Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 77 references

Non-axial deformations in fission of 252Cf broaden spin projections on the fission axis, enable tilting rotations, and reduce axial spin-spin correlations.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 12:29 UTC pith:AHZ367OJ

load-bearing objection Triaxial TDDFT trajectories for 252Cf fission broaden spin projections, enable tilting modes, and weaken axial correlations while perpendicular ones stay resilient, but the mean-field setup lacks validation or uncertainty checks. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.24466 v1 pith:AHZ367OJ submitted 2026-05-23 nucl-th

Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission

B. Li , D. D. Zhang , D. Vretenar , T. Nik\v{s}i\'c , P. W. Zhao , J. Meng This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords fissionspin generationentanglementnon-axial deformationtime-dependent density functional theory252Cfmutual informationtilting mode
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.

The paper applies nuclear time-dependent density functional theory to spontaneous fission of 252Cf while allowing both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric paths restrict rotations to counter-rotation along the fission axis and equiprobable bending or wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial paths remove these restrictions, widen the distribution of spin projections along the axis, and permit tilting collective rotations. Mutual information between fragment spins drops along the fission axis when axial symmetry is broken, yet perpendicular correlations stay largely intact. The work therefore supplies a microscopic route to intrinsic angular momentum and entanglement that depends on the degree of symmetry breaking.

Core claim

Nuclear time-dependent density functional theory is used to investigate spin generation and entanglement of fission fragments in spontaneous fission of 252Cf, incorporating both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric fission trajectories enforce strict constraints: counter rotation (twisting mode) along the fission axis and equiprobable bending/wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial modes broaden the distributions of fission fragment spin projection on the fission axis, and allow for axial (tilting) collective rotations, which are forbidden on axially symmetric trajectories. Mutual information analysis reveals that axial-symmetry breaking reduces spin-spin correlations a

What carries the argument

Time-dependent density functional theory trajectories that include non-axial deformations, with mutual information used to quantify spin-spin entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen Skyrme-type interaction in time-dependent density functional theory produces the observed collective spin modes and entanglement without extra fitted terms for pairing, dissipation, or fluctuations beyond mean field.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the width of spin-projection distributions along the fission axis and the mutual information between fragment spins in 252Cf fission events, compared against predictions from axial-only versus non-axial trajectories.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Non-axial paths produce wider distributions of fission-fragment spin projections along the fission axis.
  • Tilting collective rotations appear only when axial symmetry is broken.
  • Spin-spin correlations measured along the fission axis decrease once axial symmetry is lost in symmetric fission.
  • Perpendicular spin correlations between fragments remain largely unchanged by the symmetry breaking.
  • Triaxial degrees of freedom modify the opening-angle distribution between the two fragment spins.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models that enforce axial symmetry throughout the fission path may systematically underestimate the spread in observed fragment spins.
  • Measurements that separate spin correlations parallel and perpendicular to the fission axis could distinguish the contribution of non-axial trajectories.
  • The resilience of perpendicular correlations suggests that certain angular observables in fission may be less sensitive to symmetry breaking than others.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies nuclear time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) to spontaneous fission of 252Cf, contrasting axially symmetric trajectories with those including non-axial deformations. It reports that non-axial modes broaden fission-fragment spin-projection distributions along the fission axis, permit axial tilting rotations forbidden under axial symmetry, and that mutual-information analysis shows axial-symmetry breaking reduces axial spin-spin correlations (while perpendicular correlations remain resilient); the impact on spin opening-angle distributions is also examined.

Significance. If robust, the work supplies a dynamical, parameter-free illustration of how triaxial degrees of freedom influence collective spin modes and fragment entanglement, a topic of interest in fission theory. The use of direct TDDFT evolution to generate the reported distributions and mutual-information values without additional fitted corrections is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results (spin distributions and mutual information)] Results section on spin-projection distributions and mutual information: the central claim that non-axial trajectories produce broader axial spin projections and reduced axial correlations rests on the untested fidelity of the chosen Skyrme functional within mean-field TDDFT; the manuscript supplies neither comparison to measured fission-fragment spin data nor error estimates on the reported distributions.
  2. [Method (TDDFT setup)] Method section describing the TDDFT trajectories: no discussion is given of how post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, or beyond-mean-field quantum fluctuations are (or are not) incorporated, yet these effects are known to influence angular-momentum generation and could alter the reported differences between axial and non-axial cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the specific Skyrme parametrization employed is not named, which would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Figures (mutual information)] Figure captions for the mutual-information plots: axis labels and units for the mutual-information values should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to better articulate the scope and limitations of our TDDFT calculations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section on spin-projection distributions and mutual information: the central claim that non-axial trajectories produce broader axial spin projections and reduced axial correlations rests on the untested fidelity of the chosen Skyrme functional within mean-field TDDFT; the manuscript supplies neither comparison to measured fission-fragment spin data nor error estimates on the reported distributions.

    Authors: The central claims concern the relative changes induced by breaking axial symmetry (broadening of axial spin projections, emergence of tilting modes, and reduction in axial mutual information) within a single, consistent TDDFT framework. These differences are generated dynamically by the same functional and initial conditions, so they do not rely on absolute fidelity to experiment. We agree that direct comparison to measured fragment spins and quantitative error bars are absent; such benchmarks lie outside the present scope. In revision we will add an explicit paragraph in the discussion section stating the model limitations and noting that future work should include functional benchmarking and uncertainty quantification. This is a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Method section describing the TDDFT trajectories: no discussion is given of how post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, or beyond-mean-field quantum fluctuations are (or are not) incorporated, yet these effects are known to influence angular-momentum generation and could alter the reported differences between axial and non-axial cases.

    Authors: The calculations follow the TDDFT evolution only up to the scission point, where the fragments separate while still connected by a neck. Post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, and beyond-mean-field fluctuations are not included. We will revise the method section to state this scope explicitly and to note that these omitted processes may modify absolute spin values and possibly the magnitude of the reported differences, although the qualitative effect of non-axial degrees of freedom on allowed collective modes is expected to remain. This is a full revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results generated from TDDFT dynamical evolution

full rationale

The paper's central results on spin distributions, tilting modes, and mutual information changes are obtained directly from time-dependent density functional theory simulations of fission trajectories in 252Cf, incorporating axial and non-axial deformations. No equations reduce the reported quantities to input parameters by construction, no fitted inputs are relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chains or ansatzes are invoked to justify the load-bearing steps. The derivation remains self-contained within the mean-field evolution under the chosen interaction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The approach inherits standard assumptions of TDDFT mean-field dynamics and the validity of the chosen energy-density functional for collective motion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5679 in / 1125 out tokens · 33900 ms · 2026-06-30T12:29:19.706066+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHZ367OJ

@misc{pith2026260524466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHZ367OJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24466}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Nuclear time-dependent density functional theory is used to investigate spin generation and entanglement of fission fragments in spontaneous fission of $^{252}$Cf, incorporating both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric fission trajectories enforce strict constraints: counter rotation (twisting mode) along the fission axis and equiprobable bending/wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial modes broaden the distributions of fission fragment spin projection on the fission axis, and allow for axial (tilting) collective rotations, which are forbidden on axially symmetric trajectories. Mutual information analysis reveals that axial-symmetry breaking reduces spin-spin correlations along the fission axis of symmetric cases, while perpendicular correlations remain more resilient. The effect of triaxial degrees of freedom on the opening angle distribution between the spins of the fission fragments is analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24466 by B. Li, D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, J. Meng, P. W. Zhao, T. Nik\v{s}i\'c.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) Left panel: Self-consistent deforma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) The first row shows the probability dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) Panels (1)-(4): The joint probabilit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Same as Fig. 3 but for projections alon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) The correlation indicator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Self-consistent deformation energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Panels (1)-(4): The one-body densiti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel: The one-body densities of FFs along traje [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The first row shows the time evolution of the expectat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Implementation of cutting-edge research and its application as pa rt of the Scientific Center of Excellence for Quantum and Complex Systems, and Representat ions of Lie Algebras

    5 and 0. 7, respectively, while maintaining the energy of the equilibrium minimum. While we have also investigated configurations with finite β32 deformations (see the supplemen- tal material [57]), the increase in deformation energy is considerab ly steeper in β32 than in β31 direction. For β31, we could select initial points with rather large deformation ...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    67 × 10− 4 zs. The pairing strength parameters: -0.125 MeV for neutrons, a nd -0.210 MeV for protons, are determined by the empirical pairing gaps of 252Cf, using the three-point odd-even mass formula. The subspace Vf is selected as z > 0, where the z-axis is along the fission direction, and the interval of z is from − 30 fm to 30 fm. In the computation of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Note that spherical harmonics satisfy the equation Y ∗ λµ (Ω) = ( − 1)µYλ − µ (Ω), and all deformation parameters βλµ are real numbers

    2A1/ 3 fm. Note that spherical harmonics satisfy the equation Y ∗ λµ (Ω) = ( − 1)µYλ − µ (Ω), and all deformation parameters βλµ are real numbers. III. DEFORMA TION ENERGY SURF ACE OF 252CF IN THE ( β20-β32) PLANE /s45/s49/s48 /s45/s54 /s45/s50 /s50 /s54 /s49/s48 /s69/s32/s91/s77/s101/s86/s93 /s51/s48 /s32/s61/s32/s49/s46/s48 FIG. 7. (Color online) Self-c...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Schmidt and B

    K.-H. Schmidt and B. Jurado, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 106301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bender, R

    M. Bender, R. Bernard, G. Bertsch, S. Chiba, J. Dobaczews ki, N. Dubray, S. A. Giuliani, K. Hagino, D. Lacroix, Z. Li, P. Magierski, J. Maruhn, W. Naza rewicz, J. Pei, S. P´ eru, N. Pillet, J. Randrup, D. Regnier, P.-G. Reinhard, L. M. Robl edo, W. Ryssens, J. Sadhukhan, G. Scamps, N. Schunck, C. Simenel, J. Skalski, I. Stetcu, P. S tevenson, S. Umar, M. ...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Schunck and D

    N. Schunck and D. Regnier, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103963 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J. R. Nix and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. 71, 1 (1965)

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    Rasmussen, W

    J. Rasmussen, W. N¨ orenberg, and H. Mang, Nucl. Phys. A 136, 465 (1969)

    work page 1969

  9. [9]

    Zielinska-Pfab´ e and K

    M. Zielinska-Pfab´ e and K. Dietrich, Phys. Lett. B 49, 123 (1974)

    work page 1974

  10. [10]

    Bonneau, P

    L. Bonneau, P. Quentin, and I. N. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C 75, 064313 (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    J. B. Wilhelmy, E. Cheifetz, R. C. Jared, S. G. Thompson, H . R. Bowman, and J. O. Rasmussen, Phys. Rev. C 5, 2041 (1972)

    work page 2041

  12. [12]

    Wolf and E

    A. Wolf and E. Cheifetz, Phys. Rev. C 13, 1952 (1976)

    work page 1952

  13. [13]

    J. N. Wilson, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jovanˇ cevi´ c, D. G jestvang, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.-B. Gerst, L. Gaudefroy, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Algora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. B ottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. Cieplicka-Ory´ nczak, S. Courtin, M. L. Cort´ es, P. Davies, C. Delafosse, M. Fallot,...

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Marin, M

    S. Marin, M. S. Okar, E. P. Sansevero, I. E. Hernandez, C. A. Ballard, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, A. E. Lovell, I. Stetcu, O. Serot, O. Litaize, A. Che bboubi, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024602 (2021). 25

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Marin, E

    S. Marin, E. P. Sansevero, M. S. Okar, I. E. Hernandez, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054609 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    N. P. Giha, S. Marin, J. A. Baker, I. E. Hernandez, K. J. Ke lly, M. Devlin, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, O. Lita ize, O. Serot, A. Chebboubi, C.-Y. Wu, S. D. Clarke, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014612 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Marin, I

    S. Marin, I. A. Tolstukhin, N. P. Giha, F. Tovesson, V. Pr otopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054617 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck , and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, K. Godbey, and I. Stetcu, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 128, 022501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Scamps, Phys

    G. Scamps, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054614 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Scamps, I

    G. Scamps, I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. S tetcu, Phys. Rev. C 108, L061602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, Phys. R ev. C 104, L021601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Marevic, N

    P. Marevic, N. Schunck, and M. Verriere, arXiv:2506.10 777 [nucl-th]

    work page

  24. [24]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 106, L051601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Randrup, T

    J. Randrup, T. Døssing, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014609 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064606 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Quantum fluctuations drive angular momenta in nuclear fissi on,

    M. H. Zhou, S. Y. Chen, Z. Y. Li, M. S. Smith, and Z. P. Li, “Quantum fluctuations drive angular momenta in nuclear fissi on,” (2024), arXiv:2311.06177 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Døssing, S

    T. Døssing, S. ˚ Aberg, M. Albertsson, B. G. Carlsson, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034615 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    T. M. Shneidman, A. Rahmatinejad, G. G. Adamian, and N. V . Antonenko, Phys. Rev. C 111, 064621 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Scamps and G

    G. Scamps and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034616 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034603 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014624 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Scamps, Phys

    G. Scamps, Phys. Rev. C 109, L011602 (2024). 26

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, P. Talou, T. Kawano, S. Marin, S. A. Pozzi, and A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 222502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Volume II: Nuclear Deformations (1975)

    work page 1975

  37. [37]

    Ring and P

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

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

    J. Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

    work page

  39. [39]

    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    work page doi:10.1142/9872

  40. [40]

    Frauendorf and Jie Meng, Nucl

    S. Frauendorf and Jie Meng, Nucl. Phys. A 617, 131 (1997)

    work page 1997

  41. [41]

    Lu, E.-G

    B.-N. Lu, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 85, 011301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    B.-N. Lu, J. Zhao, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 89, 014323 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Ryssens, G

    W. Ryssens, G. Scamps, S. Goriely, and M. Bender, Eur. Ph ys. J. A 59, 96 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Ebata, T

    S. Ebata, T. Nakatsukasa, T. Inakura, K. Yoshida, Y. Has himoto, and K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034306 (2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Scamps and D

    G. Scamps and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014605 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Magierski, J

    P. Magierski, J. Grineviciute, and K. Sekizawa, Acta Ph ysica Polonica B 49, 281 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Scamps, D

    G. Scamps, D. Lacroix, G. F. Bertsch, and K. Washiyama, P hys. Rev. C 85, 034328 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. A 76, 040502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135194 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Z. X. Ren, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, J. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 172501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Z. X. Ren, J. Zhao, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044313 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, L011301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    D. D. Zhang, B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024316 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. M eng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024614 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, Z. X. Ren, T. Nikˇ si´ c, J. Zhao, P. W. Z hao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014303 (2023). 27

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. D. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034611 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 110, 034302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    B. Li, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138877 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. M eng, Phys. Lett. B 869, 139828 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Supplemental material to this article at [url], which includes additional Ref. [73 ]

    B. Li, D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, “Supplemental material to this article at [url], which includes additional Ref. [73 ].”

    work page

  62. [62]

    Z. X. Ren, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 95, 024313 (2017)

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Z. X. Ren, S. Q. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, N. Itagaki, J. A. Maruhn , and J. Meng, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 112062 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Nucl. Phys. A 996, 121696 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    B. Li, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044307 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    F. F. Xu, B. Li, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014311 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    F. F. Xu, B. Li, P. Ring, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138893 (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    F. F. Xu, Y. K. Wang, Y. P. Wang, P. Ring, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 022501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054319 (2010)

    work page 2010

  70. [70]

    Simenel and A

    C. Simenel and A. S. Umar, Phys. Rev. C 89, 031601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Schunck and L

    N. Schunck and L. M. Robledo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 116301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    Hara and Y

    K. Hara and Y. Sun, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 04, 637 (1995)

    work page 1995

  73. [73]

    Ma and Y.-G

    C.-W. Ma and Y.-G. Ma, Progress in Particle and Nuclear P hysics 99, 120 (2018)

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 108, 014321 (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, J. Zhao, P. W. Zhao, and J . Meng, Frontiers of Physics 19, 44201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 111, L051302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    Q. L. Hu, Z. C. Gao, and Y. S. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 734, 162 (2014). 28

    work page 2014