Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Dynamical pair breaking in fission populates unnatural-parity fragment states and can break the equal positive/negative parity split assumed in decay models.

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-4.5

2026-07-31 22:23 UTC pith:7VRKUDHR

load-bearing objection First real microscopic look at fragment parity in TDHFB fission; the mechanism holds, the global yield claim is still one-path. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24156 v1 pith:7VRKUDHR submitted 2026-07-27 nucl-th nucl-ex

Microscopic Spin-Parity Distributions of Fission Fragments

Guillaume Scamps , Petar Marevi\'c , Antonio Bjel\v{c}i\'c , Nicolas Schunck This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-ex PACS 24.75.+i21.60.Jz25.85.Ec
keywords nuclear fissionfission fragmentsspin-parity distributionsTDHFBparity projectionpair breakingangular momentumfragment de-excitation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper fully maps the joint spin and parity content of primary fission fragments from thermal neutron-induced fission of plutonium-239. Using time-dependent mean-field dynamics with two independent energy functionals, the authors project each fragment onto definite angular momentum, its projection K along the fission axis, parity, and particle numbers at once. They find that pair breaking during scission feeds a substantial unnatural-parity fraction and nonzero-K components, and that the parity mix depends systematically on whether the fragment has even or odd proton and neutron numbers. Even-even fragments strongly favor positive natural parity; odd-mass fragments show parity staggering tied to the unpaired nucleon’s orbital; odd-odd fragments prefer negative parity. The result matters because statistical models of fragment gamma and neutron emission currently assume equal positive and negative parity, an assumption these microscopic distributions can violate at low energy.

Core claim

Simultaneous angular-momentum, particle-number, and parity projections of TDHFB fission fragments show that dynamical pair breaking during scission populates a significant fraction of unnatural-parity states and nonzero-K components. The parity content is ordered by fragment number parity—even-even fragments are dominated by positive natural parity, odd-mass fragments show pronounced parity staggering, and odd-odd fragments favor negative parity—so the fragment parity distribution can depart substantially from the equiprobable partition used in statistical de-excitation models.

What carries the argument

Localized simultaneous projection of the TDHFB wave function onto fragment J, K, parity π, N, and Z (via a fragment-centered parity operator together with particle-number and angular-momentum projectors, evaluated with Pfaffians), which yields the joint distribution P(J,K,π,N,Z) for each fully separated primary fragment.

Load-bearing premise

Every reported distribution comes from a single dynamical trajectory on the most probable fission path, so the claimed parity biases and number-parity patterns could change if other scission shapes contribute differently.

What would settle it

Repeat the same joint J–K–π–N–Z projections on an ensemble of trajectories that sample symmetric and highly asymmetric scission configurations; if the equipartition departure and the even-even / odd-mass / odd-odd parity patterns wash out or reverse, the central claim fails for the full fragment yield.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Statistical fragment-decay codes that assume equal π = ± should be updated with number-parity-dependent parity weights, especially for even-even and heavy near-magic fragments.
  • Unnatural-parity and high-|K| populations can be read as direct microscopic signatures of pair breaking at scission.
  • Heavy fragments near 132Sn largely reflect a 0+ core plus one valence nucleon’s spin and parity, giving a shell-model handle on populated states.
  • Photon multiplicities and spectra from de-excitation simulations will shift once these microscopic parity distributions are fed in.
  • Comparing Gogny and Skyrme already shows the qualitative mechanisms are robust while single-particle orbital ordering can rearrange which odd-mass parity wins.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If parity bias survives a full trajectory ensemble, evaluated fission-product gamma libraries may need systematic reweighting by fragment (N,Z) parity class rather than a global 50/50 split.
  • Excitation-energy dependence of the unnatural-parity fraction would test whether pair breaking saturates or continues to grow above the thermal regime studied here.
  • The same projection pipeline applied to other actinides could reveal whether the odd-odd negative-parity preference is universal or tied to the 239Pu scission shell structure.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors present the first simultaneous projection of TDHFB fission-fragment wave functions onto angular momentum J, its intrinsic projection K, parity π, and particle numbers N and Z, for thermal 239Pu(n,f), using two independent implementations (an in-house Gogny code with no spatial symmetry imposed, and the Skyrme AxialHOHFB code with axial symmetry). A localized fragment parity projector (Eq. 1; SM Eq. 2) is combined with standard number and angular-momentum projectors via Pfaffian overlaps to produce joint distributions P(J,K,π,N,Z). The main findings are: (i) dynamical pair breaking populates a significant unnatural-parity fraction and generates K≠0 components despite axially symmetric fragments; (ii) parity systematics are ordered by fragment number parity (even-even positive/natural dominance, odd-mass staggering whose sign depends on which nucleon is odd, odd-odd negative-parity preference); (iii) the heavy fragment behaves as a 132Sn-like core plus a valence nucleon whose spin-parity fingerprints the fragment distribution; and (iv) fragment parity partitions can depart significantly from the equiprobable π=± assumption used in statistical de-excitation models (CGMF, FREYA, FIFRELIN). The two EDFs agree on all qualitative mechanisms while differing in quantitative details traceable to single-particle spectra.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a genuinely useful contribution. Parity distributions of primary fragments are a known missing input to Hauser–Feshbach fragment de-excitation codes, which currently assume equiprobable π=±; this Letter provides the first microscopic, parameter-free-in-the-relevant-sense predictions (the projection outputs are not tuned to equipartition or data). Specific strengths deserve explicit credit: (1) two fully independent codes, EDFs, bases, and pairing treatments reproduce the same qualitative mechanisms — this is real cross-validation rather than a single-calculation claim; (2) the heavy-fragment shell fingerprint (7/2− dominance in 133Sn, 5/2+/7/2+ in 133Sb, 11/2− in Skyrme) is a concrete, falsifiable internal consistency check that links the projection machinery to known structure; (3) the projection meshes, basis sizes, separation criteria, and quadratures are documented in the Supplemental Material at a level that makes the calculation reproducible in principle; (4) the natural/unnatural decomposition of P(K) provides a clean mechanistic signature of pair breaking. The work is well positioned for a Letter and will be used by the fission-event-generator社区

major comments (3)
  1. [Method; Results (Fig. 3); Conclusion] All reported distributions derive from number-projection fluctuations around a single TDHFB trajectory per EDF (Skyrme: q20=171.6 b, q30=13.2 b^3/2). The 218/162 fragments in the Gogny run are therefore not independent fission events but quantum fluctuations of one wavepacket on the most probable path, as the authors themselves state. This is load-bearing for the strongest claim (Abstract and Fig. 3): that parity partitions 'depart significantly' from equipartition with number-parity-ordered systematics across the fragment mass range. Since the argued mechanism is pair breaking at scission, and pair breaking depends on scission configuration and excitation energy, both the sign and magnitude of the biases in Fig. 3 are plausibly path-dependent; the symmetric and highly-asymmetric channels are entirely absent. The authors acknowledge this in the Conclusion, but the Abstract and the Fig. 3
  2. [Eq. (1) and SM Eq. (2)] The localized parity operator Pi_F = (1-Theta_F) + T_F^dagger Theta_F Pi Theta_F T_F acts as the identity outside the fragment's spatial box. Two points need demonstration rather than assertion. (a) The text states that P^pi_F, P^{N,Z}_F, and P^J_{KK,F} 'form a set of mutually commuting operators.' Exact commutation of the box-localized reflection with the number and angular-momentum projectors is not obvious — it holds only insofar as the box cleanly separates the fragments and the box boundaries do not cut through non-negligible density. Please state the precise sense in which commutation holds (exact for the separation criteria used? approximate at the level of the inter-fragment density tail?) and quantify any residual. (b) The result should be shown to be insensitive to the box size/placement: a short SM figure or table showing P(pi) convergence as the box boundary is varied (e.g.,
  3. [Fig. 3 and surrounding text (w(N_F,Z_F) > 1e-5 cutoff)] The Fig. 3 parity fractions are extracted per (N,Z) from conditional distributions that include fragments whose total weight w(N_F,Z_F) is as low as 1e-5. For such fragments the numerator of the positive/negative-parity fraction is a difference of small Pfaffian-overlap sums, and the fraction can be dominated by quadrature noise (the alpha/gamma meshes have 16-18 points, gauge meshes 9-17 points) rather than physics. The odd-mass staggering and odd-odd negative-parity preference — key results — are drawn partly from this tail. Please provide an uncertainty estimate: e.g., recompute representative low-weight fragments with a finer Euler-angle/gauge mesh, or propagate the known convergence error of the angular-momentum projection into error bars on the Fig. 3 fractions. If the number-parity patterns survive at the tails, stating so explicitly (with the check) would close the concern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, reaction formalism paragraph] The conservation constraints J0 = J1 + J2 + L and pi0 = pi1 pi2 piL are stated, but the projected distributions are never checked against them (e.g., correlating the two fragments' parities with the relative L). An a posteriori consistency check that the joint two-fragment distribution respects total parity for the J0^pi0 = 1/2+ compound nucleus would be a strong additional validation of the localized projector, and seems within reach of the existing machinery.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption and text] The 7/2+ vs 7/2- inversion in the Gogny heavy fragment (Results, third paragraph) is described as 'strong microscopic evidence' of pair breaking. A single-state inversion is suggestive rather than strong; consider softening, or show that the inversion is robust to projection-mesh refinement. Also, panel labels (a)-(f) are used in the text before the figure is introduced; check ordering.
  3. [Method] The two separation criteria (30 fm center-of-mass distance for Skyrme vs 6 fm skin distance for Gogny) are not equivalent a priori. A sentence estimating the corresponding tip-tip distance in each case, and noting whether the fragment relative motion has reached its asymptotic kinetic energy at that point, would help the reader assess whether Coulomb acceleration post-'scission' could still modify the internal fragment states between the two stopping points.
  4. [Fig. 2] Only Gogny results are shown for the representative fragments (one Skyrme overlay in panel g). Since Fig. 3 shows both EDFs, consider adding the corresponding Skyrme panels for at least the Sn/Sb isotopes to the SM, so the claimed shell fingerprints can be compared directly.
  5. [Typos/formatting] Front matter shows encoding artifacts (e.g., 'Universit´ e', 'Bjelˇ ci´ c', 'H ˚ akansson' in ref. 25); presumably arXiv metadata extraction, but worth checking the submission. In the abstract and introduction, 'non-zero spin projectionsK' is missing a space before K. Ref. 15 (Bohr, Mottelson — 'Nuclear structure, vol. 1 (1970)') is incomplete: give publisher and, ideally, the relevant section on parity of single-particle orbitals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: spin–parity distributions are direct TDHFB projection outputs, not fitted or definitionally forced by inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is computational, not definitional. A post-saddle TDHFB state is evolved to separated fragments; localized projectors on J, K, π, N, Z (Eqs. 1–2 and SM) are applied via Pfaffians; the resulting joint distributions are reported. Nothing in that chain is fitted to measured parity ratios or to the equiprobable π=± assumption the paper criticizes. EDF parameters (D1S, SkM*) and pairing cutoffs are inherited from the literature and are not retuned to the present parity claims. Self-citations supply prior TDHFB fission machinery and angular-momentum/particle-number projection technology; they do not encode or force the unnatural-parity fractions, K≠0 components, or number-parity systematics. Cross-check with two independent codes/EDFs further separates the result from any single methodological ansatz. The single-trajectory limitation affects scope and quantitative generality, not circularity. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard nuclear DFT dynamics plus a localized fragment parity projector, not on new particles or fitted parity parameters. Load-bearing modeling choices are the TDHFB mean-field truncation, two phenomenological EDFs, one post-saddle initial condition, axial restriction in one code, and the definition of fragment-local parity/particle/spin projectors after separation.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial post-saddle deformations (Skyrme q20=171.6 b, q30=13.2 b3/2; Gogny analogous constrained start) = Skyrme: q20=171.6 b, q30=13.2 b^{3/2}
    Hand-chosen starting point on the most probable path; selects the single trajectory whose fragments are analyzed. Not fitted to parity data, but it controls which scission configuration is sampled.
  • Fragment separation cut (Skyrme COM distance >30 fm; Gogny skin distance 6 fm) = 30 fm (Skyrme) / 6 fm skin (Gogny)
    Operational definition of ‘fully separated’ primary fragments when projections are evaluated; different between codes.
  • Projection quadrature meshes (Nβ, Nα,Nγ, Nφ) = e.g. Gogny Nβ=32, 9 gauge points; Skyrme Nβ=42, Nα=Nγ=18, Nφ=17
    Numerical discretizations of Euler and gauge integrals in the joint projector; convergence choices, not physics fits, but they affect reported probabilities at the percent level.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption TDHFB with a given EDF is a sufficient dynamical framework for primary fragment spin–parity content at scission.
    Method section; entire result is the projected TDHFB state. Beyond-mean-field ensemble fluctuations are deferred to future TDGCM work.
  • domain assumption Gogny D1S and Skyrme SkM* (with their pairing prescriptions) are adequate effective interactions for qualitative fission-fragment spectroscopy.
    Standard EDF choices cited from Berger et al. and Bartel et al.; quantitative single-particle differences are acknowledged (e.g. 133Sb).
  • ad hoc to paper Fragment-local parity projector P̂^π_F = (1 + π Π̂_F)/2 with Π̂_F acting only inside a spatial box about the fragment COM yields the physical fragment parity content of the global wave function.
    Eq. (1) and Supplemental Eq. (2); necessary to define π for one fragment inside a parity-breaking two-fragment state. Standard projector algebra is used, but localization is a modeling construct.
  • domain assumption After scission the fragments may be treated in their rest frames with mutually commuting local N, Z, J, K, π projectors; overlaps via Pfaffians.
    Method and Supplemental; builds on prior particle-number and angular-momentum projection literature cited (Simenel, Robledo, Bertsch, Scamps).
  • domain assumption In these runs fragment shapes remain axial, so non-zero K is attributed entirely to dynamical pair breaking rather than triaxial density.
    Stated in Introduction; Skyrme code imposes axial symmetry. Underpins the pair-breaking interpretation of P(K) and unnatural parity.
  • domain assumption Thermal neutron-induced fission of 239Pu is adequately modeled by evolving a pure 240Pu HFB state started beyond the saddle (no explicit compound-nucleus temperature ensemble).
    Method opening; standard in this class of TDHFB fission studies but idealizes the entrance channel.
invented entities (1)
  • Localized fragment parity projection operator Π̂_F / P̂^π_F no independent evidence
    purpose: Extract definite fragment parity from a global TDHFB wave function that breaks reflection symmetry across two fragments.
    Defined in Method Eq. (1) and Supplemental Eq. (2) via a spatial characteristic function and translation to the fragment frame. It is a calculational device, not a new physical degree of freedom; independent use would be other reaction calculations needing fragment parity.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 17017 in / 3967 out tokens · 90854 ms · 2026-07-31T22:23:02.798025+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic Spin-Parity Distributions of Fission Fragments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VRKUDHR

@misc{pith2026260724156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic Spin-Parity Distributions of Fission Fragments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VRKUDHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24156}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent microscopic studies have investigated various features of the spin distributions of fission fragments, but their parity distributions remain largely unexplored. In this Letter, we provide a complete characterization of the spin--parity content of fission fragments within a time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov framework, performing for the first time simultaneous projections on angular momentum, particle number, and parity. Calculations are carried out for the thermal neutron-induced fission of $^{239}$Pu using both the Gogny and Skyrme energy density functionals. We find that dynamical pair breaking during fission populates a significant fraction of unnatural-parity states and generates components with non-zero spin projections $K$. The parity content is found to depend on the number parity of the fragments, with odd-mass nuclei exhibiting pronounced parity staggering and odd-odd nuclei favoring negative parity. These results show that the parity distribution of fragments can depart significantly from the equiprobable partition commonly assumed in statistical de-excitation models, with potential implications for the modeling of fragment decay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24156 by Antonio Bjel\v{c}i\'c, Guillaume Scamps, Nicolas Schunck, Petar Marevi\'c.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Panels (a)–(d): Spin–parity distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spin–parity distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Parity distributions as a function of fragment mass number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. J. Krappe and K. Pomorski,Theory of Nuclear Fission (Springer, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Talou and R

    P. Talou and R. Vogt, eds.,Nuclear Fission: Theories, Experiments and Applications(Springer, 2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    J. N. Wilson et al., Angular momentum generation in nuclear fission, Nature590, 566 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    have focused on determining the total angular mo- mentum of the fragments, its projection on the fission axis (Kquantum number), and correlations between the fragments [5–10]. However, these approaches do not fully characterize the combined angular momentum and par- ity content of the fragments, information that is essen- tial to model their subsequent de...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Angular momentum of fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C99, 034603 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Schunck and D

    N. Schunck and D. Regnier, Theory of nuclear fission, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics125, 103963 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, An- gular momentum of fission fragments from microscopic theory, Phys. Rev. C104, L021601 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Together with ˆP π F , they form a set of mutually commuting operators

    in the fragments. Together with ˆP π F , they form a set of mutually commuting operators. The overlaps in (2) are evaluated using the Pfaffian method [29–32]. Note that both the angular momentum and parity projections are performed in the fragment’s frame of reference. The distribution (2) is normalized to one in each fragment. More details on the project...

    2024

  9. [13]

    Talou, I

    P. Talou, I. Stetcu, P. Jaffke, M. Rising, A. Lovell, and T. Kawano, Fission fragment decay simulations with the CGMF code, Computer Physics Communications269, 108087 (2021)

    2021

  10. [14]

    Kawano, A

    T. Kawano, A. E. Lovell, S. Okumura, H. Sasaki, I. Stetcu, and P. Talou, Consideration of memory of spin and parity in the fissioning compound nucleus by apply- ing the Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay model to photonuclear reactions, Phys. Rev. C107, 044608 (2023)

    2023

  11. [15]

    J. M. Verbeke, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, Fission Reaction Event Yield Algorithm FREYA 2.0.2, Computer Physics Communications222, 263 (2018)

    2018

  12. [16]

    Litaize, O

    O. Litaize, O. Serot, and L. Berge, Fission modelling with FIFRELIN, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 177 (2015)

    2015

  13. [17]

    A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson, and G. Breit, Nuclear struc- ture, vol. 1 (1970)

    1970

  14. [18]

    Bulgac, Time-dependent density functional theory, in Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, edited by N

    A. Bulgac, Time-dependent density functional theory, in Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, edited by N. Schunck (IOP Publishing, 2019) Chap. 4

    2019

  15. [19]

    Simenel, Nuclear quantum many-body dynamics (2nd edition), Eur

    C. Simenel, Nuclear quantum many-body dynamics (2nd edition), Eur. Phys. J. A61, 181 (2025)

    2025

  16. [20]

    Hashimoto, Linear responses in time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method with Gogny interac- tion, Eur

    Y. Hashimoto, Linear responses in time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method with Gogny interac- tion, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 55 (2012)

    2012

  17. [21]

    Hashimoto, Time-dependent Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov calculations using a Lagrange mesh with the Gogny interaction, Phys

    Y. Hashimoto, Time-dependent Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov calculations using a Lagrange mesh with the Gogny interaction, Phys. Rev. C88, 034307 (2013)

    2013

  18. [22]

    Hashimoto and G

    Y. Hashimoto and G. Scamps, Gauge angle dependence in time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations of 20O +20 O head-on collisions with the Gogny interac- tion, Phys. Rev. C94, 014610 (2016)

    2016

  19. [23]

    Scamps and Y

    G. Scamps and Y. Hashimoto, Transfer probabilities for the reactions 14,20O + 20 O in terms of multiple time- dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov trajectories, Phys. Rev. C96, 031602(R) (2017)

    2017

  20. [26]

    Berger, M

    J. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Microscopic analy- sis of collective dynamics in low energy fission, Nuclear Physics A428, 23 (1984)

    1984

  21. [27]

    Bartel, P

    J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. H ˚ akansson, Towards a better parametrisation of Skyrme- like effective forces: A critical study of the SkM force, Nucl. Phys. A386, 79 (1982)

    1982

  22. [28]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and M. V. Stoitsov, Contact Pairing Interaction for the Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov Calculations, inThe Nuclear Many-Body Problem 2001, Nato Science Series II No. 53 (Springer Netherlands, 2002) p. 181

    2001

  23. [29]

    Simenel, Particle Transfer Reactions with the Time- Dependent Hartree-Fock Theory Using a Particle Num- ber Projection Technique, Phys

    C. Simenel, Particle Transfer Reactions with the Time- Dependent Hartree-Fock Theory Using a Particle Num- ber Projection Technique, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 192701 (2010)

    2010

  24. [30]

    L. M. Robledo, Particle number projection on a spatial domain, Phys. Rev. C113, L061305 (2026)

    2026

  25. [31]

    L. M. Robledo, Sign of the overlap of Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov wave functions, Phys. Rev. C79, 021302(R) (2009)

    2009

  26. [35]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for more details on TDHFB and projected cal- culations

  27. [36]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, Texts and Monographs in Physics (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  28. [37]

    Verriere and D

    M. Verriere and D. Regnier, The Time-Dependent Gener- ator Coordinate Method in Nuclear Physics, Front. Phys. 8, 1 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    Marevi´ c, D

    P. Marevi´ c, D. Regnier, and D. Lacroix, Quantum fluc- tuations induce collective multiphonons in finite Fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. C108, 014620 (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Generalized time-dependent generator coordi- nate method for small- and large-amplitude collective motion, Phys. Rev. C108, 014321 (2023). Supplemental Material: Microscopic Spin–Parity Distributions of Fission Fragments Guillaume Scamps Universit´ e de Toulouse, CNRS/IN2P3, L2IT, Toulouse, Franc...

    2023

  31. [40]

    Scamps, I

    G. Scamps, I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. Stetcu, Spatial orientation of the fission fragment in- trinsic spins and their correlations, Phys. Rev. C108, L061602 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, and M. Verriere, Microscopic theory of angular momentum distributions across the full range of fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C113, 014612 (2026)

    2026

  33. [42]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck, and I. Stetcu, Fission fragment intrinsic spins and their correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 142502 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, K. Godbey, and I. Stetcu, Fragment intrinsic spins and fragments’ relative orbital angular momentum in nuclear fission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022501 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    Scamps, A

    G. Scamps, A. Guilleux, D. Regnier, and A. Bernard, Uncertainty principle and angular momentum generation in microscopic fission models (2025), arXiv:2512.02207 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [45]

    B. Li, D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 252502 (2026)

    2026

  37. [46]

    Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical com- putation of the pfaffian for dense and banded skew- symmetric matrices, ACM Trans

    M. Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical com- putation of the pfaffian for dense and banded skew- symmetric matrices, ACM Trans. Math. Softw.38, 30:1 (2012)

    2012

  38. [47]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Satu la, B. Carlsson, J. En- gel, P. Olbratowski, P. Powa lowski, M. Sadziak, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, A. Staszczak, M. Stoitsov, M. Zalewski, and H. Zdu´ nczuk, Solution of the Skyrme–Hartree–Fock–Bogolyubov equations in the Cartesian deformed harmonic-oscillator basis.: (VI) hfodd (v2.40h): A new version of the program, Computer Physics...

    2009

  39. [48]

    Bjelˇ ci´ c, N

    A. Bjelˇ ci´ c, N. Schunck, and M. Verriere, Excitation en- ergy of fission fragments within nuclear time-dependent density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C113, 034602 (2026)

    2026

  40. [49]

    Scamps and D

    G. Scamps and D. Lacroix, Effect of pairing on one- and two-nucleon transfer below the Coulomb barrier: A time-dependent microscopic description, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014605 (2013)

    2013

  41. [50]

    G. F. Bertsch and L. M. Robledo, Symmetry Restoration in Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov Based Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 042505 (2012)

    2012