pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.12225 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-18 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Radiative strength functions from the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis

Oliver C. Gorton , Konstantinos Kravvaris , Jutta E. Escher , Calvin W. Johnson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords radiative strength functionsBrink-Axel hypothesisshell modelLanczos method56FeM1 transitionsE1 transitionsnuclear capture reactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

A shell-model Lanczos method with the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis computes radiative strength functions for nuclei such as 56Fe without added parameters.

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

The paper develops a definition of radiative strength functions that matches the requirements of Hauser-Feshbach statistical reaction codes and shows how to compute them from the nuclear shell model. It introduces a variant of the Lanczos strength-function technique that uses the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis to obtain both electric and magnetic dipole functions at all energies needed for capture reactions. For 56Fe the calculations find that the M1 strength function changes smoothly with excitation energy, that both M1 and E1 transitions matter below the photo-absorption threshold, and that the model space cannot fully account for the strength below 3 MeV reported in Oslo-type experiments. A reader would care because these functions control gamma-ray emission probabilities in nuclear reactions and therefore affect predictions for stellar nucleosynthesis and reactor physics.

Core claim

Radiative strength functions are defined so they are directly usable in Hauser-Feshbach reaction codes and are computed with the shell-model Lanczos strength-function method. Exploiting the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis allows generation of both E1 and M1 strength functions across the full energy range relevant to capture reactions. Benchmark results on 24Mg agree with the conventional definition. For 56Fe the M1 RSF evolves smoothly with excitation energy, both M1 and E1 transitions contribute significantly below the photo-absorption threshold, and within the sdpf model space the strength below 3 MeV observed in Oslo experiments cannot be fully reproduced.

What carries the argument

The energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis, which treats the radiative strength function shape as localized in energy so that the Lanczos method can produce RSFs at different excitations without extra fitting parameters.

If this is right

  • Reaction codes can incorporate microscopically computed, energy-dependent RSFs for improved gamma-emission probabilities.
  • Both electric and magnetic dipole contributions must be retained in strength-function evaluations below the photo-absorption threshold.
  • Shell-model calculations in larger spaces are required to reproduce the full low-energy strength seen in Oslo experiments.
  • The same Lanczos approach can be applied to other nuclei once the hypothesis is accepted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the hypothesis continues to hold, capture-rate predictions in astrophysical environments become possible without phenomenological adjustments.
  • The method opens a route to systematic surveys of RSFs across the chart of nuclides as computational resources grow.
  • Discrepancies at the lowest energies suggest that additional many-body correlations or different effective interactions may be needed.
  • Direct comparison with future high-resolution gamma-ray data on 56Fe would test the smoothness prediction quantitatively.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis holds at the excitation energies relevant to capture reactions, allowing the Lanczos method to generate RSFs without additional parameters.

What would settle it

A measurement of the M1 radiative strength function for 56Fe at several distinct excitation energies that shows the shape changing abruptly rather than evolving smoothly would falsify the hypothesis application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12225 by Calvin W. Johnson, Jutta E. Escher, Konstantinos Kravvaris, Oliver C. Gorton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Depiction of the radiative strength function, Eq. (10). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Agreement of the Bartholomew formula (dashed) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Contribution of two individual strength functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The radiative strength function for a single state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Lanczos strength-function method with interior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The M1 RSF for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The LEE observed in several experiments cannot be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The RSF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Radiative strength functions (RSFs) model the bulk electromagnetic response of highly-excited nuclei and are critical inputs for statistical reaction codes. In this paper, we present a definition of the RSF that is consistent with Hauser-Feshbach reaction codes and that can be efficiently computed with the shell model using the Lanczos strength-function (LSF) method. We introduce a variant of the shell model LSF method that exploits the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis, which makes it possible to compute both electric and magnetic RSFs across all energies relevant to capture reactions. We verify agreement with the conventional definition of RSFs with benchmark calculations of $^{24}$Mg, then present novel results for $^{56}$Fe. For $^{56}$Fe we find that: (i) the M1 RSF shape evolves smoothly with excitation energy, consistent with the energy-localized Brinkl-Axel hypothesis, (ii) both M1 and E1 transitions contribute significantly to the radiative strength below the photo-absorption threshold, and (iii) within the sdpf model space, the strength below 3 MeV observed in Oslo-type experiments cannot be fully reproduced. These results pave the way for a coherent microscopic description of the RSFs and further motivate the use of energy-dependent RSFs in modern reaction codes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper defines a radiative strength function (RSF) consistent with Hauser-Feshbach statistical reaction codes and computes it via a shell-model Lanczos strength-function method that exploits the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis. This enables efficient calculation of both E1 and M1 RSFs over the full energy range relevant to capture reactions. The method is benchmarked against the conventional RSF definition on 24Mg and then applied to 56Fe, where the M1 RSF is found to evolve smoothly with excitation energy (supporting the hypothesis), both multipoles contribute below the photo-absorption threshold, and low-energy strength below 3 MeV cannot be fully reproduced within the sdpf model space.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a microscopic, essentially parameter-free route to energy-dependent RSFs that can be directly inserted into reaction codes. The explicit benchmark on 24Mg and the 56Fe results that confirm smooth M1 evolution while quantifying model-space limitations constitute concrete, falsifiable advances for nuclear data evaluation and astrophysical reaction networks.

major comments (2)
  1. The benchmark agreement with the conventional RSF definition on 24Mg is central to validating the energy-localized variant; however, the manuscript should report a quantitative metric (e.g., integrated absolute deviation or point-wise relative error) rather than qualitative agreement alone, as this directly affects in the 56Fe predictions.
  2. § on 56Fe results: the statement that strength below 3 MeV cannot be reproduced in the sdpf space is load-bearing for the claim of model-space limitations; the paper should clarify whether this conclusion persists under modest extensions such as effective charges or inclusion of 1p-1h excitations outside the valence space.
minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract: 'Brinkl-Axel' is a typographical error and should read 'Brink-Axel'.
  2. Notation for the RSF definition should be cross-checked against standard Hauser-Feshbach conventions (e.g., explicit inclusion of the level-density factor) to avoid any ambiguity for code users.
  3. Figure captions for the 56Fe RSF plots should state the exact excitation-energy bins used and whether the curves are normalized to the same integral.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and the constructive comments. We have addressed each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The benchmark agreement with the conventional RSF definition on 24Mg is central to validating the energy-localized variant; however, the manuscript should report a quantitative metric (e.g., integrated absolute deviation or point-wise relative error) rather than qualitative agreement alone, as this directly affects in the 56Fe predictions.

    Authors: We agree with this suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will include a quantitative assessment of the agreement between the energy-localized and conventional RSF definitions for 24Mg. Specifically, we will report the integrated absolute deviation over the energy range from 0 to 20 MeV and the point-wise relative errors at key energies. This will be added to the benchmark section to provide a more rigorous validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: § on 56Fe results: the statement that strength below 3 MeV cannot be reproduced in the sdpf space is load-bearing for the claim of model-space limitations; the paper should clarify whether this conclusion persists under modest extensions such as effective charges or inclusion of 1p-1h excitations outside the valence space.

    Authors: The sdpf model space used in our calculations is the standard valence space for 56Fe, and the inability to reproduce the low-energy strength is a direct consequence of the limited configurations available within this space. Effective charges are typically used for E2 transitions and do not significantly alter E1 or M1 matrix elements at these energies. Extending to include 1p-1h excitations outside the valence space would require a much larger Hilbert space, which is currently computationally infeasible with the Lanczos method employed. We will revise the text to explicitly state that the conclusion applies to the sdpf valence space and that further extensions are expected to be needed to capture the full low-energy strength, but such calculations are beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper defines an RSF consistent with Hauser-Feshbach codes and computes it using the Lanczos strength-function method with the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis. It benchmarks the method against the conventional definition on 24Mg, showing agreement, and then applies it to 56Fe to report novel results on the evolution of M1 RSF shapes. The central claims are supported by explicit computations and model-space limitations are acknowledged, with no reduction of predictions to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction. The derivation chain is independent of the target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the validity of the energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis as a domain assumption within nuclear structure theory; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Energy-localized Brink-Axel hypothesis holds for computing RSFs at varying excitation energies
    Invoked to enable efficient computation of both E1 and M1 strength functions across all energies relevant to capture reactions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5546 in / 1310 out tokens · 51947 ms · 2026-05-16T14:05:14.087935+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D1M+QRPA

    (green crosses). However, there is currently no mi- croscopic model that can reproduce the magnitude of strength measured below 3 MeV. LSSM calculations in- dicate M1 transitions are not the source of the surplus strength [26, 31], and so far it has been impractical to compute the low-energy E1 strength with the LSSM. Adding to the tension between differe...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    thesdpfground state

    (blue triangles), (p, p ′γ) scattering by Larsenet al.[71] (black squares), and proton-inelastic, isovector giant dipole resonance data from Jingoet al.[72] (green crosses). thesdpfground state. To apply the ILSF method, we partially converged fivej d = 0 levels near the neutron separation energy Sn(56Fe) = 11.197 MeV. As in thepf-space calcu- lations, ou...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    (10) has the same form as the sum-rule strength function, Eq

    Relation to sum-rule strength functions Following the discussion in Section II, one can further show that the energy-differential, time-reversed version of the RSF, Eq. (10) has the same form as the sum-rule strength function, Eq. (6). That is, if we suppose that the RSF is an energy-average of some differential strength d fXL d /dEc, then we can write: f...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Relation to other expressions for capture As noted in Blatt and Weisskopf [1] (p. 392), HF the- ory is constructed such that the absorption cross sec- tion is proportional to the probability for the decay of the compound nucleus, hence theB-values forc→d in the definition of the RSF, Eq. (10). However, the shell-model expression for photo-absorption is ty...

    work page

  5. [5]

    final” magnetic states and an average over “ini- tial

    Relation to generalized transmission coefficients In the case of photo-absorption, the RSF Eq. (10) should be computed for a single level|j d⟩, the level ab- sorbing photons. But what about for radiative decay? In the case of decay from a bin (E c, jc, πc) to another de-excited bin (E d, jd, πd), a HF code computes thegen- eralized transmission coefficien...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Blatt and V

    J. Blatt and V. Weisskopf,Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Dover Books on Physics Series (Dover Publications, 1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    TALYS: modeling of nuclear reactions

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, The European Physical Journal A59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3 2023

  8. [8]

    Ormand,Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach Computer Code System to Model Nuclear Reactions: YAHFC, Tech

    WE. Ormand,Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach Computer Code System to Model Nuclear Reactions: YAHFC, Tech. Rep. (Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Liver- more, CA (United States), 2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Kawano, Coh3: The coupled-channels and hauser- feshbach code, inSpringer Proceedings in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2020) p

    T. Kawano, Coh3: The coupled-channels and hauser- feshbach code, inSpringer Proceedings in Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2020) p. 27–34

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Herman, R

    M. Herman, R. Capote, B. V. Carlson, P. Oblozinsky, M. Sin, A. Trkov, H. Wienke, and V. Zerkin, Nuclear Data Sheets108, 2655 (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    P. G. Young, E. D. Arthur, and M. B. Chadwick,Com- prehensive nuclear model calculations: Introduction to the theory and use of the GNASH code, Tech. Rep. (Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States), 1992)

    work page 1992

  12. [12]

    Mumpower, R

    M. Mumpower, R. Surman, G. McLaughlin, and A. Apra- hamian, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics86, 86 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    M. R. Mumpower, T. Kawano, J. L. Ullmann, M. Krtiˇ cka, and T. M. Sprouse, Physical Review C96, 10.1103/physrevc.96.024612 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.024612 2017

  14. [14]

    Arnould and S

    M. Arnould and S. Goriely, Progress in Particle and Nu- clear Physics112, 103766 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    A. C. Hayes, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 026301 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Kolos, V

    K. Kolos, V. Sobes, R. Vogt, C. E. Romano, M. S. Smith, L. A. Bernstein, D. A. Brown, M. T. Burkey, Y. Danon, M. A. Elsawi, B. L. Goldblum, L. H. Heilbronn, S. L. Hogle, J. Hutchinson, B. Loer, E. A. McCutchan, M. R. Mumpower, E. M. O’Brien, C. Percher, P. N. Peplowski, J. J. Ressler, N. Schunck, N. W. Thompson, A. S. Voyles, W. Wieselquist, and M. Zerkle...

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Brink,Some aspects of the interaction of light with matter, Ph.D

    D. Brink,Some aspects of the interaction of light with matter, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (1955)

    work page 1955

  18. [18]

    Axel, Physical Review126, 671–683 (1962)

    P. Axel, Physical Review126, 671–683 (1962)

    work page 1962

  19. [19]

    Kopecky and M

    J. Kopecky and M. Uhl, Physical Review C41, 1941–1955 (1990)

    work page 1941

  20. [20]

    Kopecky, M

    J. Kopecky, M. Uhl, and R. E. Chrien, Phys. Rev. C47, 312 (1993)

    work page 1993

  21. [21]

    Goriely and V

    S. Goriely and V. Plujko, Phys. Rev. C99, 014303 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    J. E. Escher, J. T. Harke, F. S. Dietrich, N. D. Sci- elzo, I. J. Thompson, and W. Younes, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 353 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    A. C. Larsen, M. Guttormsen, M. Krt ˇicˇ cka, E.ˇBeˇ et´ ak, A. B¨ urger, A. G¨ orgen, H. T. Nyhus, J. Rekstad, A. Schiller, S. Siem, H. K. Toft, G. M. Tveten, A. V. Voinov, and K. Wikan, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics83, 034315 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    A. C. Larsen, J. E. Midtbø, M. Guttormsen, T. Ren- strøm, S. N. Liddick, A. Spyrou, S. Karampagia, B. A. Brown, O. Achakovskiy, S. Kamerdzhiev, D. L. Bleuel, A. Couture, L. C. Campo, B. P. Crider, A. C. Dom- bos, R. Lewis, S. Mosby, F. Naqvi, G. Perdikakis, C. J. Prokop, S. J. Quinn, and S. Siem, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics97, 054329 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    V. W. Ingeberg, S. Siem, M. Wiedeking, A. Choplin, S. Goriely, L. Siess, K. J. Abrahams, K. Arnswald, F. Bello Garrote, D. L. Bleuel, J. Cederk¨ all, T. L. Christoffersen, D. M. Cox, H. De Witte, L. P. Gaffney, A. G¨ orgen, C. Henrich, A. Illana, P. Jones, B. V. Kheswa, T. Kr¨ oll, S. N. T. Majola, K. L. Malatji, J. Ojala, J. Pakarinen, G. Rainovski, P. R...

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    B. L. Berman and S. C. Fultz, Reviews of Modern Physics 47, 713 (1975)

    work page 1975

  27. [27]

    Schwengner, S

    R. Schwengner, S. Frauendorf, and A. C. Larsen, Physical Review Letters111, 232504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Frauendorf, M

    S. Frauendorf, M. Beard, M. Mumpower, R. Schwengner, and K. Wimmer, EPJ Web of Conferences93, 04002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    S. G. Kadmenskii, V. P. Markushev, and V. I. Furman, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics37, 165 (1983), original in Russian: Yad. Fiz. 37, 277 (1983)

    work page 1983

  30. [30]

    Schwengner, R

    R. Schwengner, R. Massarczyk, B. A. Brown, R. Beyer, F. D¨ onau, M. Erhard, E. Grosse, A. R. Junghans, K. Ko- sev, C. Nair, G. Rusev, K. D. Schilling, and A. Wagner, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics81, 054315 (2010)

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    B. A. Brown and A. C. Larsen, Physical Review Letters 113, 252502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Martini, S

    M. Martini, S. P´ eru, S. Hilaire, S. Goriely, and F. Lechaftois, Phys. Rev. C94, 014304 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Sieja, Phys

    K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 052502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Schwengner, S

    R. Schwengner, S. Frauendorf, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 092502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Karampagia, B

    S. Karampagia, B. A. Brown, and V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C95, 024322 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    J. E. Midtbø, A. C. Larsen, T. Renstrøm, F. L. Bello Gar- rote, and E. Lima, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics 98, 064321 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Frauendorf and R

    S. Frauendorf and R. Schwengner, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics105, 034335 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Fanto and Y

    P. Fanto and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. C109, L031302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    F.-Q. Chen, Y. F. Niu, Y. Sun, and M. Wiedeking, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082502 (2025). 14

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, S. P´ eru, and K. Sieja, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics98, 014327 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    T. Li, N. Schunck, and M. Grosskopf, Phys. Rev. C110, 034317 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    P´ eru, S

    S. P´ eru, S. Goriely, and S. Hilaire, EPJ Web of Confer- ences322, 06003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. P´ eru, and S. Hilaire, Physics Letters B868, 139677 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Y. Xu, S. Goriely, M. Krtiˇ cka, and E. Khan, Phys. Rev. C113, 014306 (2026)

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    Sieja, The European Physical Journal A59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01067-8 (2023)

    K. Sieja, The European Physical Journal A59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01067-8 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01067-8 2023

  46. [46]

    S. N. Liddick, A. C. Larsen, M. Guttormsen, A. Spyrou, B. P. Crider, F. Naqvi, J. E. Midtbø, F. L. Bello Gar- rote, D. L. Bleuel, L. Crespo Campo, A. Couture, A. C. Dombos, F. Giacoppo, A. G¨ orgen, K. Hadynska-Klek, T. W. Hagen, V. W. Ingeberg, B. V. Kheswa, R. Lewis, S. Mosby, G. Perdikakis, C. J. Prokop, S. J. Quinn, T. Renstrøm, S. J. Rose, E. Sahin, ...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.024624 2019

  47. [47]

    J. K. Dahl, A.-C. Larsen, N. Shimizu, and Y. Utsuno, Microscopic study of the low-energy enhancement in the gamma-decay strength of 50v (2025), arXiv:2510.23779 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Naqvi, A

    F. Naqvi, A. Simon, M. Guttormsen, R. Schwengner, S. Frauendorf, C. S. Reingold, J. T. Harke, N. Cooper, R. O. Hughes, S. Ota, and A. Saastamoinen, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics99, 054331 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Rekstad, A

    J. Rekstad, A. Henriquez, F. Ingebretsen, G. Midt- tun, B. Skaali, R. Øyan, J. Wikne, T. Engeland, T. F. Thorsteinsen, E. Hammaren, and E. Liukkonen, Physica ScriptaT5, 45–50 (1983)

    work page 1983

  50. [50]

    Schiller, L

    A. Schiller, L. Bergholt, M. Guttormsen, E. Melby, J. Rekstad, and S. Siem, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment447, 498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  51. [51]

    Hauser and H

    W. Hauser and H. Feshbach, Physical Review87, 366 (1952)

    work page 1952

  52. [52]

    G. A. Bartholomew, E. D. Earle, A. J. Ferguson, J. W. Knowles, and M. A. Lone, inAdvances in Nuclear Physics: Volume 7, edited by M. Baranger and E. Vogt (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1973) pp. 229–324

    work page 1973

  53. [53]

    Kopeck´ y and I

    J. Kopeck´ y and I. Tomandl, Phys. Rev. C111, 044606 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Edmonds,Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechan- ics, Investigations in Physics Series (Princeton University Press, 1957)

    A. Edmonds,Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechan- ics, Investigations in Physics Series (Princeton University Press, 1957)

    work page 1957

  55. [55]

    Brussard and P

    P. Brussard and P. Glaudemans,Shell-Model Applica- tions in Nuclear Spectroscopy(North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977)

    work page 1977

  56. [56]

    Suhonen,From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Mi- croscopic Nuclear Theory, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007)

    J. Suhonen,From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Mi- croscopic Nuclear Theory, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007)

    work page 2007

  57. [57]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Utsuno, N

    Y. Utsuno, N. Shimizu, T. Otsuka, S. Ebata, and M. Honma, Progress in Nuclear Energy82, 102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    C. W. Johnson, Physics Letters B750, 72 (2015)

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    I. J. Thompson and F. M. Nunes,Nuclear Reactions for Astrophysics: Principles, Calculation and Applications of Low-Energy Reactions(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  61. [61]

    R. A. Herrera, C. W. Johnson, and G. M. Fuller, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics105, 015801 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 427 (2005)

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    Whitehead, A

    R. Whitehead, A. Watt, and D. Kelvin, Physics Letters B89, 313–315 (1980)

    work page 1980

  64. [64]

    Bloom, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics11, 505–528 (1984)

    S. Bloom, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics11, 505–528 (1984)

    work page 1984

  65. [65]

    B. A. Brown and W. A. Richter, Physical Review C: Nu- clear Physics74, 034315 (2006)

    work page 2006

  66. [66]

    C. W. Johnson, W. E. Ormand, K. S. McElvain, and H. Shan, BIGSTICK: A flexible configuration-interaction shell-model code (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    C. E. Porter and R. G. Thomas, Phys. Rev.104, 483 (1956)

    work page 1956

  68. [68]

    L. C. Campo, M. Guttormsen, F. L. B. Garrote, T. K. Eriksen, F. Giacoppo, A. G¨ orgen, K. Hadynska-Klek, M. Klintefjord, A. C. Larsen, T. Renstrøm, E. Sahin, S. Siem, A. Springer, T. G. Tornyi, and G. M. Tveten, Phys. Rev. C98, 054303 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    Markova, A

    M. Markova, A. C. Larsen, P. von Neumann-Cosel, S. Bassauer, A. G¨ orgen, M. Guttormsen, F. L. B. Gar- rote, H. C. Berg, M. M. Bjørøen, T. K. Eriksen, D. Gjest- vang, J. Isaak, M. Mbabane, W. Paulsen, L. G. Peder- sen, N. I. J. Pettersen, A. Richter, E. Sahin, P. Scholz, S. Siem, G. M. Tveten, V. M. Valsdottir, and M. Wiedek- ing, Phys. Rev. C106, 034322 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    M. K. G. Kruse, W. E. Ormand, and C. W. Johnson, The European Physical Journal A55, 10.1140/epja/i2019- 12905-1 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019- 2019

  71. [71]

    Capote, M

    R. Capote, M. Herman, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y, P. Young, S. Goriely, T. Belgya, A. Ignatyuk, A. Koning, S. Hi- laire, V. Plujko, M. Avrigeanu, O. Bersillon, M. Chad- wick, T. Fukahori, Z. Ge, Y. Han, S. Kailas, J. Kopecky, V. Maslov, G. Reffo, M. Sin, E.Sh. Soukhovitskii, and P. Talou, Nuclear Data Sheets110, 3107 (2009)

    work page 2009

  72. [72]

    C. W. Johnson, K. A. Luu, and Y. Lu, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics47, 105107 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Wu and H

    K. Wu and H. D. Simon, SIAM Journal on Matrix Anal- ysis and Applications22, 602 (2000)

    work page 2000

  74. [74]

    Voinov, E

    A. Voinov, E. Algin, U. Agvaanluvsan, T. Belgya, R. Chankova, M. Guttormsen, G. E. Mitchell, J. Rekstad, A. Schiller, and S. Siem, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 142504 (2004)

    work page 2004

  75. [75]

    Algin, U

    E. Algin, U. Agvaanluvsan, M. Guttormsen, A. C. Larsen, G. E. Mitchell, J. Rekstad, A. Schiller, S. Siem, and A. Voinov, Phys. Rev. C78, 054321 (2008)

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    A. C. Larsen, N. Blasi, A. Bracco, F. Camera, T. K. Erik- sen, A. G¨ orgen, M. Guttormsen, T. W. Hagen, S. Leoni, B. Million, H. T. Nyhus, T. Renstrøm, S. J. Rose, I. E. Ruud, S. Siem, T. Tornyi, G. M. Tveten, A. V. Voinov, and M. Wiedeking, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 242504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Jingo, E

    M. Jingo, E. Z. Buthelezi, J. Carter, G. R. J. Cooper, R. W. Fearick, S. V. F¨ ortsch, C. O. Kureba, A. M. Krumbholz, P. von Neumann-Cosel, R. Neveling, P. Papka, I. Poltoratska, V. Y. Ponomarev, A. Richter, E. Sideras-Haddad, F. D. Smit, J. A. Swartz, A. Tamii, and I. T. Usman, The European Physical Journal A54, 10.1140/epja/i2018-12664-5 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2018-12664-5 2018

  78. [78]

    Goriely, P

    S. Goriely, P. Dimitriou, M. Wiedeking, T. Belgya, R. Firestone, J. Kopecky, M. Krtiˇ cka, V. Plujko, R. Schwengner, S. Siem, H. Utsunomiya, S. Hilaire, S. P´ eru, Y. S. Cho, D. M. Filipescu, N. Iwamoto, 15 T. Kawano, V. Varlamov, and R. Xu, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A55, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12840-1 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12840-1 2019

  79. [79]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Physical Review C: Nuclear Physics69, 034335 (2004)

    work page 2004

  80. [80]

    Heyde, P

    K. Heyde, P. von Neumann-Cosel, and A. Richter, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2365 (2010)

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.