Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Hot pygmy dipole strength in nickel isotopes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that heating nickel isotopes to 2 MeV multiplies low-energy electric dipole strength by up to 2.5 times, and provides experiment-ready benchmarks for the hot pygmy dipole strength.

desk verdict A useful benchmark survey of hot pygmy dipole strength in Ni, but the quantitative claims need a corrected Lorentzian formula and a smoothing-width sensitivity study before the 'excellent agreement' with experiment should be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13354 v1 pith:OS653LFG submitted 2025-06-16 nucl-th

Amandeep Kaur , Esra Yüksel , Nils Paar This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35 PACS 21.60.Jz24.30.Cz
keywords hotpygmydipolestrengthfinite-temperaturerelativisticquasiparticleRPAnickelisotopesE1thermalunblockingresonancenuclearastrophysicsfusion-evaporationexperiments
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

At temperatures up to 2 MeV, the low-energy electric dipole response of nickel isotopes is predicted to change dramatically: neutron-rich isotopes develop a hot pygmy dipole strength that can reach 2.5 times its zero-temperature value, while near-symmetric nuclei acquire low-energy dipole strength that is absent at zero temperature. The mechanism is thermal unblocking: heating smears the Fermi surface, partially populating higher single-particle orbitals, and opens new two-quasiparticle transition channels. The paper provides tables of energy-weighted E1 strength and cumulative B(E1) values for nickel-56 through nickel-70 over temperature and energy windows, intended as direct benchmarks for ongoing fusion-evaporation experiments. These benchmarks matter because low-energy dipole strength feeds radiative neutron-capture rates in astrophysical environments and probes the symmetry energy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-temperature relativistic quasiparticle random phase approximation (FT-RQRPA), a thermally averaged extension of RPA built on finite-temperature Hartree-Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer occupation probabilities that include Fermi-Dirac factors, with the QRPA matrix diagonalized self-consistently using the DD-PCX point-coupling energy density functional. This machinery generates temperature-dependent electric dipole strength distributions, transition probabilities, and single-particle occupation numbers, and it is what lets the authors trace how thermal unblocking opens new low-energy excitation channels.

What would settle it

Measure the gamma-ray strength function of nickel-62 or nickel-66 from fusion-evaporation reactions at temperatures of 1.5 to 2 MeV: if the integrated E1 strength below 12 MeV does not rise toward 2.5 times the zero-temperature value, or if the 8-12 MeV SEWS in nickel-62 at $T=1.6$ MeV is far from 4.32%, the thermal-enhancement claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the finite-temperature relativistic quasiparticle random phase approximation (FT-RQRPA) with the DD-PCX relativistic point-coupling interaction, the authors compute the isovector electric dipole response of nickel isotopes from mass 56 to 70 at temperatures from $T=0$ to 2 MeV. They find that in neutron-rich isotopes the integrated E1 strength in the $E=0$ to 12 MeV region increases by up to a factor of 2.5 at $T=2$ MeV compared with the zero-temperature case, and that in lighter isotopes such as nickel-56 a low-energy pygmy component appears only once the temperature rises. The calculations attribute this to thermal unblocking: occupation probabilities of orbitals above the Fermi level grow, and new quasiparticle configurations such as neutron $1g_{9/2}$ to $1h_{11/2}$ and proton $2p_{3/2}$ to $2d_{5/2}$ transitions contribute, while some zero-temperature transitions are suppressed. For nickel-62 at $T=1.6$ MeV, the predicted SEWS in the 8-12 MeV window is 4.32%, matching a preliminary experimental value of about 4% from fusion-evaporation studies.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that a thermally occupied mean field plus quasiparticle RPA, without beyond-RPA damping, anharmonicity, or pairing fluctuations, captures the temperature evolution of the low-energy E1 response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted SEWS and cumulative B(E1) tables for nickel-56 through nickel-70 give ongoing fusion-evaporation experiments direct quantitative benchmarks for hot pygmy dipole strength.
  • In neutron-rich nickel isotopes, low-energy E1 strength at $T=2$ MeV should be up to 2.5 times the zero-temperature value, a signal within reach of gamma-ray spectroscopy.
  • Isotopes near neutron-proton symmetry, which show no pygmy strength at zero temperature, should develop visible low-energy dipole strength at temperatures around 1.5 to 2 MeV.
  • A substantial part of the E1 strength moves from the high-energy region down to the 0-12 MeV region as temperature rises, so the hot pygmy strength grows partly at the expense of higher-energy response.
  • Temperature-dependent low-energy E1 strength of this kind can affect radiative neutron-capture rates used in models of heavy-element synthesis in stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If thermal unblocking is the dominant mechanism, similar enhancement should appear in other open-shell medium-mass nuclei with many single-particle levels near the Fermi surface, not just nickel.
  • A decisive test would be to extract gamma-ray strength from the same nickel isotope produced at several beam energies corresponding to different internal temperatures; the predicted monotonic growth of low-energy strength with temperature would confirm the mechanism.
  • If confirmed, the temperature dependence argues for including T-dependent E1 strength functions in statistical-model codes for stellar neutron-capture rates instead of scaling zero-temperature strength ad hoc.
  • Beyond 2 MeV the enhancement may saturate or be affected by width effects, so extending the calculation to higher temperatures and comparing with data would map the thermal limit.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports finite-temperature relativistic quasiparticle random-phase approximation (FT-RQRPA) calculations of the isovector E1 strength in the nickel isotopes 56–70Ni for temperatures T = 0–2 MeV, using the DD-PCX point-coupling energy density functional. The central claims are that the integrated pygmy dipole strength in the E = 0–12 MeV window grows with temperature, reaching up to 2.5 times its zero-temperature value at T = 2 MeV in neutron-rich isotopes; that nuclei near N ≈ Z acquire low-energy E1 strength only at finite temperature; and that the calculated value SEWS = 4.32% for 62Ni at T = 1.6 MeV in the E = 8–12 MeV interval agrees with a preliminary experimental value of about 4%. The paper also provides a microscopic analysis of the participating two-quasiparticle configurations and, as supplementary material, tabulated SEWS and cumulative B(E1) values intended for direct comparison with experiments.

Significance. If the predicted thermal enhancement is confirmed, it would establish hot pygmy dipole strength as a sizeable, temperature-driven effect in medium-mass nuclei, with direct implications for the interpretation of ongoing fusion-evaporation experiments and for radiative neutron-capture rates in stellar environments. The paper has clear strengths: the T = 0 limit is benchmarked against existing 68,70Ni data, the FT-RQRPA calculations are self-consistent and not fitted to the hot-PDS data, and the supplementary tables provide quantitative, falsifiable benchmarks. However, the robustness of the headline numbers currently hinges on the adopted Lorentzian smoothing width and on a discrete-basis treatment of an energy region that extends above the neutron separation energy, so the quantitative claims are conditional on additional sensitivity checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical framework, Eq. (6)] The Lorentzian averaging formula as printed has a sign error in the denominator: it reads (E - E_w)^2 - Γ^2/4 instead of (E - E_w)^2 + Γ^2/4. The printed expression is not a normalized Lorentzian and can change sign, so it cannot reproduce the strength functions shown in Figs. 1–3 and 6. Because these figures and the derived SEWS values are the basis of the central quantitative claims, the formula must be corrected and the normalization stated explicitly.
  2. [Results and discussion, 62Ni benchmark and Fig. 3] The claimed 'excellent agreement' for 62Ni is not robust as presented: SEWS = 4.32% is quoted for the E = 8–12 MeV window, which is selected after the preliminary experimental value (approximately 4%, with no uncertainty stated) is known, while the preceding analysis uses E = 0–12 MeV. Since the integrated SEWS is obtained from Lorentzian-smoothed discrete states with a fixed width Γ = 1.0 MeV, the result depends on Γ through the window boundaries. The manuscript provides no Γ-sensitivity study and no basis-convergence test, so the agreement may be partly an artifact of the chosen smoothing and window. Please add such a study and also quote the 0–12 MeV SEWS value for 62Ni.
  3. [Results and discussion, continuum effects] For neutron-rich nickel isotopes the neutron separation energy lies in the range S_n ≈ 6–8 MeV, so a substantial part of the E = 0–12 MeV interval lies in the continuum. The FT-RQRPA as applied here uses a discrete basis and omits coupling to the continuum as well as energy-dependent spreading effects. The paper cites continuum finite-temperature QRPA implementations (Refs. [47,48]) but does not compare with them. The magnitude of the reported up-to-2.5× enhancement and of the 62Ni benchmark could be affected by these omitted contributions, and the manuscript should at least quantify the expected effect, for example by comparing with a continuum-QRPA result for one representative isotope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that panel (a) shows SEWS as a function of neutron number N and panel (b) as a function of temperature T, whereas the text describing Fig. 3(a) and 3(b) states the opposite ordering. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a duplicated unit: 'E = 0–6 MeV and 6 < E ≤ 12 MeV MeV'. Please fix the typographical error.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The notation B(EJ, E_w) = |Σ_{cd}(b^π_cd(E_w) + b^ν_cd(E_w))|² is ambiguous because B(EJ, E_w) already denotes the reduced transition probability from Eq. (4). Please clarify that the quantities b^π and b^ν are the partial amplitudes and that their coherent sum gives the total E1 transition amplitude for the selected state.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The statement that the strength 'increases by up to a factor of 2.5' would be more informative if the specific isotope(s) and the exact energy/temperature conditions were stated explicitly; consider adding this detail.
  5. [References] Reference [6] appears incomplete, and some conference contributions (Refs. [38–41]) may benefit from additional bibliographic information (e.g., page numbers or DOIs where available).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FT-RQRPA predictions are computed from a fixed formalism and interaction, with external experimental benchmarks rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The central predictions—the up-to-2.5-fold thermal enhancement of 0–12 MeV E1 strength and the SEWS values—follow from diagonalizing the FT-RQRPA matrix (Eq. (3)) with temperature-dependent Fermi-Dirac occupations (Eqs. (1)–(2)) and transition matrix elements (Eq. (4)); no parameter is fitted to HPDS data or to the 62Ni benchmark. The comparison with the preliminary Wieland result is an external benchmark, not an input to the calculation: the paper reports SEWS = 4.32% at T = 1.6 MeV in the 8–12 MeV interval, and there is no indication that the interaction or the Lorentzian width was adjusted to force agreement with the approximate 4% experimental value. The zero-temperature benchmarks for 68Ni and 70Ni (Table II) likewise compare computed values with measured data, with no stated refitting of the DD-PCX interaction. Self-citations to Refs. [50,51,52] are methodological citations for the FT-RQRPA scheme and the DD-PCX functional; they do not import the claimed thermal enhancement or the Ni SEWS results. The sign error in the printed Lorentzian denominator of Eq. (6) would impede reproduction of the plotted strength functions, but it is a correctness issue, not a circularity. Overall, no load-bearing circular step was found.

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

The quantitative results depend on the DD-PCX functional fitted in earlier work, on the FT-HBCS mean field, and on the FT-RQRPA response framework. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the main human choices are the Lorentzian width and the low-energy window, which are not fitted to data but change the reported SEWS values.

free parameters (4)
  • Lorentzian smearing width Gamma = 1.0 MeV
    Chosen to smooth the discrete FT-RQRPA spectrum in Eq. (6); the integrated low-energy SEWS and the factor-2.5 enhancement depend on this width and on the integration interval.
  • PDS integration window = E = 0-12 MeV (and E = 8-12 MeV)
    Defines what is called the pygmy region; the reported SEWS percentages and the comparison with experimental data depend on this window.
  • DD-PCX symmetry energy J = 31.12 MeV
    Input from Ref. [52]; it sets the scale of isovector E1 strength and is not refit here.
  • Pairing interaction strength = not specified in this paper
    Taken from prior FT-HBCS works (Refs. [53,56]); pairing gaps and the critical temperatures in Table I depend on it, and the SEWS kinks near Tc are sensitive to it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Finite-temperature Hartree-BCS with a sharp pairing phase transition describes the thermal mean field of the Ni isotopes.
    Eqs. (1)-(2) and Table I use FT-HBCS; pairing fluctuations and finite-size effects are not included, and the transition at Tc is assumed sharp.
  • domain assumption The FT-RQRPA matrix of Eq. (3) yields the complete low- and high-energy E1 response without beyond-RPA or collision terms.
    Central method; no comparison with FT-RTBA or other beyond-RPA approaches is made, so the low-energy strength at T = 1.5-2 MeV is an RPA-level prediction.
  • domain assumption DD-PCX is an adequate functional for E1 strength because of its symmetry energy J = 31.12 MeV.
    Stated in the Theoretical framework section; other functionals with larger J overproduce E1 strength, and no sensitivity study is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Lorentzian smoothing with width Gamma = 1.0 MeV represents the experimental response function.
    Eq. (6) uses a hand-picked width; the printed formula has a minus sign in the denominator, which is not a standard Lorentzian profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hot pygmy dipole strength in nickel isotopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OS653LFG

@misc{pith2026250613354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hot pygmy dipole strength in nickel isotopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OS653LFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13354}
}
abstract

At finite temperatures, nuclear excitations are significantly modified, most notably through the emergence of additional low-energy dipole strength, which can critically impact astrophysical reaction rates. Ongoing fusion-evaporation experiments on Ni isotopes provide a unique opportunity to investigate the hot pygmy dipole strength (HPDS), underscoring the need for reliable theoretical predictions and a comprehensive understanding of this emerging phenomenon. In this work, the HPDS is investigated in Ni isotopes from $N = Z$ to neutron-rich systems ($^{56\text{--}70}$Ni) over a temperature range of $T=$ 0$-$2~MeV using the finite-temperature relativistic quasiparticle random phase approximation. In neutron-rich Ni isotopes, the pygmy dipole strength at higher temperatures exceeds up to 2.5 times its value observed at zero temperature. In contrast, near $N \approx Z$ isotopes show negligible low-energy dipole strength at $T = 0$ MeV but develop a pronounced HPDS as the temperature increases. Predicted E1 energy-weighted strength ($S_{\text{EWS}}$) and cumulative $B$(E1) values for HPDS are presented across the Ni isotopic chain for various low-energy intervals and temperatures, providing essential benchmarks to support and guide experimental studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The isovector E1 strength distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Isovector E1 transition probability B(E1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: For the low-energy region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Panels (a) and (b) display the partial contributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Occupation probabilities of neutrons (upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Integrated sum of E1 strength at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ni isotopes with lower neutron content also begin to exhibit the emergence of PDS, with the most dras- tic changes observed in 56Ni

    The effects of temperature are even more pronounced in the low-energy region. Ni isotopes with lower neutron content also begin to exhibit the emergence of PDS, with the most dras- tic changes observed in 56Ni. At T = 1 .5 MeV, new low-energy states begin to appear below E ≈ 6 MeV. As the temperature increases further to T = 2 MeV, this effect becomes even ...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Savran, T

    D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 70, 210 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Bracco, E

    A. Bracco, E. Lanza, and A. Tamii, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 106, 360 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, and G. Col` o, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, R02 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Lanza, L

    E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 129, 104006 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    E. G. Lanza, A. Vitturi, E. Litvinova, and D. Savran, Phys. Rev. C 89, 041601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Paar and A

    N. Paar and A. Kaur, Acta Physica Polonica B Proceedings Supplement 18, 2 (2025) . 8

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Klimkiewicz, N

    A. Klimkiewicz, N. Paar, P. Adrich, M. Fallot, K. Boret- zky, T. Aumann, D. Cortina-Gil, U. D. Pramanik, T. W. Elze, H. Emling, H. Geissel, M. Hellstr¨ om, K. L. Jones, J. V. Kratz, R. Kulessa, C. Nocif- oro, R. Palit, H. Simon, G. Sur´ owka, K. S¨ ummerer, D. Vretenar, and W. Walu´ s (LAND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 76, 051603 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Litvinova, H

    E. Litvinova, H. Loens, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez- Pinedo, T. Rauscher, P. Ring, F.-K. Thielemann, and V. Tselyaev, Nuclear Physics A 823, 26 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Goriely and E

    S. Goriely and E. Khan, Nuclear Physics A 706, 217 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    Carbone, G

    A. Carbone, G. Col` o, A. Bracco, L.-G. Cao, P. F. Bortignon, F. Camera, and O. Wieland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 041301 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Goriely, E

    S. Goriely, E. Khan, and M. Samyn, Nuclear Physics A 739, 331 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    A. C. Larsen and S. Goriely, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014318 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Markova, A

    M. Markova, A. C. Larsen, P. von Neumann-Cosel, E. Litvinova, A. Choplin, S. Goriely, S. Martinet, L. Siess, M. Guttormsen, F. Pogliano, and S. Siem, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054311 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    D. M. Siegel, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 306 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Arnould, S

    M. Arnould, S. Goriely, and K. Takahashi, Physics Reports 450, 97 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.- K. Thielemann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015002 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Roca-Maza, G

    X. Roca-Maza, G. Pozzi, M. Brenna, K. Mizuyama, and G. Col` o, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024601 (2012)

    2012

  11. [20]

    Piekarewicz, Phys

    J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034319 (2011)

    2011

  12. [21]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, A. Croitoru, and D. Dumitru, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044610 (2013)

    2013

  13. [22]

    and Horvat, A., EPJ Web of Conferences 66, 02078 (2014)

    Paar, N. and Horvat, A., EPJ Web of Conferences 66, 02078 (2014)

    2014

  14. [23]

    Roca-Maza, X

    X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi˜ nas, M. Centelles, B. K. Agrawal, G. Col` o, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 92, 064304 (2015)

    2015

  15. [24]

    Y¨ uksel and N

    E. Y¨ uksel and N. Paar, Physics Letters B 836, 137622 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 62, 485 (2012) , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  18. [27]

    N. Paar, C. C. Moustakidis, T. Marketin, D. Vretenar, and G. A. Lalazissis, Phys. Rev. C 90, 011304 (2014)

    2014

  19. [28]

    Baran, B

    V. Baran, B. Frecus, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rev. C 85, 051601 (2012)

    2012

  20. [29]

    Daoutidis and S

    I. Daoutidis and S. Goriely, Phys. Rev. C 84, 027301 (2011)

    2011

  21. [30]

    Roca-Maza and N

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 101, 96 (2018)

    2018

  22. [31]

    Bertulani, The European Physical Journal A 55, 240 (2019)

    C. Bertulani, The European Physical Journal A 55, 240 (2019)

    2019

  23. [32]

    Wieland, A

    O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera, G. Benzoni, N. Blasi, S. Brambilla, F. C. L. Crespi, S. Leoni, B. Mil- lion, R. Nicolini, A. Maj, P. Bednarczyk, J. Grebosz, M. Kmiecik, W. Meczynski, J. Styczen, T. Aumann, A. Banu, T. Beck, F. Becker, L. Caceres, P. Door- nenbal, H. Emling, ...

    2009

  24. [33]

    D. M. Rossi, P. Adrich, F. Aksouh, H. Alvarez-Pol, T. Aumann, J. Benlliure, M. B¨ ohmer, K. Boretzky, E. Casarejos, M. Chartier, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina- Gil, U. Datta Pramanik, H. Emling, O. Ershova, B. Fernandez-Dominguez, H. Geissel, M. Gorska, M. Heil, H. T. Johansson, A....

    2013

  25. [34]

    Wieland, A

    O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera, R. Avigo, H. Baba, N. Nakatsuka, T. Aumann, S. R. Banerjee, G. Benzoni, K. Boretzky, C. Caesar, S. Ceruti, S. Chen, F. C. L. Crespi, V. Derya, P. Doornenbal, N. Fukuda, A. Giaz, K. Ieki, N. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, S. Koyama, T. Kubo, M. Matsushit...

    2018

  26. [35]

    Y. Niu, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Physics Letters B 681, 315 (2009)

    2009

  27. [36]

    Santonocito and Y

    D. Santonocito and Y. Blumenfeld, The European Phys- ical Journal A 56, 279 (2020)

    2020

  28. [37]

    Bracco, F

    A. Bracco, F. Camera, O. Wieland, and W. E. Orman, Modern Physics Letters A 22, 2479 (2007) , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732307024474

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    Wieland, A

    O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera, G. Benzoni, N. Blasi, S. Brambilla, F. Crespi, A. Giussani, S. Leoni, P. Ma- son, B. Million, A. Moroni, S. Barlini, V. L. Kravchuk, F. Gramegna, A. Lanchais, P. Mastinu, A. Maj, M. Brekiesz, M. Kmiecik, M. Bruno, E. Geraci, G. Van- nini, G. C...

    2006

  30. [39]

    Wieland, A

    O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera, S. Aogaki, D. Bala- banski, E. Boicu, R. Borcea, M. Boromiza, I. Burducea, S. Calinescu, et al., Il Nuovo Cimento C 47, 1 (2024)

    2024

  31. [40]

    Wieland and et al., Acta Physica Polonica B Proceedings Supplement 18, 2 (2025)

    O. Wieland and et al., Acta Physica Polonica B Proceedings Supplement 18, 2 (2025)

    2025

  32. [41]

    A. B. O. Wieland, The 7th international conference on collective motion in nuclei under extreme conditions (comex7) (https://agenda.infn.it/event/21964/, 2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Wieland, Euro-labs 3rd annual meeting (https://indico.cern.ch/event/1370378/, 2024)

    O. Wieland, Euro-labs 3rd annual meeting (https://indico.cern.ch/event/1370378/, 2024)

    2024

  34. [43]

    Vretenar, Y

    D. Vretenar, Y. F. Niu, N. Paar, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044317 (2012)

    2012

  35. [44]

    Vretenar, N

    D. Vretenar, N. Paar, P. Ring, and G. Lalazissis, Nuclear Physics A 692, 496 (2001)

    2001

  36. [45]

    N. Paar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B 606, 288 (2005)

    2005

  37. [46]

    Y¨ uksel, G

    E. Y¨ uksel, G. Colo, E. Khan, and Y. F. Niu, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 230 (2019)

    2019

  38. [47]

    Y¨ uksel, G

    E. Y¨ uksel, G. Col` o, E. Khan, Y. F. Niu, and K. Bozkurt, 9 Phys. Rev. C 96, 024303 (2017)

    2017

  39. [48]

    Litvinova and N

    E. Litvinova and N. Belov, Phys. Rev. C 88, 031302 (2013)

    2013

  40. [49]

    E. Khan, N. Van Giai, and M. Grasso, Nuclear Physics A 731, 311 (2004)

    2004

  41. [50]

    Wibowo and E

    H. Wibowo and E. Litvinova, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024307 (2019)

    2019

  42. [51]

    A. Kaur, E. Y¨ uksel, and N. Paar, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014314 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    A. Kaur, E. Y¨ uksel, and N. Paar, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024305 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Y¨ uksel, T

    E. Y¨ uksel, T. Marketin, and N. Paar, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034318 (2019)

    2019

  45. [54]

    A. L. Goodman, Nuclear Physics A 352, 30 (1981)

    1981

  46. [55]

    Lalazissis, S

    G. Lalazissis, S. Karatzikos, R. Fossion, D. P. Arteaga, A. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B 671, 36 (2009)

    2009

  47. [56]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997)

    1997

  48. [57]

    Y¨ uksel, E

    E. Y¨ uksel, E. Khan, K. Bozkurt, and G. Col` o, The European Physical Journal A 50, 1 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    Sommermann, Annals of Physics 151, 163 (1983)

    H. Sommermann, Annals of Physics 151, 163 (1983)

    1983

  50. [59]

    N. Paar, P. Ring, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034312 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.