Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The BPS Skyrme model predicts electromagnetic and neutral-current form factors for heavy nuclei from a single fitted radius, matching data up to ~150 MeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:25 UTC pith:6CRTVT6P

load-bearing objection A transparent one-parameter BPS Skyrme form factor for heavy nuclei, but the agreement claims need numbers before they convince. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.25841 v2 pith:6CRTVT6P submitted 2025-10-29 nucl-th hep-phhep-th

Electroweak form factors of large nuclei as BPS skyrmions

Alberte Xos\'e L\'opez Freire , Christoph Adam , Alberto Garc\'ia Mart\'in-Caro , Diego Gonz\'alez D\'iaz This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phhep-th
keywords BPS Skyrme modelelectroweak form factorsneutral currentcharge densitytopological solitonsnuclear structurecoherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatteringparity-violating electron scattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that a single global radial parameter, fixed by nuclear masses and charge radii, is enough to reproduce both electromagnetic and weak neutral form factors for heavy nuclei. Using the BPS Skyrme model—a topological field theory where nuclei are solitons—the authors derive analytic formulas for these form factors. They report agreement with electron scattering data up to ~150 MeV and find their weak form factor for 208Pb and 48Ca closer to recent parity-violating electron scattering results than the widely used Klein-Nystrand model. If correct, this would give precision experiments like CEνNS a simple, parameter-light way to estimate nuclear form factors and control model-dependent systematics.

Core claim

The central claim is that the BPS Skyrme model, with only two parameters λ and µ that combine into one radial scale R_B, furnishes a single analytic expression for the electromagnetic and neutral-current form factors of any heavy nucleus. From the rigid-rotor quantization of the BPS skyrmion, the vector current expectation value takes a simple algebraic form proportional to (B0)^2; combined with the baryon density B0, this yields closed-form moments of the charge distributions. Fourier transforming these moments gives a Taylor series for the weak form factor valid to at least n=10 in the low-q region. The model predicts electromagnetic form factors that match data for a range of medium to la

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the BPS Skyrme submodel with pion-mass potential, whose static solution is an exact compacton: ξ(r)=2 arccos(r/R_B) for r<R_B and zero otherwise. Rigid-rotor quantization introduces spin and isospin, giving the vector current operator ⟨Ĵ^0_3,V⟩ as a known expression proportional to r^2(B0)^2. Because the axial-vector current vanishes for 0+→0+ transitions, the electromagnetic and neutral-current densities become linear combinations of the baryon density B0 and this vector current term. The resulting densities have moments that factor into gamma functions, so the form factor reduces to an analytic power series in q^2 with coefficients determined by B, i_3, and R_B.

Load-bearing premise

The paper sets the axial-vector current expectation value to zero at all momentum transfers, relying on its exact cancellation only for 0+→0+ transitions at q=0; if a nonzero F_A(q) appears at the finite q of the CREX data, the claimed neutral-current agreement for 48Ca would not follow from the model.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the axial-vector weak form factor F_A(q) for 48Ca at the CREX point q≈172 MeV (e.g., from a first-principles nuclear calculation including meson-exchange currents). If F_A(q) is not negligible compared to the vector contribution at that momentum transfer, the paper's neutral-current form factor for 48Ca is incomplete, and the reported agreement would be coincidental.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single fitted R_B suffices to predict electron and neutrino scattering form factors for all heavy nuclei, reducing the model space that must be scanned in CEνNS analyses.
  • The analytic moment formula allows direct uncertainty propagation from R_B to the weak form factor, providing a simple systematic budget for PVES extractions of neutron radii.
  • The better-than-KN agreement on 208Pb and 48Ca suggests the procedure could replace the Klein-Nystrand or Helm forms as a default reference in coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering detectors.
  • If the form factors are robust, the BPS Skyrme model becomes a viable bridge between nuclear structure observables and beyond-Standard-Model searches that depend on accurate weak couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: Because the model's densities are exactly spherically symmetric after the large-B approximation, the form factors are pure functions of q^2 with no directional dependence. Any measured deviation from this isotropy would be a direct test of the axially-symmetric ansatz, not just of the BPS approximation.
  • Editorial inference: The analytic form permits immediate extension to other nuclei with measured charge radii, such as 132Xe or 184W, allowing theorists to generate ready-made weak form factors for future CEνNS experiments without new fits.
  • Editorial inference: The compacton boundary at r=R_B imposes a hard cutoff on the charge density. A smoother density tail, as in real nuclei, could be mimicked by a different potential V(ξ); comparing form factors from several potentials with the same R_B would quantify the model's residual shape dependence.
  • Editorial inference: Because the weak form factor is linear in the isospin i_3, the model gives an explicit prediction for the slope of F_NC with neutron excess. This could be tested by measuring the weak form factor of isotopes like 40Ca vs 48Ca at the same momentum transfer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a calculation of electromagnetic and neutral-current form factors of heavy nuclei in the BPS Skyrme model with the pion-mass potential. Using the exact compacton solution, the authors derive analytic expressions for the charge densities and form-factor moments. Two couplings λ and μ are fitted to nuclear masses and charge radii (Appendix A), yielding a single global radial parameter R_B = 1.36 B^{1/3} fm. The model is compared with EM form-factor data for several nuclei up to q ~ 150 MeV and with PREX/CREX neutral-current data for 208Pb and 48Ca, claiming excellent agreement and superiority over the Klein-Nystrand model. An analytic Taylor expansion of the NC form factor is also presented.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are substantiated, the paper would provide an extremely simple one-parameter description of electroweak form factors for heavy nuclei, with immediate applications to CEνNS and PVES systematics. The analytic moment formulas (Eqs. (25)-(26)) are a useful and original contribution, and the derivation is internally consistent. However, the current evidence is primarily visual, and the predictive power beyond the fitted radius remains to be quantified. The paper offers a fresh and worthwhile alternative to phenomenological models, but the claims as stated are premature without statistical validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1, Conclusions] The central claim of 'excellent agreement' with EM form-factor data up to ~150 MeV is supported only by visual inspection. No chi-square, residuals, or experimental uncertainties are reported. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., reduced chi-square over the quoted q range for each nucleus in Fig. 1, and for the NC data points in Fig. 2 with the KN model). Without this, the headline claim is not established.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (27), Eq. (21)] Because R_B is fitted to the charge radii of the same nuclei, the low-q behavior (q < ~150 MeV, below the first diffraction minimum) is dominated by the fitted RMS radius; the q^2 term is essentially fixed by the fit. To support the claim of a predicted density shape, the paper should quantify how well the higher moments (e.g., the fourth moment implicit in the compacton profile) are constrained by the data, e.g., by reporting residuals separately for the q^2 and q^4 terms, or by comparing the compacton shape with an alternative shape at the same fitted radius.
  3. [Fig. 2, Conclusions] The claimed superiority over the Klein-Nystrand model is not quantified. The KN parameters are not specified, the comparison is qualitative, and no uncertainties are shown. Please give the KN model parameters used, the data points with errors, and the resulting chi-square for both models (at least at the PREX/CREX q values).
  4. [Eq. (21), Fig. 2] The Taylor series truncated at n=10 is stated to show 'very good agreement' in the region considered, but no numerical comparison with the exact integral is provided. Since this power series is one of the main analytic results, please quantify the truncation error over the relevant q range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The notation for R_B is ambiguous in the typeset version ('R_B = √2 3√B λ/μ'); please write it as R_B = sqrt(2) (λ/μ)^{1/3} B^{1/3} to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The approximation of spherical symmetry should be justified more explicitly. The angular dependence in Eq. (16) is O(1/B^2), but a quantitative estimate of the resulting error in F(q) would strengthen the presentation.
  3. [Table I] Experimental uncertainties on R and m are not given. Including them is important for assessing the fit and for propagating parameter uncertainties to the form factors.
  4. [Page 4, before Eq. (18)] The statement that ⟨J^0_{3,A}⟩=0 for the axially symmetric ansatz is a parity selection rule for 0+→0+ transitions at all q. The paper could clarify this to avoid the impression that it is a finite-q approximation.
  5. [Figs. 1 and 2] The experimental crosses and dashed lines are not described with error bars or references to the original data tables beyond the parametrization of Ref. [62]. Please clarify the data sources and include uncertainties where available.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; only the low-q form-factor slope is anchored in the fitted global radius, while shape, scaling, and NC comparisons remain genuine predictions.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Conclusions / Eq. (27) / Fig. 1 / Appendix A]
    "Finally, RB depends on the values for the free parameters λ and µ, which are fitted to nuclear masses and radii (see Sec. A). ... FIG. 1: Electromagnetic form factors for different nuclei. Solid lines represent the prediction of the BPS model, while the crosses correspond to the experimental parametrization of [62]."

    Eq. (A2) fixes λ/μ — hence the single scale RB — by least-squares fitting the BPS root-mean-square charge radius to the charge radii of the very nuclei whose form factors are later shown. For any normalized form factor, F(q)=1−<r²>q²/6+O(q⁴), so the leading low-q slope is identical to the fitted radius, and agreement below the first diffraction minimum is partly a return of the fit, not an independent test. The higher moments, the B^{1/3} scaling across nuclei, and the i3-dependent neutral-current form factor are not fit parameters and retain genuine predictive content.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the compacton solution, rigid-rotor quantization, and the vector-current expectation value (taken from the authors' earlier paper [50]) lead to explicit analytic form factors without assuming the experimental form-factor data. Self-citations such as [50] are concrete operator calculations, not uniqueness claims, and they do not smuggle in the target comparison. The vanishing axial-vector contribution is a parity/rotational selection rule rather than a finite-q approximation, so it is not a circular loophole. The only respect in which the result reduces to its input is the leading radial moment: since RB is fitted to charge radii, the q² coefficient of F_EM and F_NC is fixed by construction. Thus low-q 'excellent agreement' is partially an echo of the fit, although the full shape, B-scaling, and PREX/CREX comparisons are not. The absence of reported residuals or chi-square values is a verification weakness rather than evidence of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model carries two fitted couplings and several modeling assumptions; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda = 6.6080 MeV^{1/2} fm^{3/2}
    Skyrme sextic coupling; fitted via least-squares to masses and RMS charge radii of 19 nuclei (Table I).
  • mu = 7.4323 MeV^{1/2} fm^{-3/2}
    Potential coupling; fitted together with lambda to masses and charge radii.
  • R_B (derived compacton radius) = 1.3599 B^{1/3} fm
    Not an independent fit; derived from lambda/mu. The single global radial scale that enters the form factors.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The BPS Skyrme model L_BPS = L_0 + L_6 describes heavy nuclei as topological solitons.
    The entire calculation operates within this effective model; its nuclear-physics validity is the point of the paper.
  • domain assumption Semi-classical rigid-rotor quantization with states |i i3 k3> x |j j3 l3> correctly captures spin/isospin quantum numbers of nuclei.
    Standard Skyrme-model procedure used to obtain Z and N from isospin (2 i3 = Z - N).
  • domain assumption The axial-vector current expectation value vanishes for the axially symmetric ansatz (<J^0_{3,A}>=0).
    Invoked after eq. (16) to simplify eq. (19); true for 0+ -> 0+ at q=0, but assumed for all q considered (up to ~172 MeV).
  • domain assumption The charge density is spherically symmetric: (B^2 + cos^2 theta)/(3B^2 + 1) ~ 1/3.
    Used to compute form factors from the spherically averaged density; excellent for B>=48 but an approximation.
  • standard math The compacton solution xi(r) = 2 arccos(r/R_B) saturates the BPS bound and gives the classical density.
    Derived from the BPS equation for V = 1 - cos xi; standard result for this potential.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9898 in / 30500 out tokens · 270199 ms · 2026-08-04T07:25:56.307080+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We employ the Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) Skyrme model within the framework of semi-classical quantization as an effective model to compute both the electromagnetic and neutral current form factors for heavy nuclei. Our results show excellent agreement with the experimental data for low- to moderate momentum transfer. Further, we present an analytic expression of the neutral current form factor for generic nuclei, expressed as a power series in the momentum transfer. Our method provides an alternative to existing phenomenological approaches which, after fitting just one global radial parameter, allows for a surprisingly precise determination of the electroweak form factors at low momentum transfer for all heavy nuclei. Such a simple and robust description is particularly relevant for precision neutrino experiments, because it allows for a certain control over model-dependent systematics, which is essential for probing physics beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25841 by Alberte Xos\'e L\'opez Freire, Alberto Garc\'ia Mart\'in-Caro, Christoph Adam, Diego Gonz\'alez D\'iaz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Electromagnetic form factors for different nuclei. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Neutral current form factors for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Nuclear mass and charge radius experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mass radius and D-term of atomic nuclei in relativistic mean field theory

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    D-term of nuclei exhibits kinks at magic neutron numbers, showing strong sensitivity of mechanical properties to shell structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Thiel, C

    M. Thiel, C. Sfienti, J. Piekarewicz, C. J. Horowitz, and M. Vanderhaeghen, J. Phys. G46, 093003 (2019), arXiv:1904.12269 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Further, I3 is the 3-3 component of the isospin moment-of-inertia ten- sor, which is the integral of a known expression ofξ (given in (9)) and its derivative ξr. For our choice of potential, the integral is analytic and given by: I3 = 64π 105 µ2 B2R5 B.(17) In principle, we are still missing the expectation value of the axial-vector current operator. Howe...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Barranco, O

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, JHEP 12, 021 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Dutta, S

    B. Dutta, S. Liao, S. Sinha, and L. E. Strigari, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 061801 (2019), arXiv:1903.10666 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Tamiiet al., Phys

    A. Tamiiet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062502 (2011), arXiv:1104.5431 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Hashimotoet al., Phys

    T. Hashimotoet al., Phys. Rev. C92, 031305 (2015), arXiv:1503.08321 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    C. Y. Prescottet al., Phys. Lett. B77, 347 (1978)

    1978

  9. [9]

    Souder and K

    P. Souder and K. D. Paschke, Front. Phys. (Beijing)11, 111301 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974)

    1974

  11. [11]

    Ciuffoli, J

    E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin, Q. Fu, and J. Tang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 113003 (2018), arXiv:1801.02166 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    L. A. Rusoet al., (2022), 10.1088/1361-6471/adae26, arXiv:2203.09030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. D100, 115020 (2019), arXiv:1909.05913 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), (2024), arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    S. Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), (2024), arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Abrahamyanet al., Phys

    S. Abrahamyanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 112502 (2012), arXiv:1201.2568 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Adhikariet al.(CREX), Phys

    D. Adhikariet al.(CREX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042501 (2022), arXiv:2205.11593 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Ackermannet al.(CONUS), Phys

    N. Ackermannet al.(CONUS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251802 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 033004 (2020), arXiv:1908.06045 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    D. K. Papoulias, T. S. Kosmas, R. Sahu, V. K. B. Kota, and M. Hota, Phys. Lett. B800, 135133 (2020), arXiv:1903.03722 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Klein and J

    S. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C60, 014903 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    R. H. Helm, Phys. Rev.104, 1466 (1956)

    1956

  23. [23]

    Baxteret al., JHEP02, 123 (2020), arXiv:1911.00762 [physics.ins-det]

    D. Baxteret al., JHEP02, 123 (2020), arXiv:1911.00762 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Patton, J

    K. Patton, J. Engel, G. C. McLaughlin, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. C86, 024612 (2012), arXiv:1207.0693 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    J. Yang, J. A. Hernandez, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C100, 054301 (2019), arXiv:1908.10939 [nucl-th]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    C. G. Payne, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, W. Jiang, and T. Papen- brock, Phys. Rev. C100, 061304 (2019), arXiv:1908.09739 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Abdel Khaleq, J

    R. Abdel Khaleq, J. L. Newstead, C. Simenel, and A. E. Stuchbery, Phys. Rev. D111, 033003 (2025), arXiv:2405.20060 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    G. Co’, M. Anguiano, and A. M. Lallena, JCAP04, 044 (2020), arXiv:2001.04684 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Tomalak, P

    O. Tomalak, P. Machado, V. Pandey, and R. Plestid, JHEP02, 097 (2021), arXiv:2011.05960 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Skyrme, Proc

    T. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A260, 127 (1961)

    1961

  32. [32]

    Manton,Skyrmions – A Theory of Nuclei(World Scientific, 2022)

    N. Manton,Skyrmions – A Theory of Nuclei(World Scientific, 2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, and E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B228, 552 (1983)

    1983

  34. [34]

    G. S. Adkins and C. R. Nappi, Nuclear Physics B233, 109 (1984)

    1984

  35. [35]

    Carson, Nucl

    L. Carson, Nucl. Phys. A535, 479 (1991)

    1991

  36. [36]

    R. A. Battye, N. S. Manton, P. M. Sutcliffe, and S. W. Wood, Physical Review C80, 034323 (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys.5, 1252 (1964)

    1964

  38. [38]

    Jackson, A

    A. Jackson, A. D. Jackson, A. S. Goldhaber, G. E. Brown, and L. C. Castillejo, Phys. Lett. B154, 101 (1985)

    1985

  39. [39]

    Naya and P

    C. Naya and P. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 232002 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Harland, P

    D. Harland, P. Leask, and M. Speight, JHEP06, 116 (2024), arXiv:2404.11287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Huidobro, P

    M. Huidobro, P. Leask, C. Naya, and A. Wereszczynski, JHEP01, 048 (2025), arXiv:2405.20757 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    P. H. C. Lau and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 232503 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    C. J. Halcrow, C. King, and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. C95, 031303 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    C. Adam, A. Garcia Martin-Caro, M. Huidobro, and A. Wereszczynski, Symmetry15, 899 (2023), arXiv:2305.06639 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    C. Adam, A. Garc´ ıa Mart´ ın-Caro, M. Huidobro, R. V´ azquez, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Lett. B811, 135928 (2020), arXiv:2006.07983 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    C. Adam, M. Haberichter, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. C92, 055807 (2015), arXiv:1509.04795 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    C. Adam, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Lett. B691, 105 (2010), arXiv:1001.4544 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    C. Adam, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. D82, 085015 (2010), arXiv:1007.1567 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    L. D. Faddeev, Lett. Math. Phys.1, 289 (1976)

    1976

  50. [50]

    Adam and A

    C. Adam and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. D89, 065010 (2014), arXiv:1311.2939 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    C. Adam, C. Naya, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232501 (2013), arXiv:1312.2960 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Braaten and L

    E. Braaten and L. Carson, Phys. Rev. D39, 838 (1989)

    1989

  53. [53]

    Braaten, S.-M

    E. Braaten, S.-M. Tse, and C. Willcox, Phys. Rev. D34, 1482 (1986)

    1986

  54. [54]

    Karliner, C

    M. Karliner, C. King, and N. S. Manton, J. Phys. G43, 055104 (2016), arXiv:1510.00280 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Garc´ ıa Mart´ ın-Caro and C

    A. Garc´ ıa Mart´ ın-Caro and C. Halcrow, (2023), arXiv:2312.04335 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Cebulla, K

    C. Cebulla, K. Goeke, J. Ossmann, and P. Schweitzer, Nucl. Phys. A794, 87 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    Garcia Martin-Caro, M

    A. Garcia Martin-Caro, M. Huidobro, and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D108, 034014 (2023), arXiv:2304.05994 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Garc´ ıa Mart´ ın-Caro, M

    A. Garc´ ıa Mart´ ın-Caro, M. Huidobro, and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D110, 034002 (2024), arXiv:2312.12984 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 025002 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B239, 161 (1984)

    1984

  61. [61]

    Naya Rodr´ ıguez, Ph.D

    C. Naya Rodr´ ıguez, Ph.D. thesis, U. Santiago de Com- postela (main) (2015)

    2015

  62. [62]

    Giomataris and J

    Y. Giomataris and J. D. Vergados, Phys. Lett. B634, 23 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0503029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  63. [63]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. W. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  64. [64]

    C. J. Horowitzet al., Phys. Rev. C85, 032501 (2012), arXiv:1202.1468 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    Adhikariet al.(PREX), Phys

    D. Adhikariet al.(PREX), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021), arXiv:2102.10767 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    International atomic energy agency nuclear data services,

    IAEA, “International atomic energy agency nuclear data services,” (2025). Appendix A: Fitting the free parameters To fix the parameter values of λ and µ from the BPS lagrangian density, we fitted the classical skyrmion energy, EBPS = 64 √ 2π 15 µλB,(A1) and the root-mean-square charge radii of the BPS skyrmions, √ ⟨r2⟩= √∫ r2⟨J 0 EM⟩dV∫ ⟨J 0 EM⟩dV = 1 3 (...

    2025