Bjelˇ ci´ c and T

A. Bjelˇ ci´ c and T. Nikˇ si´ c, Implementation of the quasi- particle finite amplitude method within the relativistic self-consistent mean-field framework (ii): The program dirqfam v2.0.0, Comput. Phys. Commun.287, 108689 (2023)

2023
[48]

Niksic, N

T. Niksic, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, DIRHB - A relativistic self-consistent mean-field framework for atomic nuclei, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1808 (2014)

2014
[49]

N. R. Draper and H. Smith,Applied Regression Analysis (Wiley, New York, 1998)

1998
[50]

Abril-Pla, V

O. Abril-Pla, V. Andreani, C. Carroll, L. Dong, C. J. Fonnesbeck, M. Kochurov, R. Kumar, J. Lao, C. C. Luhmann, O. A. Martin,et al., Pymc: a modern, and comprehensive probabilistic programming framework in python, PeerJ Computer Science9, e1516 (2023)

2023
[51]

Danielewicz and J

P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, Symmetry energy II: Isobaric analog states, Nuclear Physics A922, 1 (2014)

2014
[52]

M. B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, M. Famiano, Z. Li, W. G. Lynch, and A. W. Steiner, Constraints on the density dependence of the symmetry energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 122701 (2009)

2009
[53]

Zhang, M

Y. Zhang, M. Liu, C.-J. Xia, Z. Li, and S. K. Biswal, Constraints on the symmetry energy and its associated parameters from nuclei to neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034303 (2020)

2020
[54]

Wadaet al., The Nuclear Matter Symmetry Energy at 0.03≤ρ/ρ 0 ≤0.2, Phys

R. Wadaet al., The Nuclear Matter Symmetry Energy at 0.03≤ρ/ρ 0 ≤0.2, Phys. Rev. C85, 064618 (2012)

2012
[55]

Kowalskiet al., Experimental determination of the symmetry energy of a low density nuclear gas, Phys

S. Kowalskiet al., Experimental determination of the symmetry energy of a low density nuclear gas, Phys. Rev. C75, 014601 (2007)

2007
[56]

W. G. Lynch and M. B. Tsang, Decoding the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy, Phys. Lett. B830, 137098 (2022)

2022
[57]

Morfouaceet al., Constraining the symmetry energy with heavy-ion collisions and Bayesian analyses, Phys

P. Morfouaceet al., Constraining the symmetry energy with heavy-ion collisions and Bayesian analyses, Phys. Lett. B799, 135045 (2019)

2019
[58]

Roca-Maza, M

X. Roca-Maza, M. Brenna, B. K. Agrawal, P. F. Bor- tignon, G. Col` o, L.-G. Cao, N. Paar, and D. Vretenar, Gi- ant Quadrupole Resonances in 208Pb, the nuclear sym- metry energy and the neutron skin thickness, Phys. Rev. C87, 034301 (2013)

2013
[59]

B. A. Brown, Constraints on the Skyrme Equations of State from Properties of Doubly Magic Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232502 (2013)

2013
[60]

Qiu, B.-J

M. Qiu, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, C.-X. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, Bayesian model averaging for nuclear symme- try energy from effective proton-neutron chemical poten- tial difference of neutron-rich nuclei, Phys. Lett. B849, 138435 (2024)

2024
[61]

N. Wang, L. Ou, and M. Liu, Nuclear symmetry energy from the Fermi-energy difference in nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034327 (2013)

2013
[62]

Zhang and L.-W

Z. Zhang and L.-W. Chen, Constraining the symmetry energy at subsaturation densities using isotope binding energy difference and neutron skin thickness, Phys. Lett. B726, 234 (2013)

2013
[63]

J. Xu, J. Zhou, Z. Zhang, W.-J. Xie, and B.-A. Li, Con- straining isovector nuclear interactions with giant reso- nances within a Bayesian approach, Phys. Lett. B810, 135820 (2020)

2020
[64]

Zhang, X.-B

Z. Zhang, X.-B. Feng, and L.-W. Chen, Bayesian infer- ence on isospin splitting of nucleon effective mass from giant resonances in 208Pb, Chin. Phys. C45, 064104 (2021)

2021
[65]

Gezerlis, I

A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations with Chiral Effective Field Theory In- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 032501 (2013)

2013
[66]

S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer, and A. Schwenk, New equations of state constrained by nuclear physics, observations, and QCD calculations of high-density nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C103, 025803 (2021)

2021
[67]

Drischler, R

C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, How Well Do We Know the Neutron-Matter Equation of State at the Densities Inside Neutron Stars? A Bayesian Approach with Correlated Uncertainties, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 202702 (2020)

2020
[68]

J. M. Alarc´ on and J. A. Oller, Nuclear matter from the ladder resummation in terms of the experimen- tal nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitudes, Phys. Rev. C 107, 044319 (2023)

2023
[69]

Cai and L.-W

B.-J. Cai and L.-W. Chen, Relativistic self-energy de- composition of nuclear symmetry energy and equation of state of neutron matter within QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. C100, 024303 (2019)

2019
[70]

Akmal, V

A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, The Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998)

1998
[71]

Epelbaum, H

E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meissner, Ground state energy of dilute neutron matter at next-to- leading order in lattice chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A40, 199 (2009)

2009
[72]

Gezerlis and J

A. Gezerlis and J. Carlson, Low-density neutron matter, Phys. Rev. C81, 025803 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Baran, M

V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, and M. Di Toro, Re- action dynamics with exotic nuclei, Phys. Rep.410, 335 (2005)

work page 2005

[2] [2]

A. W. Steiner, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and P. J. El- lis, Isospin asymmetry in nuclei and neutron stars, Phys. Rept.411, 325 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [3]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Neutron Star Observa- tions: Prognosis for Equation of State Constraints, Phys. Rept.442, 109 (2007)

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Li, L.-W

B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Recent Progress and New Challenges in Isospin Physics with Heavy-Ion Reactions, Phys. Rept.464, 113 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Roca-Maza and N

X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Nuclear equation of state from ground and collective excited state properties of nu- clei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.101, 96 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Machleidt and F

R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Recent advances in chiral EFT based nuclear forces and their applications, 10 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.137, 104117 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Migdal, J

A. Migdal, J. Phys. (Moscow)8, 331 (1944)

work page 1944