Uncovering the nature of low-lying dipole states with QRPA calculations: is Z=42 the answer?

Aaina Thapa; Emanuel Chimanski; Eun Jin In; Jutta Escher; Sophie P\'eru; Walid Younes

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Uncovering the nature of low-lying dipole states with QRPA calculations: is Z=42 the answer?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the low-energy dipole enhancement in molybdenum isotopes is not a single collective pygmy resonance but a mix of two distinct types of states: moderately collective skin oscillations and one more GDR-like peak.

desk verdict A solid forward HFB+QRPA study of low-energy dipole states in Mo isotopes with a plausible skin-oscillation interpretation, but the collectivity metric's basis-size dependence is not checked, so the central claim stays conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23244 v1 pith:DSZVHQQN submitted 2025-07-31 nucl-th

Eun Jin In , Emanuel Chimanski , Jutta Escher , Sophie Péru , Aaina Thapa , Walid Younes This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.Jz

keywords pygmydipoleresonancequasiparticlerandomphaseapproximationHartree-Fock-BogoliubovGognyD1Mneutronskinprotontransitiondensitiesnuclearcollectivity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the long-debated pygmy dipole resonance in molybdenum isotopes is not a single collective vibration. Using a fully consistent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov plus quasiparticle random phase approximation with the Gogny D1M interaction, the authors separate the low-energy electric dipole enhancement into two classes: skin oscillation states, in which the neutron or proton skin moves against an in-phase core, and a single major low-energy peak whose transition density resembles the giant dipole resonance. They conclude that the skin oscillation states are only moderately collective, with substantial configuration mixing but limited coherence, while the GDR states are strongly coherent. The work matters because it gives a microscopic picture of where the enhancement comes from and ties its size to whether a neutron or proton skin develops.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QRPA excited-state wave function built on HFB ground states in an 11-oscillator-shell basis, with the same Gogny D1M force used in both steps. Two diagnostics carry the argument: the radial neutron and proton transition densities $\delta\rho_n(r)$ and $\delta\rho_p(r)$, which classify each state as in-phase/isoscalar, surface-dominated skin oscillation, or out-of-phase/isovector GDR-like; and the pair of coherence measures consisting of the fragmentation number $N^* = \sum_{2qp}\Theta(a^{w}_{2qp}-1/N_{2qp})$ and the relative energy shift $\delta E/\langle E_{2qp}\rangle$, which together separate having many configurations from having coherent motion.

What would settle it

Measure the E1 strength function in 82–98Mo with resolution sufficient to resolve individual low-energy states, for example through high-resolution (γ,γ′) or (p,p′) experiments, and compare the number and B(E1) values of transitions in the 8–16 MeV window: if the observed fragmentation is far denser than the few dominant QRPA states, or if the energy centroids do not follow the predicted skin-correlation trend, the two-quasiparticle-only picture is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the spherical even-even molybdenum isotopes 82Mo to 98Mo, the enhancement of E1 strength near the neutron separation energy is correlated with the development of a neutron skin (92–98Mo) or a proton skin (82–88Mo). Radial transition densities show that inside the nucleus proton and neutron densities oscillate in phase, while beyond the surface one nucleon species dominates, matching the skin type. The states carrying this surface oscillation have fragmentation numbers comparable to the GDR, but small relative energy shifts and suppressed B(E1) values because their isoscalar character causes partial cancellations. The single strongest low-energy peak, by contrast, shows a GDR-like out-of-phase pattern. The central claim is that the low-energy dipole response in Mo is a mixture of moderately collective skin oscillations and one more GDR-like peak, not a single coherent pygmy mode.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumption that the restriction to two-quasiparticle excitations, with no coupling to more complicated configurations, is enough to capture the fragmentation and coherence of these low-energy dipole states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In 92–98Mo the skin-oscillation contribution to the 8–16 MeV EWSR grows as the neutron skin thickens; in 84–90Mo, where a proton skin develops, it is nearly absent, and the enhancement is dominated by the single major PDR peak.
Skin oscillation states will not behave like textbook collective modes in reactions: their isoscalar-dominated transition densities suppress B(E1), so experimental signatures should appear mainly in isoscalar probes such as (α,α′γ) rather than in photoabsorption alone.
The average energy of the low-energy states lies below the neutron separation energy for proton-skin isotopes and above it for neutron-skin isotopes, so the location of the enhancement relative to threshold is skin-driven rather than universal.
If the major PDR peak is removed from the E1 response, the remaining low-energy enhancement almost disappears for 84–90Mo, meaning that for those isotopes the PDR label applies to a single state rather than to a resonance-like accumulation.
The GDR-like major peak and the skin oscillation states respond differently to the dipole operator, so total B(E1) alone cannot be used as a clean measure of pygmy collectivity.

Reading between the lines

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

If this decomposition survives comparison with data, it suggests that energy-density-functional estimates of the symmetry energy from low-energy E1 strength should focus on the skin-oscillation component rather than the total strength, since the major peak tracks a different mode.
The same transition-density classification could be applied to deformed nuclei by following the K-quantum number; shape deformation is expected to mix the isoscalar and isovector patterns and may split the single major peak into a fragmented multiplet, a testable prediction.
Because transition densities feed reaction calculations, the densities produced here could be used to predict (p,p′) or (α,α′) cross sections for 82–98Mo, providing an independent test of the skin-oscillation versus GDR-like assignment that does not rely on B(E1) alone.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a clean, internally consistent QRPA calculation. The authors take Gogny D1M, build HFB ground states, run fully consistent QRPA, and analyze transition densities across a whole chain of spherical Mo isotopes from 82 to 98. That systematic span, including the proton-rich side where proton skins appear, is genuinely new and useful. They do not tune anything to the dipole response, which keeps the calculation honest. The EWSR fractions are given, the qualitative correlation between skin thickness and low-energy strength is clearly shown, and the transition-density decomposition into skin-oscillation states versus a major PDR peak is a reasonable way to organize the results. Credit is due for stating the 2qp limitation up front and for making the formulas for the collectivity metrics explicit.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The most important one is precisely the stress-test concern: the fragmentation number N* in Eq. (13) depends explicitly on N2qp, which grows with the number of oscillator shells. The paper checks HFB energy convergence with n=10 versus n=16, but never checks whether the QRPA spectrum, B(E1) distributions, N*, the ratio R, or the energy shifts are converged with basis size. Since the headline distinction between "moderate collectivity" in skin states and "strong coherence" in the GDR rests on those metrics, an actual basis-size test is needed. The 2qp truncation is the other obvious caveat; the authors admit it, and the literature suggests phonon coupling can change fragmentation patterns. The 8–16 MeV window is somewhat arbitrary, though the EWSR argument gives it some support. I also note there is no quantitative comparison to experimental Mo data, which would help anchor the interpretation.

None of this sinks the paper. The central claim is plausible and conditionally stated. A serious referee should ask for QRPA-level convergence checks and, ideally, a comparison with available (gamma,xn) or NRF data. The paper is worth engaging with, especially for people working on PDR structure or needing transition densities for reaction calculations. I would send it to review, and I would cite it as a reference calculation for Mo isotopes, though I would not rely on the collectivity classification until the convergence question is settled.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents fully consistent HFB+QRPA calculations with the Gogny D1M interaction for the electric and isoscalar dipole responses of the spherical even-even molybdenum isotopes 82Mo to 98Mo. It reports a low-energy dipole enhancement that correlates with the development of neutron or proton skins, and decomposes the enhancement into skin-oscillation states and a major PDR peak on the basis of radial transition densities. The collectivity of these states is quantified through a fragmentation number N* (Eq. 13), a relative fragmentation ratio R = N*_P/N*_G, and energy shifts delta E (Eq. 14), leading to the central claim that skin-oscillation states show moderate collectivity with substantial configuration mixing but limited coherence, whereas GDR states show strong coherence and large energy shifts.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a useful systematic survey of dipole excitations across a long isotopic chain, including proton-rich and neutron-rich sides, using a forward calculation in which the Gogny D1M interaction is taken from earlier work and not adjusted to the Mo dipole response. The fully consistent HFB+QRPA setup, the inclusion of all 2qp configurations without an energy cutoff, the explicit formulas for transition densities, and the study of HFB basis convergence are strengths. The decomposition into skin-oscillation and major-PDR states, together with quantitative collectivity indicators, is of interest for ongoing debates about the nature of the PDR. However, the central collectivity conclusion rests on quantities whose basis-size convergence is not demonstrated; this is the main gap that needs to be addressed.

major comments (3)

[Section II.D, Eq. (13), and Section III.D] The basis-size convergence of the collectivity metrics is not established. The convergence study in Section II.D (Table I, Fig. 1) is performed only at the HFB level, showing that the HFB energy for n=10 differs from n=16 by less than 0.2%. However, Eq. (13) defines N* by counting 2qp configurations with a_w_2qp above the threshold 1/N2qp, and N2qp depends explicitly on the number of major oscillator shells (N2qp = 12152 for K^pi = 0^- at n=10). Increasing the basis to n=12 or n=14 enlarges N2qp, lowers the threshold, and can change N* for skin-oscillation states, major PDR peaks, and the GDR reference in different ways. Since the ratio R = N*_P/N*_G and the energy shifts delta E are the quantitative basis for the claim of moderate collectivity in Section III.D, the absence of QRPA-level convergence tests for B(E1), transition densities, N*, R, and delta E leaves open the possibility that the central distinction is an artifact of the n=10 cutoff. I request such tests for representative isotopes (at least 82Mo and 94Mo) or a demonstration that R and delta E are stable under basis enlargement.
[Section III.C and Fig. 5] The identification of 'skin oscillation states' is not defined by a quantitative criterion. The paper selects representative states by visual inspection of their transition densities, but Figs. 4(c), 6, and 7 aggregate over all skin-oscillation states. It is not stated how many states are classified in this way, what threshold for surface neutron or proton dominance is used, or whether the classification is stable under small changes in the energy window (8-16 MeV) or in the smoothing procedure. Since the decomposition of the low-energy enhancement into skin-oscillation and major-PDR contributions underlies Fig. 4(c) and the subsequent collectivity analysis, a precise, reproducible selection criterion is needed, together with a check of robustness against reasonable variations of that criterion.
[Section II.A and Section IV] The paper explicitly restricts the excitation space to 2qp configurations ('Excitations beyond 2qp configurations are not considered'), and the conclusion about moderate collectivity is therefore a statement about the QRPA 2qp space. This is acknowledged in the methods, but the abstract and conclusion present the finding without this qualifier. Given the literature cited in the introduction showing that phonon coupling can change the fragmentation and collectivity of PDR states, I recommend that the conclusion be framed as a QRPA-level result and that the possible impact of beyond-QRPA correlations be stated explicitly as a limitation.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (14) and surrounding text] The energy shift is defined as delta E_w = E_w - sum_mu E_mu |a_mu|, but the weights |a_mu| are not normalized to unity because Eq. (12) normalizes the signed sum of a_mu to 1. Using |a_mu| / sum_mu |a_mu| in Eq. (14) would make delta E independent of the arbitrary overall normalization of the amplitudes.
[Section III.B] The choice of 16 MeV as the upper boundary of the low-energy dipole region is motivated by the EWSR fractions, but the paper does not discuss how the main conclusions would change if a different cutoff, for example one tied to the experimental PDR region around 6-10 MeV in 94Mo, were adopted. A short robustness statement would be helpful.
[General] There are several language issues, for example 'This results correlates' in Section III.D and 'the feature discussed here indicate' in Section IV. The text would benefit from a careful proofread.
[Fig. 3] The caption mentions 'gray lines' for the discrete spectra, but the gray lines are not clearly visible in the figure. Please check the visibility and clarify the description of the discrete spectra.
[Section III.D] The paper does not report quantitative comparisons with experimental data for the dipole strength in Mo isotopes, despite citing experimental work on 94Mo and other isotopes. A comparison of the calculated B(E1) distributions or gamma-strength functions with at least one measured case would strengthen the credibility of the predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the HFB+QRPA calculation is a forward, parameter-free computation from the fixed Gogny D1M interaction, and the collectivity diagnostics are explicitly defined measures rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and contains no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs. The Gogny D1M interaction is taken from earlier external literature (Refs. [36,37]) and is not adjusted to reproduce the Mo dipole response, so the QRPA spectra, transition densities, B(E1) values, and energy shifts are forward outputs of a fully consistent HFB+QRPA calculation. The collectivity quantifiers, N* in Eq. (13) and delta-E in Eq. (14), are explicitly defined diagnostics computed from the QRPA wave functions; the conclusion that skin oscillation states show 'substantial configuration mixing, but limited coherence' is an interpretation of those computed measures, not a quantity fitted to them. The classification of skin oscillation states is based on the calculated radial transition densities, and although the label is correlated with the ground-state skin type, the paper acknowledges an explicit counterexample (86Mo), showing the classification is not merely a restatement of the skin thickness. Several cited works share authors with the present paper (Refs. [35,42,46,49]), but these citations support standard method descriptions or definitions that are also stated in the text, and no load-bearing premise depends uniquely on an unverified self-citation. The stated modeling limitations, namely the restriction to 2qp configurations and the n=10 oscillator basis, are input assumptions rather than circular conclusions; their possible effect on convergence of N*, R, or delta-E is a robustness concern, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The model is a standard microscopic theory with no new entities. The free parameters are the interaction parameters and the energy window, both taken from earlier work or chosen by the authors. The main axioms are the QRPA truncation and the spherical symmetry. These are reasonable but not derived within the paper.

free parameters (3)

Gogny D1M interaction parameters = not quoted (fixed from Goriely et al. 2009)
The interaction is a phenomenological effective interaction with parameters fitted to nuclear masses and other properties; it is not derived from first principles. The paper uses it as input and does not fit it here, but the results depend on this choice.
Energy window for 'PDR region' (8-16 MeV) = 8-16 MeV
The upper boundary is chosen as 16 MeV based on the EWSR fraction (40-50% below 18 MeV, 3-8% below 17 MeV, 3-6% below 16 MeV) and the Sn threshold. This is an ad hoc choice for the region of interest, not a parameter fitted to the data, but it affects the classification and the EWSR fractions quoted.
Lorentzian smoothing width = 1 MeV
The discrete spectra are smoothed with a Lorentzian of width 1 MeV for plotting purposes; this width is chosen arbitrarily and affects the visual identification of peaks, but not the underlying QRPA states.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption HFB+QRPA with 2qp truncation is a valid approximation for these low-energy states.
The paper states 'Excitations beyond 2qp configurations are not considered.' This is a truncation of the full Hilbert space. It is known in the field that including phonon coupling can change the fragmentation and collectivity of pygmy states. The correctness of the central claim depends on this approximation.
domain assumption The Gogny D1M interaction provides a realistic description of Mo isotopes.
The authors choose D1M for its accuracy in masses and neutron-rich nuclei. The results (skin thickness, dipole response) are conditional on this interaction. The paper cites its successful use in earlier work but does not validate it against specific Mo data.
domain assumption Spherical symmetry is imposed.
The authors state 'the calculations for even-even nuclei with particle number constraints assume axial symmetry of the nucleus and impose time-reversal invariance' and later that the isotopes are spherical (beta2=0). This is justified by the HFB results, but the process of selecting spherical minima is not elaborated. The QRPA is then performed in the spherical limit, which is a standard approximation.
standard math The quasi-boson approximation (QBA) is valid.
Equation (9) uses the QBA to evaluate the transition density. This is a standard approximation in QRPA. Its validity is assumed without specific checks for these nuclei.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncovering the nature of low-lying dipole states with QRPA calculations: is Z=42 the answer?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSZVHQQN

@misc{pith2026250723244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncovering the nature of low-lying dipole states with QRPA calculations: is Z=42 the answer?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSZVHQQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23244}
}

abstract

The pygmy dipole resonance (PDR), marked by enhanced electric dipole strength near particle emission energies, offers a unique perspective on the collective dynamics of nuclear structure. Its precise nature, particularly its degree of collectivity, remains a topic of debate. In this study, we investigate low-energy dipole excitations in spherical Mo isotopes ($^{82}$Mo to $^{98}$Mo) using a fully consistent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) and quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA) framework. We observe that an enhancement in dipole strength near particle emission energies is closely correlated with the development of either neutron or proton skins. To further understand the nature of this enhancement, we examine the behavior of proton and neutron transition densities. Our analysis shows that these (low-lying dipole) states exhibit distinct characteristics involving in-phase oscillations within the nucleus and neutron- or proton-dominated oscillations at the surface, while the primary contributor to this enhancement displays an intricate underlying structure. We also investigate the collectivity of these excitations by analyzing two-quasiparticle fragmentations and relative energy shifts. Our findings reveal that skin oscillation states exhibit moderate collectivity, as indicated by substantial configuration mixing, but limited coherence, whereas the GDR states exhibit strong coherence and large energy shifts characteristic of fully developed collective motion. This study paves the way for future investigations into the collective nature of low-energy dipole states in the enhancement region, particularly in deformed nuclei, where nuclear shape effects may play a crucial role in their excitation dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23244 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Ground state spatial densities of neutrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Electric ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Radial transition densities for representative dipole states in Mo isotopes: (a) a low-energy state at 11.42 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Relative fragmentation ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, and G. Col` o, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 691 (2007)

work page 2007
[2]

Savran, T

D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 210 (2013)

work page 2013
[3]

Bracco, E

A. Bracco, E. Lanza, and A. Tamii, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 360 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Lanza, L

E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104006 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Piekarewicz, Phys

J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044325 (2006)

2006
[6]

Carbone, G

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

work page 2010
[7]

Goriely, Physics Letters B 436, 10 (1998)

S. Goriely, Physics Letters B 436, 10 (1998)

work page 1998
[8]

Goriely, E

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

work page 2004

Show all 50 references

[9]

Tonchev, N

A. Tonchev, N. Tsoneva, C. Bhatia, C. Arnold, S. Goriely, S. Hammond, J. Kelley, E. Kwan, H. Lenske, J. Piekarewicz, R. Raut, G. Rusev, T. Shizuma, and W. Tornow, Phys. Lett. B 773, 20 (2017)

2017
[10]

Adrich, A

P. Adrich, A. Klimkiewicz, M. Fallot, K. Boretzky, 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, Y. Leifels, C. Nociforo, R. Palit, H. Si- mon, G. Sur´ owka, K. S¨ ummerer, and W. Walu´ s (LA...

2005
[11]

B. A. Brown, A. Gade, S. R. Stroberg, J. E. Escher, K. Fossez, P. Giuliani, C. R. Hoffman, W. Nazarewicz, C.-Y. Seng, A. Sorensen, N. Vassh, D. Bazin, K. W. Brown, M. A. Caprio, H. Crawford, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, K. Godbey, R. Grzywacz, L. Hlophe, J....

2025
[12]

J. P. Adams, B. Castel, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1016 (1996)

1996
[13]

Catara, E

F. Catara, E. Lanza, M. Nagarajan, and A. Vitturi, Nucl. Phys. A 624, 449 (1997)

1997
[14]

E. G. Lanza, F. Catara, D. Gambacurta, M. Andr´ es, and P. Chomaz, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054615 (2009)

2009
[15]

E. G. Lanza, A. Vitturi, M. V. Andr´ es, F. Catara, and D. Gambacurta, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064602 (2011)

2011
[16]

Martini, S

M. Martini, S. P´ eru, and M. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034309 (2011)

2011
[17]

Tsoneva and H

N. Tsoneva and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024321 (2008)

2008
[18]

Vretenar, N

D. Vretenar, N. Paar, P. Ring, and G. Lalazissis, Phys. Rev. C 63, 047301 (2001)

2001
[19]

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

2005
[20]

Pe˜ na Arteaga, E

D. Pe˜ na Arteaga, E. Khan, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034311 (2009)

2009
[21]

Vretenar, N

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

2001
[22]

N. Paar, Y. F. Niu, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 032502 (2009)

2009
[23]

Col` o and P

G. Col` o and P. Bortignon, Nuclear Physics A 696, 427 (2001)

2001
[24]

N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 11 182501 (2005)

2005
[25]

N. Paar, P. Papakonstantinou, V. Ponomarev, and J. Wambach, Phys. Lett. B 624, 195 (2005)

2005
[26]

M. E. Wieser and J. R. D. Laeter, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055802 (2007)

2007
[27]

Stephan, R

T. Stephan, R. Trappitsch, P. Hoppe, A. M. Davis, M. J. Pellin, and O. S. Pardo, ApJ 877, 101 (2019)

2019
[28]

Rusev, E

G. Rusev, E. Grosse, M. Erhard, A. Junghans, K. Kosev, K. D. Schilling, R. Schwengner, and A. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. A 27, 171 (2006)

2006
[29]

Rusev, R

G. Rusev, R. Schwengner, R. Beyer, M. Erhard, E. Grosse, A. R. Junghans, K. Kosev, C. Nair, K. D. Schilling, A. Wagner, F. D¨ onau, and S. Frauendorf, Phys. Rev. C 79, 061302 (2009)

2009
[30]

Erhard, A

M. Erhard, A. R. Junghans, C. Nair, R. Schwengner, R. Beyer, J. Klug, K. Kosev, A. Wagner, and E. Grosse, Phys. Rev. C 81, 034319 (2010)

2010
[31]

Derya, J

V. Derya, J. Endres, M. Elvers, M. Harakeh, N. Pietralla, C. Romig, D. Savran, M. Scheck, F. Siebenh¨ uhner, V. Stoica, H. W¨ ortche, and A. Zilges, Nucl. Phys. A 906, 94 (2013)

2013
[32]

Romig, J

C. Romig, J. Beller, J. Glorius, J. Isaak, J. H. Kelley, E. Kwan, N. Pietralla, V. Y. Ponomarev, A. Sauerwein, D. Savran, M. Scheck, L. Schnorrenberger, K. Sonnabend, A. P. Tonchev, W. Tornow, H. R. Weller, A. Zilges, and M. Zweidinger, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044331 (2013)

2013
[33]

F. Heim, J. Mayer, M. M¨ uller, P. Scholz, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025805 (2021)

2021
[34]

Pascu, J

S. Pascu, J. Endres, N. V. Zamfir, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064315 (2012)

2012
[35]

E. J. In, E. Chimanski, J. Escher, S. P´ eru, A. Thapa, and W. Younes, EPJ Web Conf. 322, 04003 (2025)

2025
[36]

Decharg´ e and D

J. Decharg´ e and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C21, 1568 (1980)

1980
[37]

Goriely, S

S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, M. Girod, and S. P´ eru, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242501 (2009)

2009
[38]

P´ eru and M

S. P´ eru and M. Martini, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 88 (2014)

2014
[39]

Ring and P

P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, Texts and Monographs in Physics (Springer, New York, 1980)

1980
[40]

Younes and D

W. Younes and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054313 (2009)

2009
[41]

Younes, D

W. Younes, D. M. Gogny, and J.-F. Berger, A micro- scopic theory of fission dynamics based on the generator coordinate method, Vol. 950 (Springer, 2019)

2019
[42]

E. V. Chimanski, E. J. In, S. P´ eru, A. Thapa, W. Younes, and J. E. Escher, Phys. Rev. C 111, 054314 (2025)

2025
[43]

Bauge, J

E. Bauge, J. P. Delaroche, and M. Girod, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1118 (1998)

1998
[44]

Bauge, J

E. Bauge, J. P. Delaroche, and M. Girod, Phys. Rev. C 63, 024607 (2001)

2001
[45]

Dupuis, G

M. Dupuis, G. Haouat, J.-P. Delaroche, E. Bauge, and J. Lachkar, Phys. Rev. C 100, 044607 (2019)

2019
[46]

Thapa, J

A. Thapa, J. Escher, E. Chimanski, M. Dupuis, S. P´ eru, and W. Younes, EPJ Web Conf. 292, 06003 (2024)

2024
[47]

R. F. Casten, Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspec- tive; 1st ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1990)

1990
[48]

G. Co’, V. D. Donno, C. Maieron, M. Anguiano, and A. M. Lallena, Phys. Rev. C 80, 014308 (2009)

2009
[49]

E. V. Chimanski, B. V. Carlson, R. Capote, and A. J. Koning, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014305 (2019)

2019
[50]

Tsoneva, H

N. Tsoneva, H. Lenske, and C. Stoyanov, Physics Letters B 586, 213 (2004)

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, and G. Col` o, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 691 (2007)

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Savran, T

D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 210 (2013)

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Bracco, E

A. Bracco, E. Lanza, and A. Tamii, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 360 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Lanza, L

E. Lanza, L. Pellegri, A. Vitturi, and M. Andr´ es, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104006 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Piekarewicz, Phys

J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044325 (2006)

2006

[6] [6]

Carbone, G

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

work page 2010

[7] [7]

Goriely, Physics Letters B 436, 10 (1998)

S. Goriely, Physics Letters B 436, 10 (1998)

work page 1998

[8] [8]

Goriely, E

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

work page 2004