Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 76 references

Probing exotic multi-proton emitters: A Gamow shell model study of proton-rich fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the drip line

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The Gamow shell model predicts the ground state of 13F and identifies 14Ne as a four-proton emitter.

desk verdict The paper's new predictions for the 13F ground state and 14Ne as a 4p emitter come from a GSM Hamiltonian tuned to nearby nuclei, so the extrapolation reliability is the main open question. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.07302 v1 pith:RMLIEOWL submitted 2026-06-05 nucl-th

N. Chen , J. G. Li , M. R. Xie , P. Y. Wang , K. H. Li , Q. Yuan , N. Michel This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords Gamowshellmodelprotondriplinemulti-protonemissionfluorineisotopesneonexoticnucleinuclearstructure
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 uses the Gamow shell model to examine proton-rich fluorine and neon isotopes past the proton drip line, including the poorly known 13F and 15Ne and the unobserved 14Ne. By optimizing a Hamiltonian based on an effective field theory nucleon-nucleon interaction for this region and reproducing known spectra and decays, the model provides a prediction for the ground state of 13F. It also forecasts that 14Ne acts as a candidate for emitting four protons. Sympathetic readers care because these results offer concrete guidance for experiments probing exotic nuclear structures and decay modes far from stability.

What carries the argument

The Gamow shell model (GSM), which incorporates both inter-nucleon correlations and couplings to the particle continuum, applied with an effective field theory nucleon-nucleon interaction optimized for the proton-rich region.

What would settle it

An experimental determination of the ground state energy of 13F or observation of four-proton decay from 14Ne would confirm or refute the predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the Gamow shell model with an optimized Hamiltonian, the low-lying spectra and decay properties of fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the proton drip line are reproduced, leading to a prediction for the unresolved ground state of 13F and identifying 14Ne as a candidate four-proton emitter for the first time.

Load-bearing premise

The GSM Hamiltonian optimized using known data in the proton-rich region transfers accurately to the unobserved 13F and 14Ne systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model quantifies multi-proton separation energies and spectroscopic factors for the studied isotopes.
  • It elucidates the structural evolution through many-body configurations and partial-wave occupancies.
  • Predictions provide guidance for future experiments on 13F and 14Ne.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The approach may extend to predicting other multi-proton emitters in light nuclei.
  • Results could inform models of nuclear stability limits in extreme proton-rich conditions.
  • Experimental confirmation would validate the optimization procedure for effective interactions in this mass region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Gamow shell model (GSM) with an effective field theory nucleon-nucleon interaction and an 8C inert core to oxygen, fluorine, and neon isotopes (A=12-16). The Hamiltonian is optimized to reproduce low-lying spectra and decay properties of known F and Ne isotopes beyond the proton drip line; the resulting model is then used to analyze configuration occupancies, multi-proton separation energies, and spectroscopic factors, yielding a prediction for the ground state of 13F and identifying 14Ne as a candidate 4p emitter.

Significance. If the predictions are reliable, the work supplies the first theoretical characterization of the unresolved 13F ground state and the yet-unobserved 14Ne 4p emitter, furnishing concrete guidance for experimental searches of exotic multi-proton decay at the proton drip line.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the GSM Hamiltonian 'is optimized for this proton-rich region' supplies no information on the precise data set (which known F/Ne levels and widths were included or excluded), the number of free parameters in the EFT NN interaction, the fitting algorithm, or any cross-validation against independent observables. Because the central predictions for 13F and 14Ne are direct extrapolations of this fitted Hamiltonian, the absence of these details renders the predictive grounding unexamined.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and Hamiltonian section: no propagation of fit uncertainties to the reported separation energies, spectroscopic factors, or decay widths for the unobserved systems is described. Without this, it is impossible to quantify how robust the claimed ground-state assignment for 13F or the 4p-emission candidacy of 14Ne actually is.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'the candidate 4p emitter 14Ne is theoretically predicted for the first time' would benefit from a short qualifier noting that the prediction rests on the optimized Hamiltonian.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the specific comments on the abstract and methodological transparency. We address each point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the GSM Hamiltonian 'is optimized for this proton-rich region' supplies no information on the precise data set (which known F/Ne levels and widths were included or excluded), the number of free parameters in the EFT NN interaction, the fitting algorithm, or any cross-validation against independent observables. Because the central predictions for 13F and 14Ne are direct extrapolations of this fitted Hamiltonian, the absence of these details renders the predictive grounding unexamined.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise, but the referee is correct that it does not enumerate the fitting data or parameters. Section II of the manuscript describes the optimization, including the specific low-lying states and widths of 14-16F and 15-17Ne that were used, the EFT interaction parameters, and the χ2 minimization procedure. To improve clarity we will expand the abstract with a single sentence summarizing the data set and parameter count, and we will add a short table in Section II listing the fitted observables and the resulting parameter values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Hamiltonian section: no propagation of fit uncertainties to the reported separation energies, spectroscopic factors, or decay widths for the unobserved systems is described. Without this, it is impossible to quantify how robust the claimed ground-state assignment for 13F or the 4p-emission candidacy of 14Ne actually is.

    Authors: The manuscript does not propagate parameter uncertainties from the fit. Performing a full covariance analysis or Monte-Carlo sampling of the EFT parameters and re-diagonalizing the GSM Hamiltonian for each sample would be computationally intensive and is not reported. We will add an explicit statement in Section II noting this limitation and will include a qualitative discussion of sensitivity by varying the two dominant low-energy constants within their fit uncertainties to show that the 13F ground-state ordering and the 14Ne 4p separation energy remain stable. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: model optimization on known data followed by extrapolation to unobserved systems

full rationale

The paper optimizes a GSM Hamiltonian on known low-lying spectra and decay properties of fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the drip line, then applies the resulting model to predict properties of the unresolved 13F ground state and unobserved 14Ne. This is standard parameter fitting followed by extrapolation to new systems, not a reduction of the predictions to the fitted inputs by construction. No self-definitional loop, no fitted quantity renamed as prediction of the same observable, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present in the provided text. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on an optimized effective interaction whose parameters are adjusted to data and on the modeling choice of an inert 8C core; both are domain assumptions rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • parameters of the effective NN interaction
    Optimized for the proton-rich region to reproduce spectra and decay properties.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption 8C treated as an inert core
    The model space is built on top of this core for A=12-16 systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing exotic multi-proton emitters: A Gamow shell model study of proton-rich fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the drip line." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMLIEOWL

@misc{pith2026260607302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing exotic multi-proton emitters: A Gamow shell model study of proton-rich fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the drip line},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMLIEOWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.07302}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate proton-rich systems beyond the proton drip line, focusing on the notably poorly known 13F and 15Ne and the yet unobserved 14Ne, whose structure properties remain weakly constrained. Using the Gamow shell model (GSM), which consistently incorporates both inter-nucleon correlations and couplings to the particle continuum, we study oxygen, fluorine, and neon isotopes with mass A=12-16. Taking 8C as an inert core, the GSM Hamiltonian based on an effective field theory nucleon-nucleon interaction is optimized for this proton-rich region. The constructed Hamiltonian reproduces the low-lying spectra and decay properties of fluorine and neon isotopes beyond the proton drip line. We quantify many-body configuration and average partial-wave occupancies to elucidate the structural evolution of the drip line nuclei 12-14O, 13-15F, and 14-16Ne. In particular, multi-proton separation energies and spectroscopic factors are analyzed in detail, leading to a prediction for the unresolved ground state of 13F. Furthermore, the candidate 4p emitter 14Ne is theoretically predicted for the first time, providing valuable guidance for future experimental investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectra of oxygen, fluorine, and neon isotopic chains with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Calculated low-lying states in 16Ne, 15F and 14O, compared with experimental data taken from Ref. [13] for 15F and Refs. [21, 70] for 16Ne. Energies are given in MeV relative to the ground state of 14O. For the resonant state, the box width indicates the decay width (Γ) in units of keV. For 16Ne, experimental studies indicate that the ground state lies about 1.34-1.47 MeV above the14Og.s. + 2p thresh￾old, with uncer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spectra of low-lying states in 15Ne, 14F and 13O, shown rel￾ative to the ground state of 13O. The presentation is similar to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectra of low-lying states in 14Ne, 13F, 12O, 11N and 10C, shown relative to the 10C ground state. The presentation is similar to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Drip lines mark the stability limit against particle emis- sion [1–5]. Extremely proton-rich isotopes lying well beyond the proton drip line, such as 13F, 15Ne, and 16Ne, are unbound and decay through multi-proton emission, since no intermediate proton-bound isotopes exist along their proton-emission chains. These proton-emission processes pr...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    All the discrete resonant states in Eq

    Method The GSM employs the one-body Berggren basis [48, 49], constructed from a finite-depth potential and comprising bound, resonant, and scattering states, which satisfies the completeness relation for each (l,j) partial wave: X n unl j ED unl j + Z L+ ukl j ED ukl j dk= ˆ1,(1) where unl j E represents a bound or resonant state, while ukl j E denotes a ...

  3. [3]

    The results are presented in Fig

    Results Based on the optimized GSM Hamiltonian, we have per- formed systematic GSM calculations for the proton-rich O, F, and Ne isotopes withA=12−16. The results are presented in Fig. 1. The GSM calculations reproduce the experimentally established low-lying states in the oxygen, fluorine, and neon isotopic chains with good accuracy. The RMSD between the...

  4. [4]

    Summary Systematic investigations of nuclei far beyond the proton drip line in the vicinity of 13F, where multi-proton emission is ex- pected, remain scarce. In the present work, we address these open quantum systems within GSM, in which the continuum coupling and inter-nucleon correlations are both well treated, to carry out a comprehensive theoretical s...

  5. [5]

    Sorlin, M.-G

    O. Sorlin, M.-G. Porquet, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 61 (2) (2008) 602–673

    2008

  6. [6]

    Y . Ye, X. Yang, H. Sakurai, B. Hu, Nature Reviews Physics 7 (1) (2025) 21–37

    2025

  7. [7]

    Y . Yu, Y . M. Xing, Y . H. Zhang, M. Wang, X. H. Zhou, J. G. Li, H. H. Li, Q. Yuan, Y . F. Niu, Y . N. Huang, J. Geng, J. Y . Guo, J. W. Chen, J. C. Pei, F. R. Xu, Y . A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, G. de Angelis, I. Tanihata, T. Yamaguchi, X. Zhou, H. S. Xu, Z. Y . Chen, R. J. Chen, H. Y . Deng, C. Y . Fu, W. W. Ge, W. J. Huang, H. Y . Jiao, Y . F. Luo, H. F. L...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Lunderberg, P

    E. Lunderberg, P. A. DeYoung, Z. Kohley, H. Attanayake, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, G. Christian, D. Divaratne, S. M. Grimes, A. Haagsma, J. E. Finck, N. Frank, B. Luther, S. Mosby, T. Nagi, G. F. Peaslee, A. Schiller, J. Snyder, A. Spyrou, M. J. Strongman, M. Thoennessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 142503

    2012

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Ma, Nuclear Science and Techniques 36 (12) (2025) 236

    Y .-G. Ma, Nuclear Science and Techniques 36 (12) (2025) 236

    2025

  2. [10]

    Y . Jin, C. Y . Niu, K. W. Brown, Z. H. Li, H. Hua, A. K. Anthony, J. Barney, R. J. Charity, J. Crosby, D. Dell’Aquila, J. M. Elson, J. Estee, M. Ghazali, G. Jhang, J. G. Li, W. G. Lynch, N. Michel, L. G. Sobotka, S. Sweany, F. C. E. Teh, A. Thomas, C. Y . Tsang, M. B. Tsang, ...

    2021

  3. [11]

    X.-D. Xu, I. Mukha, J. G. Li, S. M. Wang, L. Acosta, M. Bajzek, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina-Gil, J. M. Espino, A. Fomichev, H. Geissel, J. G ´omez-Camacho, L. V . Grigorenko, O. Kiselev, A. A. Korshenin- nikov, D. Kostyleva, N. Kurz, Y . A. Litvinov, I. Martel, C. Nocif- oro, M. ...

    2025

  4. [12]

    J. Wang, M. Xie, K. Li, P. Wang, N. Michel, Q. Yuan, J. Li, Phys. Lett. B 872 (2026) 140030

    2026

  5. [13]

    Zhou, D.-Q

    L. Zhou, D.-Q. Fang, S.-M. Wang, H. Hua, Nuclear Science and Tech- niques 35 (6) (2024) 107

    2024

  6. [14]

    G. J. KeKelis, M. S. Zisman, D. K. Scott, R. Jahn, D. J. Vieira, J. Cerny, F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Phys. Rev. C 17 (1978) 1929–1938

    1978

  7. [15]

    Benenson, E

    W. Benenson, E. Kashy, A. G. Ledebuhr, R. C. Pardo, R. G. H. Robertson, L. W. Robinson, Phys. Rev. C 17 (1978) 1939–1942

    1978

  8. [16]

    Le´pine-Szily, J

    A. Le´pine-Szily, J. Oliveira, D. Galante, G. Amadio, R. Lichtentha¨ler, H. Bohlen, A. Ostrowski, A. Blazevic, C. Borcea, V . Guimara˜es, V . Lapoux, G. Lima, F. de Oliveira Santos, N. Orr, P. Roussel-Chomaz, T. Stolla, J. Winfield, Nuclear Physics A 734 (2004) 331–336

    2004

  9. [17]

    W. A. Peters, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, B. A. Brown, R. R. C. Clement, N. Frank, P. Heckman, B. A. Luther, F. Nunes, J. Seitz, A. Stolz, M. Thoennessen, E. Tryggestad, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034607

    2003

  10. [18]

    V . Z. Goldberg, G. G. Chubarian, G. Tabacaru, L. Trache, R. E. Tribble, A. Aprahamian, G. V . Rogachev, B. B. Skorodumov, X. D. Tang, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 031302

    2004

  11. [19]

    F. Q. Guo, J. Powell, D. W. Lee, D. Leitner, M. A. McMahan, D. M. Moltz, J. P. O’Neil, K. Perajarvi, L. Phair, C. A. Ramsey, X. J. Xu, J. Cerny, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 034312

    2005

  12. [20]

    de Grancey, A

    F. de Grancey, A. Mercenne, F. de Oliveira Santos, T. Davinson, O. Sor- lin, J. Ang´elique, M. Assi´e, E. Berthoumieux, R. Borcea, A. Buta, I. Ce- likovic, V . Chudoba, J. Daugas, G. Dumitru, M. Fadil, S. Gr´evy, J. Kiener, A. Lefebvre-Schuhl, N. Michel, J. Mrazek, F. Negoita,...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Girard-Alcindor, A

    V . Girard-Alcindor, A. Mercenne, I. Stefan, F. de Oliveira Santos, N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, M. Assi´e, A. Lemasson, E. Cl´ement, F. Flavi- gny, A. Matta, D. Ramos, M. Rejmund, J. Dudouet, D. Ackermann, P. Ad- sley, M. Assun c ¸ ao, B. Bastin, D. Beaumel, G. Benzoni, R. Borc...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Goldberg, B

    V . Goldberg, B. Roeder, G. Rogachev, G. Chubarian, E. Johnson, C. Fu, A. Alharbi, M. Avila, A. Banu, M. McCleskey, J. Mitchell, E. Simmons, G. Tabacaru, L. Trache, R. Tribble, Physics Letters B 692 (5) (2010) 307– 311

    2010

  15. [23]

    R. J. Charity, K. Brown, T. Webb, L. G. Sobotka, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 054301

    2023

  16. [24]

    R. J. Charity, T. B. Webb, J. M. Elson, D. E. M. Hoff, C. D. Pruitt, L. G. Sobotka, K. W. Brown, G. Cerizza, J. Estee, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, P. Morfouace, C. Santamaria, S. Sweany, C. Y . Tsang, M. B. Tsang, Y . Zhang, K. Zhu, S. A. Kuvin, D. McNeel, J. Smith, A. H. Wuosma...

    2021

  17. [25]

    K. W. Brown, R. J. Charity, L. G. Sobotka, Z. Chajecki, L. V . Grig- orenko, I. A. Egorova, Y . L. Parfenova, M. V . Zhukov, S. Bedoor, W. W. Buhro, J. M. Elson, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, D. G. McNeel, W. Re- viol, R. Shane, R. H. Showalter, M. B. Tsang, J. R. Winkelbauer, A. ...

    2014

  18. [26]

    C. J. Woodward, R. E. Tribble, D. M. Tanner, Phys. Rev. C 27 (1983) 27–30

    1983

  19. [27]

    G. R. Burleson, G. S. Blanpied, G. H. Daw, A. J. Viescas, C. L. Morris, H. A. Thiessen, S. J. Greene, W. J. Braithwaite, W. B. Cottingame, D. B. Holtkamp, I. B. Moore, C. F. Moore, Phys. Rev. C 22 (1980) 1180–1183

    1980

  20. [28]

    F ¨ohl, R

    K. F ¨ohl, R. Bilger, H. Clement, J. Gr¨ater, R. Meier, J. P¨atzold, D. Schap- ler, G. J. Wagner, O. Wilhelm, W. Kluge, R. Wieser, M. Schepkin, R. Abela, F. Foroughi, D. Renker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3849–3852

    1997

  21. [29]

    Wamers, J

    F. Wamers, J. Marganiec, F. Aksouh, Y . Aksyutina, H. ´Alvarez-Pol, T. Aumann, S. Beceiro-Novo, K. Boretzky, M. J. G. Borge, M. Chartier, A. Chatillon, L. V . Chulkov, D. Cortina-Gil, H. Emling, O. Ershova, L. M. Fraile, H. O. U. Fynbo, D. Galaviz, H. Geissel, M. Heil, D. H. H...

    2014

  22. [30]

    H. T. Fortune, R. Sherr, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 034301

    2012

  23. [31]

    Sherr, H

    R. Sherr, H. Fortune, Physics Letters B 699 (4) (2011) 281–282

    2011

  24. [32]

    H. T. Fortune, R. Sherr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 089201

    2007

  25. [33]

    D. Baye, P. Descouvemont, F. Leo, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 024309

    2005

  26. [34]

    Canton, G

    L. Canton, G. Pisent, J. P. Svenne, K. Amos, S. Karataglidis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 072502

    2006

  27. [35]

    Michel, J

    N. Michel, J. G. Li, F. R. Xu, W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 044319

    2021

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Xu, S. Wang, Symmetry 17 (2) (2025) 169

    2025

  29. [37]

    K. H. Li, J. G. Li, N. Michel, H. H. Li, N. Chen, C. W. Ma, W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 014302

    2025

  30. [38]

    Maris, A

    P. Maris, A. M. Shirokov, J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 021301

    2010

  31. [39]

    A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, B. F. Irgaziev, V . Z. Goldberg, Y . V . Orlov, I. Qazi, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054314

    2010

  32. [40]

    Oishi, M

    T. Oishi, M. Kimura, Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 014305

    2025

  33. [41]

    Descouvemont, Phys

    P. Descouvemont, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 064308

    2019

  34. [42]

    Xu, S.-Q

    X.-Y . Xu, S.-Q. Fan, Q. Yuan, B.-S. Hu, J.-G. Li, S.-M. Wang, F.-R. Xu, Nuclear Science and Techniques 35 (12) (2024) 215

    2024

  35. [43]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, T. Vertse, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 36 (1) (2008) 013101

    2008

  36. [44]

    Zhou, S.-M

    L. Zhou, S.-M. Wang, D.-Q. Fang, Y .-G. Ma, Nuclear Science and Tech- niques 33 (8) (2022) 105

    2022

  37. [45]

    Jin, J.-G

    S.-L. Jin, J.-G. Li, Y . Gao, R.-Z. Hu, F.-R. Xu, Nuclear Science and Tech- 7 niques 36 (11) (2025) 212

    2025

  38. [46]

    Michel, M

    N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, Gamow Shell Model: The Unified Theory of Nuclear Structure and Reactions, Lecture Notes in Physics, V ol. 983, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, K. Bennaceur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 042502

    2002

  40. [48]

    Rotureau, N

    J. Rotureau, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 110603

    2006

  41. [49]

    Papadimitriou, A

    G. Papadimitriou, A. T. Kruppa, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płosza- jczak, J. Rotureau, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 051304

    2011

  42. [50]

    Jaganathen, R

    Y . Jaganathen, R. M. I. Betan, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 054316

    2017

  43. [51]

    J. Li, Y . Ma, N. Michel, B. Hu, Z. Sun, W. Zuo, F. Xu, Physics 3 (4) (2021) 977–997

    2021

  44. [52]

    Berggren, Nuclear Physics A 109 (2) (1968) 265–287

    T. Berggren, Nuclear Physics A 109 (2) (1968) 265–287

    1968

  45. [53]

    Berggren, P

    T. Berggren, P. Lind, Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 768–778

    1993

  46. [54]

    Li, B.-S

    J.-G. Li, B.-S. Hu, S. Zhang, F.-R. Xu, Nuclear Science and Techniques 35 (2) (2024) 21

    2024

  47. [55]

    Michel, J

    N. Michel, J. G. Li, L. H. Ru, W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) L011301

    2022

  48. [56]

    Fossez, J

    K. Fossez, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 024308

    2017

  49. [57]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płoszajczak, J. Okołowicz, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 054311

    2003

  50. [58]

    K. H. Li, N. Chen, J. G. Li, H. H. Li, M. R. Xie, C. W. Ma, W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 034327

    2025

  51. [59]

    N. Chen, J. G. Li, K. H. Li, N. Michel, P. Y . Wang, W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 034319

    2025

  52. [60]

    G. L. G. Sleijpen, H. A. Van der V orst, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 17 (2) (1996) 401–425

    1996

  53. [61]

    G. L. G. Sleijpen, A. G. L. Booten, D. R. Fokkema, H. A. van der V orst, BIT Numerical Mathematics 36 (3) (1996) 595–633

    1996

  54. [62]

    Michel, H

    N. Michel, H. Aktulga, Y . Jaganathen, Computer Physics Communica- tions 247 (2020) 106978

    2020

  55. [63]

    Suzuki, K

    Y . Suzuki, K. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 410–413

    1988

  56. [64]

    Fossez, J

    K. Fossez, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, Q. Liu, W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 054302

    2016

  57. [65]

    Brillouin, La m ´ethode du champ self-consistent, V ol

    L. Brillouin, La m ´ethode du champ self-consistent, V ol. 71, Hermann et Cie, 1993

    1993

  58. [66]

    Fossez, J

    K. Fossez, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, M. Płoszajczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 032501. [63]http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf

    2017

  59. [67]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 1773–1825

    2009

  60. [68]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K ¨onig, U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92 (2020) 025004

    2020

  61. [69]

    Hammer, A

    H.-W. Hammer, A. Nogga, A. Schwenk, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 197– 217

    2013

  62. [70]

    Contessi, A

    L. Contessi, A. Lovato, F. Pederiva, A. Roggero, J. Kirscher, U. van Kolck, Physics Letters B 772 (2017) 839–848

    2017

  63. [71]

    Kirscher, N

    J. Kirscher, N. Barnea, D. Gazit, F. Pederiva, U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 054002

    2015

  64. [72]

    J. G. Li, N. Michel, W. Zuo, F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 034305

    2021

  65. [73]

    K. W. Brown, R. J. Charity, L. G. Sobotka, L. V . Grigorenko, T. A. Golubkova, S. Bedoor, W. W. Buhro, Z. Chajecki, J. M. Elson, W. G. Lynch, J. Manfredi, D. G. McNeel, W. Reviol, R. Shane, R. H. Showalter, M. B. Tsang, J. R. Winkelbauer, A. H. Wuosmaa, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034329

    2015

  66. [74]

    H. T. Fortune, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 054310

    2006

  67. [75]

    Mukha, K

    I. Mukha, K. S ¨ummerer, L. Acosta, M. A. G. Alvarez, E. Casarejos, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina-Gil, I. A. Egorova, J. M. Espino, A. Fomichev, J. E. Garc ´ıa-Ramos, H. Geissel, J. G ´omez-Camacho, L. Grigorenko, J. Hofmann, O. Kiselev, A. Korsheninnikov, N. Kurz, Y . A. Litvinov,...

    2010

  68. [76]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 523 (1) (1991) 1–196

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 523 (1) (1991) 1–196. 8

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.