Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The $\beta$-decay properties of $N=Z$ nuclei: Role of neutron-proton pairing and the shell model interpretation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A measured enhancement in the Gamow-Teller strength of 70Kr beta decay, often read as evidence for stronger neutron-proton pairing, is explained by shell-model calculations as a consequence of the g9/2 orbital rather than a direct pairing…

desk verdict A systematic, honest shell-model study that undercuts the pairing-fingerprint interpretation of the 62Ge/70Kr GT enhancement; the g9/2 mechanism is the softest spot but the main conclusion survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11769 v1 pith:2NSYONDF submitted 2025-07-15 nucl-th

Priyanka Choudhary , Chong Qi This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords Gamow-Tellerbetadecayneutron-protonpairingisoscalarshellmodelN=Znucleig9/2orbital70KrJUN45interaction
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 asks whether the unusually strong Gamow-Teller decay of $^{70}$Kr into $^{70}$Br, compared with the lighter $N=Z$ decay $^{62}$Ge into $^{62}$Ga, really signals stronger neutron-proton pairing. Using shell-model calculations, the authors show that with a pure pairing interaction the decay strength need not grow as the pairing strength increases; it can even fall. The rise appears only when the $g_{9/2}$ orbital is included, because that orbital gains occupancy as pairing strengthens and its $g_{9/2}\to g_{9/2}$ transition contributes strongly to $B_{\rm GT}$. With the realistic JUN45 interaction, the yrast $1^+$ enhancement for $^{70}$Kr relative to $^{62}$Ge is likewise driven by an increased $g_{9/2}$ contribution. The paper therefore cautions that low-lying Gamow-Teller strength is not, by itself, a fingerprint of neutron-proton pairing, while noting that accumulated strength can still increase with stronger pairing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the decomposition of the reduced Gamow-Teller matrix element $M_{\rm GT}=\langle \Psi_f\,||\,\sum_k \sigma_k \tau^\pm_k\,||\,\Psi_i\rangle$ into one-body transition densities and single-particle matrix elements, which lets the authors trace each part of the strength to a specific orbital transition such as $g_{9/2}\to g_{9/2}$. The schematic Hamiltonians use only $J=0,\,T=1$ and $J=1,\,T=0$ pairing matrix elements with equal coupling strength $A_T$; varying $A_T$ changes orbital occupancies and hence the sign and magnitude of each orbital contribution. The $g_{9/2}$ orbital is the key new ingredient, because its occupancy rises with $np$ pairing strength and the $g_{9/2}\to g_{9/2}$ term can convert a falling or flat $B_{\rm GT}$ into a rising one. Realistic interactions in the $fp$ and $f_{5/2}pg_{9/2}$ model spaces are then used to test whether that orbital-driven pattern survives outside the schematic setting.

What would settle it

A comparative shell-model calculation in an extended model space that includes both the $f_{7/2}$ and $g_{9/2}$ orbitals with a realistic interaction would settle the point: if the measured $^{70}$Kr$\to$$^{70}$Br $B_{\rm GT}$ distribution is reproduced with $g_{9/2}$ occupancy close to the JUN45 value and no strengthening of the $T=0$ pairing matrix elements, the $g_{9/2}$-driven mechanism is confirmed; if matching the data requires weakening that $g_{9/2}$ contribution, the proposed mechanism is an artifact of the interaction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed enhancement of the Gamow-Teller transition strength in $^{70}$Kr $\to$ $^{70}$Br compared with $^{62}$Ge $\to$ $^{62}$Ga is not, by itself, evidence for enhanced neutron-proton pairing. In schematic calculations with a surface-delta interaction containing only the isovector $J=0,\,T=1$ and isoscalar $J=1,\,T=0$ pairing matrix elements, the $B_{\rm GT}$ between the yrast $0^+$ and $1^+$ states does not necessarily increase as the pairing strength grows; whether it rises depends on how the participating orbitals' occupancies and phases change. Once the $g_{9/2}$ orbital is added to the model space, increasing $np$ pairing can enhance $B_{\rm GT}$ because the $g_{9/2}\to g_{9/2}$ contribution and the $g_{9/2}$ occupancy grow with pairing strength. In the realistic JUN45 calculation, the yrast $1^+$ $B_{\rm GT}$ for $^{70}$Kr is larger than for $^{62}$Ge for the same reason, namely the increased $g_{9/2}$ contribution, while the cumulative GT strength can also increase when the $T=0$ pairing matrix elements are strengthened in realistic interactions. The conclusion is that a GT fingerprint of $np$ pairing must be sought in accumulated strength and orbital-resolved contributions, not in a single low-lying transition.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's $g_{9/2}$-based explanation for the $^{70}$Kr-versus-$^{62}$Ge enhancement depends on the $g_{9/2}$ content of the JUN45 interaction being realistic, yet the same calculation is noted to overestimate $B_{\rm GT}$ for $^{70}$Kr, possibly because of a systematic overestimation of the $g_{9/2}$ contribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured yrast $1^+$ enhancement of $^{70}$Kr relative to $^{62}$Ge should not be cited as evidence for increased neutron-proton pairing without an orbital-resolved check.
  • Accumulated (summed) Gamow-Teller strength, rather than the low-lying transition alone, is the quantity that responds to enhanced $T=0$ pairing in the realistic GXPF1J calculation.
  • The JUN45 interaction overestimates the $^{70}$Kr $B_{\rm GT}$ values, likely from a systematic overestimation of the $g_{9/2}$ contribution, so its yrast prediction should be treated with care.
  • For unmeasured decays such as $^{66}$Se $\to$ $^{66}$As, the paper provides $B_{\rm GT}$ distributions that differ strongly between interactions, marking the configuration dependence of the predictions.
  • An extended model space containing both the $f_{7/2}$ and $g_{9/2}$ orbitals would be needed to decide how much of the observed strength is genuine $np$-pairing collectivity rather than orbital reoccupation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $g_{9/2}$-driven mechanism is right, the $^{70}$Kr enhancement is a shell-structure effect: it should be sensitive to the single-particle energy of the $g_{9/2}$ orbital and to interactions that change its occupancy, so varying those in calculations is a ready test.
  • A broader implication is that low-lying Gamow-Teller strengths are not a clean order parameter for isoscalar pairing anywhere along the $N=Z$ line; total GT strength or beta-decay half-lives may be better correlated with pairing.
  • The same orbital-decomposition approach could be applied to other $T=1$ parent decays where enhanced GT strength has been attributed to pairing, to see whether orbital reoccupation rather than pairing is the driver.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the Gamow-Teller (GT) beta decay of the N=Z even-even nuclei 58Zn, 62Ge, 66Se, and 70Kr into odd-odd N=Z daughters using large-scale shell-model calculations. The authors compare schematic surface-delta interactions containing only J=0,T=1 and J=1,T=0 pairing matrix elements in the f5/2p and f5/2pg9/2 model spaces with realistic interactions (JUN45, GXPF1J, GXPF1A, KB3G). Their central finding is that increasing neutron-proton pairing strength does not necessarily increase B_GT: the measured enhancement of the 70Kr decay relative to 62Ge is not, by itself, a clean fingerprint of stronger isoscalar pairing. They further propose that, when the g9/2 orbital is included, the yrast 1+ GT strength can increase with increasing np pairing because of an enhanced g9/2 to g9/2 contribution, and they probe this mechanism by varying single-particle energies and T=0 matrix elements.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a valuable caution for the interpretation of N=Z beta-decay data: the 70Kr/62Ge B_GT enhancement should not be read automatically as evidence for enhanced isoscalar neutron-proton pairing. The central qualitative claim, that the pairing strength does not monotonically enhance GT strength, is robust and follows already from the schematic calculations in Fig. 1. The paper also has genuine strengths: the decomposition of M_GT into orbital channels, the use of several independent realistic interactions, and explicit sensitivity scans of single-particle energies and T=0 matrix elements. There is no circularity in the method: the parameters A_T, A_0, delta, and Delta are scanned and probed, not fitted to reproduce B_GT. The weakest point is the constructive g9/2-driven mechanism for 70Kr, which rests on the JUN45 interaction even though the authors themselves state that JUN45 overestimates B_GT due to the g9/2 orbital.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.D, Fig. 6] The paper's proposed mechanism for the 70Kr enhancement relies on the g9/2 to g9/2 contribution being the dominant term in JUN45, yet the same section states that 'the calculations with the JUN45 interaction tend to overestimate the B_GT values, likely due to a systematic overestimation from the contribution of the g9/2 orbital.' This is a load-bearing tension: the very orbital responsible for the mass-number trend is the one independently flagged as unreliable. To make the claim credible, the authors should either quantify the g9/2 contribution in the interactions that reproduce the cumulative B_GT (GXPF1A, KB3G), or perform a sensitivity study in which the g9/2 GT matrix elements are scaled and show that the 62Ge-to-70Kr trend for the yrast 1+ state persists. As written, the mechanism may be an artifact of the JUN45 interaction's g9/2 content.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 2] The schematic f5/2pg9/2 calculation for 70Kr is truncated to a maximum of four nucleons (two protons and two neutrons) in the g9/2 orbital, as stated in the text. The conclusion that B_GT for the first 1+ state begins to increase after a certain pairing strength because of the g9/2 to g9/2 contribution could therefore be a truncation artifact. The authors should demonstrate convergence with respect to the allowed g9/2 occupancy (for example, 6 or 8 particles) or report the actual g9/2 occupancies in the initial and final states to show that the relevant contributions saturate. This matters because the schematic result is used to motivate the realistic JUN45 mechanism.
  3. [Section III.D and Section IV] The abstract states that 'in calculations with realistic interaction, we find that the accumulated transition strength can increase with enhanced np pairing,' but Section III.D notes that for JUN45 the cumulative GT transition strength decreases while the yrast 1+ strength increases, and that only for GXPF1J does the total accumulated B_GT increase. The sentence 'However, the cumulative GT transition strength decreases' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the decrease is with increasing mass number, with increasing pairing strength, or with the addition of the g9/2 orbital. Since the paper's main message is precisely that a single clean pairing fingerprint should not be extracted from the low-lying GT strength, the comparison underlying this sentence and the corresponding claim in the abstract and conclusion should be stated explicitly and qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction and Conclusion] The word 'pesudo-SU(4)' appears in both the introduction and the conclusion; it should be 'pseudo-SU(4).'
  2. [Reference [27]] The URL in Ref. [27] is missing the initial 'h' ('ttp://link.aps.org...'); it should read 'http://link.aps.org...'.
  3. [Section III.D] The reference to 'TABLE XXX of Supplemental Material' is a placeholder and should be replaced with the actual table number.
  4. [Section III.C and Fig. 5] Figure 5 shows the energy spectrum of 71Br computed with GXPF1J variants, but the connection of 71Br to the 66Se to 66As beta decay is not explained; the authors should state why this nucleus is introduced in this section.
  5. [Section III.A] For the JUN45 calculation of the 58Zn decay, the paper reports B_GT = 4.1577 for the first 1+ state, which is more than an order of magnitude above the experimental value, while the full fp-space GXPF1J result is close to experiment; this dramatic difference should be discussed more explicitly because it bears on the reliability of JUN45 for low-lying GT strengths in the same mass region.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions follow from explicit shell-model diagonalizations with pre-existing realistic interactions and scanned schematic parameters, not from fitting the target B_GT values.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the schematic pairing Hamiltonian through the realistic-interaction calculations. The schematic survey (Figs. 1-2) scans the pairing strengths A_T and A_0 over a grid; the paper explicitly states, 'We did not intend to optimize the single-particle energies and pairing strengths in the above calculations to better reproduce the experimental data' (Sec. III, preceding Table I). The realistic results use JUN45, GXPF1J, KB3G, and GXPF1A interactions published by Honma et al., Poves et al., etc., with a fixed quenching factor q=0.79; none of these are fitted to the 62Ge/70Kr GT data that the paper interprets. The attribution of the 70Kr enhancement to the g9/2->g9/2 contribution is a computed orbital decomposition within JUN45, not a parameter chosen to reproduce that enhancement. The paper's caveat that JUN45 'tend[s] to overestimate the B_GT values, likely due to a systematic overestimation from the contribution of the g9/2 orbital' (Sec. III D) is a limitation on the reliability of that specific mechanism, but it does not make the g9/2 contribution a fitted input or reduce the derivation to its conclusion. The only self-citations are to background reviews and to the NuShellX@KTH code, none of which are load-bearing for the central claim. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard shell-model assumptions plus several modeling choices specific to this paper: equal pairing strengths in the two channels, chosen single-particle orderings, a truncation for 70Kr, and a global quenching factor. None of these are fitted to the experimental B_GT values being interpreted, so the contributions are transparent, but the reader should count them as assumptions the reader pays for.

free parameters (4)
  • Pairing strength A_T (and A_1, A_0) in SDI Hamiltonian = Scanned 0.1 to 1.0 (A_T); A_0 scanned with A_1=0.6
    Strength of J=0,T=1 and J=1,T=0 pairing interactions in schematic calculations; varied by hand, not fitted to experimental B_GT.
  • Single-particle energy shift delta = 0 to 500 keV (JUN45); +/-500 keV for GXPF1J+ and GXPF1J-
    Moves p3/2 and f5/2 closer or farther; chosen to probe pseudo-SU(4) sensitivity, not fitted to data.
  • T=0 pairing matrix-element modification Delta = Scaling factor 0.1, meaning +/-10% on J=1,T=0 TBMEs
    Added or subtracted to probe the effect of enhanced or reduced isoscalar pairing on B_GT in realistic interactions.
  • GT quenching factor q = 0.79
    Global factor applied to B_GT; standard effective quenching borrowed from the literature, not fitted to the present data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Shell-model configuration interaction with the chosen effective interactions (JUN45, GXPF1J, GXPF1A, KB3G) gives reliable wave functions for these N=Z nuclei.
    Central to all conclusions about orbital contributions; these interactions were fitted to other nuclear data and are assumed transferable to the beta-decay observables.
  • domain assumption The GT transition is described by the one-body operator sigma tau with a constant quenching q=0.79; two-body currents and orbital angular momentum contributions are neglected.
    Used in Eq. (2) and throughout; standard but an approximation that can affect absolute B_GT values.
  • ad hoc to paper The surface-delta interaction with only J=0,T=1 and J=1,T=0 matrix elements, and equal coupling strengths in both channels, is a valid probe of np-pairing effects on GT decay.
    This is the paper's schematic model (Section III); the equal-strength choice is 'for simplicity' and is not justified from realistic interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper For the schematic f5/2pg9/2 calculations of 70Kr, limiting g9/2 occupancy to four nucleons does not alter the qualitative behavior of the GT strength.
    The truncation is computational; the authors state it but do not demonstrate convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $\beta$-decay properties of $N=Z$ nuclei: Role of neutron-proton pairing and the shell model interpretation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NSYONDF

@misc{pith2026250711769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $\beta$-decay properties of $N=Z$ nuclei: Role of neutron-proton pairing and the shell model interpretation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NSYONDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11769}
}
abstract

We study the recently measured beta-decay of $^{70}$Kr into $^{70}$Br within the framework of the large-scale shell model. The enhancement in the Gamow-Teller (GT) transition strength in $^{70}$Br compared to the $\beta$-decay of the lighter $^{62}$Ge was suggested as an indication for increased neutron-proton ($np$) pairing correlation. To explore the $np$ correlations in nuclei, we systematically examined the $\beta$-decay properties of the even-even nuclei $A=58,62,66,$ and $70$ into $N=Z$ odd-odd nuclei. By employing an interaction involving solely $J=1, T=0$ and $J=0, T=1$ pairing matrix elements, we observe that the pairing does not necessarily lead to an enhancement in the GT strength for the same coupling strength. But with the inclusion of the $g_{9/2}$ orbital, the GT strength can be increased with increasing $np$ pairing in connection with the enhanced contribution from the $g_{9/2}$ orbital. We further compare those results with realistic calculations in the $fp$ and $f_{5/2}pg_{9/2}$ model space to gauge the contribution from $f_{7/2}$ and $g_{9/2}$ orbitals in the GT strengths. With the JUN45 interaction, there is an increment for the yrast $1^+$ state for the decay of $^{70}$Kr as compared to the decay of $^{62}$Ge due to increased $g_{9/2}$ contribution. Additionally, we probe the effect of $np$ pairing on $B_{\rm GT}$ by modifying the single-particle energies and the $T = 0$ matrix elements of the interaction responsible for the decay transition strength. In calculations with realistic interaction, we find that the accumulated transition strength can increase with enhanced $np$ pairing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The solid lines indicate the transition from the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The calculated reduced GT transition matrix ele [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. GT matrix elements for each configuration and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of cumulative GT strengths for the decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between experimental [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Distribution of GT strengths in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cederwall, F

    B. Cederwall, F. G. Moradi, T. B¨ ack, A. Johnson, J. Blomqvist, E. Cl´ ement, G. de France, R. Wadsworth, K. Andgren, K. Lagergren, A. Dijon, G. Jaworski, R. Li- otta, C. Qi, B. M. Nyak´ o, J. Nyberg, M. Palacz, H. Al- Azri, A. Algora, G. de Angelis, A. Ata¸ c, S. Bhat- tacharyya, T. Brock, J. R. Brown, P. Davies, A. Di Nitto, Z. Dombr´ adi, A. Gadea, J....

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Frauendorf and A

    S. Frauendorf and A. Macchiavelli, Overview of neu- tron–proton pairing, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics78, 24 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Qi and R

    C. Qi and R. Wyss, N=Z nuclei: A laboratory for neutron–proton collective mode, Physica Scripta91, 013009 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Wimmer, W

    K. Wimmer, W. Korten, P. Doornenbal, T. Arici, P. Aguilera, A. Algora, T. Ando, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Boso, S. Chen, A. Corsi, P. Davies, G. de Angelis, G. de France, J.-P. Delaroche, D. T. Doherty, J. Gerl, R. Gernh¨ auser, M. Girod, D. Jenkins, S. Koyama, T. Mo- tobayashi, S. Nagamine, M. Niikura, A. Obertelli, J. Lib- ert, D. Lubos, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez,...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    S. M. Lenzi, A. Poves, and A. O. Macchiavelli, Shell model analysis of theB(E2,2 + →0 +) values in the A= 70,T= 1triplet 70Kr, 70Br,and 70Se, Phys. Rev. C 104, L031306 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Rubio, L

    B. Rubio, L. Kucuk, S. E. A. Orrigo, Y. Fujita, W. Gel- letly, B. Blank, T. Adachi, P. Aguilera, J. Agramunt, A. Algora, P. Ascher, B. Bilgier, L. C´ aceres, R. B. Cakirli, G. de France, F. d. O. Santos, H. Fujita, E. Ganio˘ glu, M. Gerbaux, J. Giovinazzo, S. Gr´ evy, O. Kamalou, H. C. Kozer, T. Kurtukian-Nieto, M. Marqu´ es, F. Molina, D. Nishimura, H. O...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    J. B. Stoker, P. F. Mantica, D. Bazin, A. Becerril, J. S. Berryman, H. L. Crawford, A. Estrade, C. J. Guess, G. W. Hitt, G. Lorusso, M. Matos, K. Minamisono, F. Montes, J. Pereira, G. Perdikakis, H. Schatz, K. Smith, and R. G. T. Zegers,β-decay half-life of therp-process waiting-point nuclide 84Mo, Phys. Rev. C79, 015803 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    N´ acher, S

    E. N´ acher, S. Parra, J. A. Briz, P. Aguilera, J. Agramunt, A. Algora, T. Berry, M. J. G. Borge, M. Carmona, L. M. Fraile, E. Ganioglu, W. Gelletly, V. Guadilla, A. Illana, R. Lic˘ a, I. Marroqu ´ ın, F. Molina, A. I. Morales, N. Orce, S. E. J. Orrigo, A. Perea, J. Romero, B....

    2023

  2. [10]

    Chen and L.-J

    Z.-R. Chen and L.-J. Wang, Stellar weak-interaction rates for rp-process waiting-point nuclei from projected shell model, Physics Letters B848, 138338 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Wang and L.-J

    B.-L. Wang and L.-J. Wang, First-forbidden transition of nuclearβdecay by projected shell model, Physics Letters B850, 138515 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Van Isacker, O

    P. Van Isacker, O. Juillet, and F. Nowacki, Pseudo-SU(4) symmetry inpf-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2060 (1999). 9

    1999

  5. [13]

    Van Isacker, A

    P. Van Isacker, A. Algora, A. Vit´ ez-Sveiczer, G. G. Kiss, S. E. A. Orrigo, B. Rubio, and P. Aguilera, Gamow–teller beta decay and pseudo-SU(4) symmetry, Symmetry15, 2001 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    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. Sh...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Vit´ ez-Sveiczer, A

    A. Vit´ ez-Sveiczer, A. Algora, A. Morales, B. Rubio, G. Kiss, P. Sarriguren, P. Van Isacker, G. de Angelis, F. Recchia, S. Nishimura, J. Agramunt, V. Guadilla, A. Montaner-Piz´ a, S. Orrigo, A. Horv´ ath, D. Napoli, S. Lenzi, A. Boso, V. Phong, J. Wu, P.-A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, T....

    2022

  8. [16]

    A. O. Macchiavelli, P. Fallon, R. M. Clark, M. Cromaz, M. A. Deleplanque, R. M. Diamond, G. J. Lane, I. Y. Lee, F. S. Stephens, C. E. Svensson, K. Vetter, and D. Ward, Is there np pairing inN=Znuclei?, Phys. Rev. C61, 041303 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Qi, Double binding energy differences: Mean-field or pairing effect?, Phys

    C. Qi, Double binding energy differences: Mean-field or pairing effect?, Phys. Lett. B717, 436 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Fujita, H

    Y. Fujita, H. Fujita, T. Adachi, G. P. A. Berg, E. Cau- rier, H. Fujimura, K. Hara, K. Hatanaka, Z. Janas, J. Kamiya, T. Kawabata, K. Langanke, G. Martınez- Pinedo, T. Noro, E. Roeckl, Y. Shimbara, T. Shinada, S. Y. van der Werf, M. Yoshifuku, M. Yosoi, and R. G. T. Zegers, Ga...

    2002

  11. [19]

    Jokinen, M

    A. Jokinen, M. Oinonen, J. ¨Ayst¨ o, P. Baumann, P. Den- dooven, F. Didierjean, V. Fedoseyev, A. Huck, Y. Jad- ing, A. Knipper, M. Koizumi, U. K¨ oster, J. Lettry, P. O. Lipas, W. Liu, V. Mishin, M. Ramdhane, H. Ravn, E. Roeckl, V. Sebastian, and G. Walter, Beta decay of theM ...

    1998

  12. [20]

    Kankainen, S

    A. Kankainen, S. A. Eliseev, T. Eronen, S. P. Fox, U. Hager, J. Hakala, W. Huang, J. Huikari, D. Jenk- ins, A. Jokinen, S. Kopecky, I. Moore, A. Nieminen, Y. N. Novikov, H. Penttil¨ a, A. V. Popov, S. Rinta-Antila, H. Schatz, D. M. Seliverstov, G. K. Vorobjev, Y. Wang, and J. ...

    2005

  13. [21]

    A. A. Ciemny, W. Dominik, T. Ginter, R. Grzywacz, Z. Janas, M. Kuich, C. Mazzocchi, M. Pf¨ utzner, M. Po- morski, D. Bazin, T. Baumann, A. Bezbakh, B. P. Crider, M. ´Cwiok, S. Go, G. Kami´ nski, K. Kolos, A. Korgul, E. Kwan, S. Liddick, K. Miernik, S. V. Paulauskas, J. Pereira...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Kucuk, S

    L. Kucuk, S. E. A. Orrigo, A. Montaner-Piz´ a, B. Rubio, Y. Fujita, W. Gelletly, B. Blank, Y. Oktem, T. Adachi, A. Algora, P. Ascher, R. B. Cakirli, G. de France, H. Fujita, E. Ganio˘ glu, J. Giovinazzo, S. Gr´ evy, F. M. Marqu´ es, F. Molina, F. de Oliveira Santos, L. Perrot,...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Grodner, A

    E. Grodner, A. Gadea, P. Sarriguren, S. M. Lenzi, J. Gre ¸ bosz, J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, A. Algora, M. G´ orska, P. H. Regan, D. Rudolph, G. de Angelis, J. Agramunt, N. Alkhomashi, L. Amon Susam, D. Bazzacco, J. Ben- lliure, G. Benzoni, P. Boutachkov, A. Bracco, L. Cac- eres, ...

    2014

  16. [24]

    S. E. A. Orrigo, B. Rubio, W. Gelletly, P. Aguilera, A. Al- gora, A. I. Morales, J. Agramunt, D. S. Ahn, P. Ascher, B. Blank, C. Borcea, A. Boso, R. B. Cakirli, J. Chiba, G. de Angelis, G. de France, F. Diel, P. Doornenbal, Y. Fujita, N. Fukuda, E. Ganio˘ glu, M. Gerbaux, J. G...

    2021

  17. [25]

    A. L. Goodman, Proton-neutron pairing inZ=Nnuclei withA= 76−96, Phys. Rev. C60, 014311 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    J¨ anecke and T

    J. J¨ anecke and T. O’Donnell, Isospin inversion and n–p pairing in self-conjugate nuclei A=58–98, Physics Letters B605, 87 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    See supplemental material at ttp://link.aps.org/supplemental/ 10.1103/Phys- RevC.111.034316 for the derivation of the matrix elements for the SDI, the expression of the reduced single-particle GT-matrix elements, the calculated results of GT-strengths using the SDI and the rea...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Rae, NuShellX (unpublished)

    W. Rae, NuShellX (unpublished)

  21. [29]

    Qi, NuShellX@KTH (unpublished)

    C. Qi, NuShellX@KTH (unpublished)

  22. [30]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno, and Y. Tsunoda, Thick-restart block lanczos method for large-scale shell- 10 model calculations, Computer Physics Communications 244, 372 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, ”KSHELL” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431 [nucl- th]

    N. Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, ”KSHELL” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431 [nucl- th]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Y. Lei, S. Pittel, N. Sandulescu, A. Poves, B. Thakur, and Y. M. Zhao, Systematic study of proton-neutron pairing correlations in the nuclear shell model, Phys. Rev. C84, 044318 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    F. Pan, C. Qi, L. Dai, G. Sargsyan, K. D. Launey, and J. P. Draayer, On the importance of np-pairs in the isovector pairing model, Europhysics Letters132, 32001 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    C. Qi, J. Blomqvist, T. B¨ ack, B. Cederwall, A. Johnson, R. Liotta, and R. Wyss, Spin-aligned neutron-proton pair mode in atomic nuclei, Physical Review C84, 021301 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Sandulescu, D

    N. Sandulescu, D. Negrea, and C. W. Johnson, Four- nucleonα-type correlations and proton-neutron pairing away from theN=Zline, Phys. Rev. C86, 041302 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Brussaard and P

    P. Brussaard and P. Glaudemans, Shell-model applica- tions in nuclear spectroscopy (North-Holland Publishing Company, 1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    Talmi, Simple models of complex nuclei: The shell model and interacting boson model (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1993)

    I. Talmi, Simple models of complex nuclei: The shell model and interacting boson model (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki, and M. Hjorth- Jensen, New effective interaction forf 5pg9-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C80, 064323 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and B. A. Brown, Effective interaction for nuclei of A = 50–100 and Gamow–Teller properties, Journal of Physics: Conference Series20, 7 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Richter, M

    W. Richter, M. Van Der Merwe, R. Julies, and B. Brown, New effective interactions for the 0f1pshell, Nuclear Physics A523, 325 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Richter, M

    W. Richter, M. Van der Merwe, R. Julies, and B. Brown, Tests and predictions of new effective interactions in the 0f1pshell, Nuclear Physics A577, 585 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    Kumar, A

    V. Kumar, A. Kumar, and P. C. Srivastava, Shell-model study for GT-strengths corresponding toβdecay of 60Ge and 62Ge, Nuclear Physics A1017, 122344 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Shell-model description of neutron-richpf-shell nuclei with a new effective interaction GXPF1, The European Physical Journal A - Hadrons and Nuclei25, 499 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Poves, J

    A. Poves, J. S´ anchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Shell model study of the isobaric chains A=50, A=51 and A=52, Nuclear Physics A694, 157 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Grzywacz, S

    R. Grzywacz, S. Andriamonje, B. Blank, F. Bou´ e, S. Czajkowski, F. Davi, R. Del Moral, C. Donzaud, J. Dufour, A. Fleury, H. Grawe, A. Grewe, A. Heinz, Z. Janas, A. Junghans, M. Karny, M. Lewitowicz, A. Musqu` ere, M. Pf¨ utzner, M.-G. Porquet, M. Pravikoff, J.-E. Sauvestre, a...

    1998

  38. [46]

    S. M. Fischer, T. Anderson, P. Kerns, G. Mesoloras, D. Svelnys, C. J. Lister, D. P. Balamuth, P. A. Haus- laden, and D. G. Sarantites, Shape coexistence in 71Br and the question of the ground-state spin of 71Kr, Phys. Rev. C72, 024321 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.