pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17728 · v1 · pith:7ZD34L2Wnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Mass Probe of Tetrahedral Symmetry in Atomic Nuclei

F. F. Xu , P. W. Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 22:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords tetrahedral symmetrynuclear binding energieszirconium isotopesmean-field calculationsdensity functional theorynuclear shapesproton-neutron binding
0
0 comments X

The pith

The peak in triple binding energy difference at N=40 for zirconium isotopes appears only when tetrahedral nuclear deformation is allowed in mean-field calculations.

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

This paper shows that the experimental values of the triple binding energy difference in even-even zirconium isotopes from 80 to 90 are reproduced by relativistic density functional theory on a three-dimensional lattice. The pronounced nonmonotonic peak at neutron number 40 emerges at the mean-field level solely when the tetrahedral shape degree of freedom is included. Constraining this deformation to zero eliminates the peak and causes deviations from data. The effect traces to a localized tetrahedral energy minimum in zirconium-80, supported by potential energy surfaces and single-particle level patterns. This identifies a structural signature of tetrahedral symmetry distinct from proton-neutron correlation enhancements.

Core claim

Relativistic density functional theory solved without symmetry restrictions reproduces the experimental triple binding energy differences δV_pn^(3) for 80-90Zr isotopes. The peak at N=40 arises at the mean-field level only with tetrahedral deformation; setting it to zero removes the peak. This is traced to a well-localized tetrahedral minimum in 80Zr, and quadrupole-triaxial restrictions fail to capture the localized enhancement, showing it is symmetry-selective rather than a generic correlation effect.

What carries the argument

the tetrahedral degree of freedom in the mean-field calculation, which produces a localized energy minimum in 80Zr and a symmetry-selective enhancement of proton-neutron binding

If this is right

  • Nuclear masses serve as a sensitive probe for tetrahedral symmetry.
  • The anomaly at N=40 is a structural mechanism separate from conventional Wigner-type enhancements near N=Z.
  • Calculations restricted to quadrupole and triaxial shapes fail to reproduce the localized enhancement.
  • The effect is a symmetry-selective increase of proton-neutron binding tied to tetrahedral geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar mass-based probes could be applied to search for tetrahedral effects in other isotopic chains or mass regions.
  • Confirmation via masses would motivate targeted experiments on excited-state properties in 80Zr to seek additional tetrahedral signatures.
  • The method might reveal whether tetrahedral minima occur more broadly than current models predict.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen relativistic density functional solved on a 3D lattice without symmetry restrictions accurately locates a tetrahedral energy minimum in 80Zr that is not an artifact of the functional or numerical method.

What would settle it

An improved calculation or new measurement that reproduces the N=40 peak in δV_pn^(3) even after tetrahedral deformation is explicitly constrained to zero would falsify the requirement for tetrahedral symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17728 by F. F. Xu, P. W. Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online.) Calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online.) Potential energy surfaces of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online.) Single-particle energies near the Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b) shows the corresponding δVpn values. A peak at 80Zr is observed, though less pronounced, especially considering the 99% credible interval of δVpn for 78Zr. While δVpn has not previously been recognized as a signature of tetrahedral deformation, it exhibits a local enhancement at 80Zr. Since tetrahedral deformation in 80Zr minimally affects δVpn for 78Zr, 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tetrahedral symmetry has long been predicted as an exotic shape degree of freedom in atomic nuclei, yet clear experimental manifestations remain elusive. We show that the triple binding energy difference $\delta V_{pn}^{(3)}$ can isolate a structural effect of tetrahedral symmetry in $^{80}$Zr. Using relativistic density functional theory solved on a three-dimensional lattice without symmetry restrictions, the experimental $\delta V_{pn}^{(3)}$ values for even-even $^{80\text{-}90}$Zr isotopes are well reproduced without adjustable parameters. While an enhancement of $\delta V_{pn}^{(3)}$ near $N\simeq Z$ is commonly attributed to proton-neutron correlations beyond the mean field, the pronounced nonmonotonic peak at $N=40$ emerges at the mean-field level only when the tetrahedral degree of freedom is included. Constraining the tetrahedral deformation to zero removes the peak and leads to clear deviations from experiment. The anomaly is traced to a well-localized tetrahedral minimum in $^{80}$Zr, supported by potential energy surfaces and characteristic single-particle level splittings. Calculations restricted to quadrupole and triaxial shapes fail to reproduce the localized enhancement, indicating that the effect is not a generic proton-neutron correlation but a symmetry-selective increase of proton-neutron binding associated with tetrahedral geometry. We therefore identify the $\delta V_{pn}^{(3)}$ anomaly in $^{80}$Zr as a structural mechanism distinct from the conventional Wigner-type enhancement and show that nuclear masses constitute a sensitive probe of tetrahedral symmetry.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the pronounced nonmonotonic peak in the triple binding energy difference δV_pn^(3) at N=40 for even-even Zr isotopes is a mean-field effect arising exclusively from a localized tetrahedral energy minimum in 80Zr. Using relativistic density functional theory solved without symmetry restrictions on a 3D lattice, the experimental δV_pn^(3) values are reproduced without adjustable parameters; constraining tetrahedral deformation to zero removes the peak and produces deviations from data, while quadrupole/triaxial restrictions also fail to capture the enhancement.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work identifies nuclear masses as a symmetry-selective probe capable of isolating tetrahedral effects from generic proton-neutron correlations. The parameter-free reproduction of data via unconstrained mean-field calculations and the explicit comparison of constrained versus unconstrained solutions constitute clear strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the specific relativistic density functional is never named, and no lattice spacing, basis parameters, or convergence tests are reported. This directly undermines the claim that the tetrahedral minimum in 80Zr is physical rather than a discretization or functional artifact, as the peak's appearance is tied to the unconstrained 3D solution.
  2. [Results on potential energy surfaces] Section discussing the potential energy surfaces and single-particle levels: the depth and stability of the tetrahedral minimum relative to other shapes are not quantified with respect to variations in numerical parameters or alternative functionals. Without such checks, the assertion that the δV_pn^(3) anomaly is produced only when tetrahedral freedom is allowed remains vulnerable to the possibility that the minimum is method-dependent.
  3. [Constrained calculations] Comparison of constrained calculations: while the text states that setting tetrahedral deformation to zero removes the peak, no quantitative measure is given for how the energy surface changes or whether residual triaxial or octupole effects could mimic the feature under different constraints.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The symbol δV_pn^(3) should be defined explicitly on first appearance, including the precise combination of binding energies involved.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will make the necessary revisions to improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the specific relativistic density functional is never named, and no lattice spacing, basis parameters, or convergence tests are reported. This directly undermines the claim that the tetrahedral minimum in 80Zr is physical rather than a discretization or functional artifact, as the peak's appearance is tied to the unconstrained 3D solution.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript should explicitly name the relativistic density functional employed and provide details on the lattice spacing, basis parameters, and convergence tests. These details are standard for reproducibility in lattice DFT calculations. In the revised version, we will include this information in the methods section and abstract if space permits, along with results from convergence checks to demonstrate that the tetrahedral minimum is robust and not an artifact of discretization or the choice of functional. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on potential energy surfaces] Section discussing the potential energy surfaces and single-particle levels: the depth and stability of the tetrahedral minimum relative to other shapes are not quantified with respect to variations in numerical parameters or alternative functionals. Without such checks, the assertion that the δV_pn^(3) anomaly is produced only when tetrahedral freedom is allowed remains vulnerable to the possibility that the minimum is method-dependent.

    Authors: The referee correctly points out the need for quantification of the tetrahedral minimum's depth and stability. We will revise the section on potential energy surfaces to include quantitative measures of energy differences relative to other shapes and perform additional calculations varying numerical parameters and, if feasible, using an alternative functional to confirm the robustness of the result. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Constrained calculations] Comparison of constrained calculations: while the text states that setting tetrahedral deformation to zero removes the peak, no quantitative measure is given for how the energy surface changes or whether residual triaxial or octupole effects could mimic the feature under different constraints.

    Authors: We will enhance the discussion of the constrained calculations by providing quantitative data on the changes in the energy surface when tetrahedral deformation is constrained to zero. Additionally, we will include comparisons with constraints on triaxial and octupole degrees of freedom to address the possibility of mimicking effects and strengthen the conclusion that the anomaly is specific to tetrahedral symmetry. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation compares mean-field results to external data

full rationale

The paper computes δV_pn^(3) for even-even Zr isotopes using a relativistic density functional on a 3D lattice without symmetry restrictions and without adjustable parameters. It reproduces experimental values and isolates the N=40 peak by direct comparison of two classes of calculations (tetrahedral freedom allowed vs. constrained to zero) against the same external dataset. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the result remains falsifiable by other functionals or solvers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the accuracy of a particular relativistic energy density functional for describing shape coexistence and on the numerical reliability of the 3D lattice solver when symmetry is not imposed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Relativistic density functional theory solved on a 3D lattice without symmetry restrictions yields the correct ground-state shape for 80Zr
    Invoked to interpret the emergence of the tetrahedral minimum and the resulting mass anomaly

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5800 in / 1235 out tokens · 28874 ms · 2026-06-26T22:20:43.002260+00:00 · methodology

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

64 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Hamamoto, B

    I. Hamamoto, B. Mottelson, H. Xie, and X. Z. Zhang, Z. Phys . D 21, 163 (1991)

    1991

  2. [2]

    Dudek, A

    J. Dudek, A. Go´ zd´ z, N. Schunck, and M. Mi´ skiewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 252502 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    R. A. Bark, J. F. Sharpey-Schafer, S. M. Maliage, T. E. Mad iba, F. S. Komati, E. A. Lawrie, 10 J. J. Lawrie, R. Lindsay, P. Maine, S. M. Mullins, S. H. T. Murr ay, N. J. Ncapayi, T. M. Ramashidza, F. D. Smit, and P. Vymers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 022501 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Jentschel, W

    M. Jentschel, W. Urban, J. Krempel, D. Tonev, J. Dudek, D. Curien, B. Lauss, G. de Angelis, and P. Petkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 222502 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Li and J

    X. Li and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. C 49, R1250 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    W. D. Heiss, R. A. Lynch, and R. G. Nazmitdinov, Phys. Rev. C 60, 034303 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    Dudek, D

    J. Dudek, D. Curien, N. Dubray, J. Dobaczewski, V. Pangon , P. Olbratowski, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 072501 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Arita and Y

    K.-i. Arita and Y. Mukumoto, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054308 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Dudek, D

    J. Dudek, D. Curien, I. Dedes, K. Mazurek, S. Tagami, Y. R. Shimizu, and T. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. C 97, 021302(R) (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Schunck, J

    N. Schunck, J. Dudek, A. G´ o´ zd´ z, and P. H. Regan, Phys.Rev. C 69, 061305(R) (2004)

    2004

  11. [11]

    Zberecki, P.-H

    K. Zberecki, P.-H. Heenen, and P. Magierski, Phys. Rev. C 79, 014319 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    Tagami, Y

    S. Tagami, Y. R. Shimizu, and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054306 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Miyahara and H

    S. Miyahara and H. Nakada, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064318 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    X. Wang, G. Dong, Z. Gao, Y. Chen, and C. Shen, Phys. Lett. B 790, 498 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Zhao, B.-N

    J. Zhao, B.-N. Lu, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014320 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Rong, X.-Y

    Y.-T. Rong, X.-Y. Wu, B.-N. Lu, and J.-M. Yao, Phys. Lett . B 840, 137896 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

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

    2024

  18. [18]

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

    2024

  19. [19]

    Bijker and F

    R. Bijker and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 152501 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißne r, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 102501 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Ackermann, H

    B. Ackermann, H. Baltzer, C. Ensel, K. Freitag, V. Grafe n, C. G¨ unther, P. Herzog, J. Manns, M. Marten-T¨ olle, U. M¨ uller, J. Prinz, I. Romanski, R. T¨ olle, J. deBoer, N. Gollwitzer, and H. Maier, Nucl. Phys. A 559, 61 (1993)

    1993

  22. [22]

    S. S. Ntshangase, R. A. Bark, D. G. Aschman, S. Bvumbi, P. Datta, P. M. Davidson, T. S. Dinoko, M. E. A. Elbasher, K. Juh´ asz, E. M. A. Khaleel, A. Kra sznahorkay, E. A. Lawrie, J. J. Lawrie, R. M. Lieder, S. N. T. Majola, P. L. Masiteng, H. M ohammed, S. M. Mullins, P. Nieminen, B. M. Nyak´ o, P. Papka, D. G. Roux, J. F. Sharpey- Shafer, O. Shirinda, M....

    2010

  23. [23]

    Sumikama, K

    T. Sumikama, K. Yoshinaga, H. Watanabe, S. Nishimura, Y . Miyashita, K. Yam- aguchi, K. Sugimoto, J. Chiba, Z. Li, H. Baba, J. S. Berryman, N. Blasi, A. Bracco, F. Camera, P. Doornenbal, S. Go, T. Hashimoto, S. Hayakawa, C . Hinke, E. Ideguchi, T. Isobe, Y. Ito, D. G. Jenkins, Y. Kawada, N. Kobayashi, Y. Ko ndo, R. Kr¨ ucken, S. Kubono, G. Lorusso, T. Nak...

    2011

  24. [24]

    D. J. Hartley, L. L. Riedinger, R. V. F. Janssens, S. N. T. Majola, M. A. Riley, J. M. Allmond, C. W. Beausang, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, N. Cooper, D. Cu rien, B. J. P. Gall, P. E. Garrett, F. G. Kondev, W. D. Kulp, T. Lauritsen, E. A. McCutch an, D. Miller, S. Miller, J. Piot, N. Redon, J. F. Sharpey-Schafer, J. Simpson, I. Stef anescu, X. Wang, V....

    2017

  25. [25]

    J. Y. Zhang, R. F. Casten, and D. S. Brenner, Phys. Lett. B 227, 1 (1989)

    1989

  26. [26]

    D. S. Brenner, C. Wesselborg, R. F. Casten, D. D. Warner, and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 243, 1 (1990)

    1990

  27. [27]

    R. F. Casten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1991 (1985)

    1991

  28. [28]

    R. B. Cakirli and R. F. Casten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 132501 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    Heyde, P

    K. Heyde, P. Van Isacker, R. Casten, and J. Wood, Phys. Le tt. B 155, 303 (1985)

    1985

  30. [30]

    R. B. Cakirli, D. S. Brenner, R. F. Casten, and E. A. Millm an, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 092501 (2005)

    2005

  31. [31]

    Van Isacker, D

    P. Van Isacker, D. D. Warner, and D. S. Brenner, Phys. Rev . Lett. 74, 4607 (1995)

    1995

  32. [32]

    Satu/suppress la, D

    W. Satu/suppress la, D. Dean, J. Gary, S. Mizutori, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Lett. B 407, 103 (1997)

    1997

  33. [33]

    L. Chen, Y. A. Litvinov, W. R. Plaß, K. Beckert, P. Beller , F. Bosch, D. Boutin, L. Cac- eres, R. B. Cakirli, J. J. Carroll, R. F. Casten, R. S. Chakraw arthy, D. M. Cullen, I. J. Cullen, B. Franzke, H. Geissel, J. Gerl, M. G´ orska, G. A. Jon es, A. Kishada, R. Kn¨ obel, C. Kozhuharov, S. A. Litvinov, Z. Liu, S. Mandal, F. Montes, G . M¨ unzenberg, F. N...

    2009

  34. [34]

    Neidherr, G

    D. Neidherr, G. Audi, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. B¨ ohm, M. Brei tenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, R. F. Cas- 12 ten, S. George, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, A. Kellerbauer, M. K owalska, D. Lunney, E. Minaya- Ramirez, S. Naimi, E. Noah, L. Penescu, M. Rosenbusch, S. Sch warz, L. Schweikhard, and T. Stora, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 112501 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Ketelaer, G

    J. Ketelaer, G. Audi, T. Beyer, K. Blaum, M. Block, R. B. C akirli, R. F. Casten, C. Droese, M. Dworschak, K. Eberhardt, M. Eibach, F. Herfurth, E. Minay a Ramirez, S. Nagy, D. Nei- dherr, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, C. Smorra, and M. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014311 (2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    Mardor, S

    I. Mardor, S. A. S. Andr´ es, T. Dickel, D. Amanbayev, S. B eck, J. Bergmann, H. Geissel, L. Gr¨ of, E. Haettner, C. Hornung, N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki , G. Kripko-Koncz, I. Miskun, A. Mollaebrahimi, W. R. Plaß, C. Scheidenberger, H. Weick, S . Bagchi, D. L. Balabanski, A. A. Bezbakh, Z. Brencic, O. Charviakova, V. Chudoba, P. Con stantin, M. Dehghan, A. S....

    2021

  37. [37]

    M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. H. Zhou, H. S. Xu, M. L. Liu , J. G. Li, Y. F. Niu, W. J. Huang, Q. Yuan, S. Zhang, F. R. Xu, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, Z. Meisel, R. F. Casten, R. B. Cakirli, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge, H. F. Li, T. Liao, S. A. Litvinov, P. Shuai, J. Y. Shi, Y. N. Song, M. Z. Sun, Q. Wang, Y. M. Xing, X. Xu, X. L. Yan, J...

    2023

  38. [38]

    D. S. Brenner, R. B. Cakirli, and R. F. Casten, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034315 (2006)

    2006

  39. [39]

    G. J. Fu, H. Jiang, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014307 (2010)

    2010

  40. [40]

    Bender and P.-H

    M. Bender and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 83, 064319 (2011)

    2011

  41. [41]

    Z. Wu, S. A. Changizi, and C. Qi, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034334 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Zhang and S

    W. Zhang and S. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054303 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Y. P. Wang, Y. K. Wang, F. F. Xu, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 232501 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    R. B. Cakirli, K. Blaum, and R. F. Casten, Front. Phys. 13, 1653635 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Federman and S

    P. Federman and S. Pittel, Phys. Lett. B 77, 29 (1978)

    1978

  46. [46]

    Stoitsov, R

    M. Stoitsov, R. B. Cakirli, R. F. Casten, W. Nazarewicz, and W. Satu/suppress la, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 132502 (2007). 13

    2007

  47. [47]

    Ring, Prog

    P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  48. [48]

    Z. X. Ren and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 102, 021301(R) (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    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)

    2019

  50. [50]

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

    2020

  51. [51]

    D. D. Zhang, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024322 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

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

    2020

  53. [53]

    Yamagami, K

    M. Yamagami, K. Matsuyanagi, and M. Matsuo, Nucl. Phys. A 693, 579 (2001)

    2001

  54. [54]

    Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure, Int ernational Review of Nuclear Physics , Vol

    J. Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure, Int ernational Review of Nuclear Physics , Vol. 10 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ri ng, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  56. [56]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    Ryssens, V

    W. Ryssens, V. Hellemans, M. Bender, and P.-H. Heenen, Comput. Phys. Commun. 190, 231 (2015)

    2015

  58. [58]

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

    2010

  59. [59]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    Hamaker, E

    A. Hamaker, E. Leistenschneider, R. Jain, G. Bollen, S. A. Giuliani, K. Lund, W. Nazarewicz, L. Neufcourt, C. R. Nicoloff, D. Puentes, R. Ringle, C. S. Sumit hrarachchi, and I. T. Yandow, Nat. Phys. 17, 1408 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Ol sen, A. M. Perhac, and M. Stoitsov, Nature 486, 509 (2012)

    2012

  62. [62]

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V. Afanasjev, D. Ray, and P. Ring, Phys . Rev. C 89, 054320 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    X. H. Wu and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 101, 051301 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016). 14

    2016