Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

New level density parameter beyond Egidy-Bucurescu's systematics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A refitted global liquid-drop level density parameter outperforms the commonly used Töke-Swiatecki set in statistical model calculations.

desk verdict A useful but overstated empirical re-fit: new LDP coefficients from an expanded dataset, yet the 'outperform' claim rests only on in-sample RMSD and could reverse with the authors' own Oslo-method caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02322 v1 pith:5IXBVQQC submitted 2025-06-02 nucl-th

Junzhe Zhang , Yanan Zheng , Caixin Yuan , Yangyang Shen , Yingchen Mao This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 21.10.Ma
keywords leveldensityparameterback-shiftedFermigasmodelEgidy-Bucurescusystematicsliquid-dropdropletTöke-Swiateckiparametersground-statedeformationisospincorrection
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

The paper argues that the standard back-shifted Fermi gas level density parameter $a$ can be described better by a newly fitted global liquid-drop type formula than by the widely used Töke-Swiatecki set, once the compiled experimental database is extended beyond the Egidy-Bucurescu systematics with newer Oslo-method and proton-evaporation data. The fitted global LDM relation $a=0.045A+0.322A^{2/3}B_s$ attains a root-mean-square deviation of $2.078$ MeV$^{-1}$ against compiled values, compared with $2.175$ MeV$^{-1}$ for the Töke-Swiatecki parameters, and the authors recommend it for statistical model calculations. The paper also finds that new droplet-model fits are not satisfactory, that the older Reisdorf parameters remain the best droplet-model choice, and that near mass number 208 the data dip below the smooth trend, so smaller level density parameters should be used there. These results matter because level density parameters enter nucleosynthesis, fission, and reaction cross-section calculations, where a modest systematic improvement can shift predicted rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the back-shifted Fermi gas level density parameter $a$, defined through the BSFG relation $\rho(E^*)\propto e^{2\sqrt{aE^*}}$, and expressed phenomenologically as a liquid-drop expansion $a=a_v A + a_s A^{2/3}B_s$ (optionally with a curvature term $a_k A^{1/3}B_k$), or as a power-law in $A$. The paper uses unweighted least-squares fits of these forms to a compiled set of experimental $a$ values, and compares formulas by the RMSD $\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-t}\sum(a_{exp}-a_{th})^2}$ and by counting how many experimental points fall within $\pm5\%$ bands around each formula. The surface and curvature shape factors $B_s$ and $B_k$ encode ground-state deformation effects, and their inclusion is the mechanism through which the paper assesses whether deformation matters for the fitted coefficients.

What would settle it

Refit the global liquid-drop parameters after removing every level density parameter extracted by the Oslo method, and compare the RMSD with the Töke-Swiatecki set; if the ranking flips or the gap disappears, the claimed improvement depends on possibly biased Oslo data rather than on the LDM form. A second check is to use the new and old parameters to predict measured neutron resonance spacings or evaporation spectra that were not part of the fit and see which set gives smaller deviations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an updated global parametrization of the back-shifted Fermi gas level density parameter $a$ based on a larger experimental set: $a = 0.045A + 0.322A^{2/3}B_s$, where $B_s$ is the surface shape factor. Fitted by unweighted least squares over mass numbers $A\in[18,252]$, this formula gives an RMSD $\sigma_G = 2.078$ MeV$^{-1}$, slightly smaller than $\sigma_3 = 2.175$ MeV$^{-1}$ for the commonly used Töke-Swiatecki liquid-drop parameters. The same dataset yields combined piecewise fits for three mass intervals, but the authors judge those less reliable because the curves bend unnaturally when several experimental values exist for one nuclide. For droplet-model formulas with a curvature term, neither the global nor the combined new fits perform well; counting experimental points inside $\pm5\%$ confidence bands instead favors the Reisdorf parameters. A notable empirical feature is that level density parameters dip near mass numbers 28, 78, 125, and especially 208, so the paper recommends relatively small $a$ values for statistical calculations near $A=208$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the compiled experimental level density parameters, especially the newer Oslo-method extractions, are unbiased and mutually consistent enough to be exact targets for an unweighted least-squares fit; the paper itself notes Oslo extraction may produce larger level density parameters because of the large resonance-energy range of alpha particles, and a systematic bias there would shift every fitted coefficient and could change the ranking against Töke-Swiatecki.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Statistical-model codes covering $A\in[18,252]$ can adopt the new global LDM relation $a=0.045A+0.322A^{2/3}B_s$ and expect a slightly smaller RMSD against compiled level density parameters than with the Töke-Swiatecki set.
  • For nuclides near mass number 208, calculations should use a relatively smaller level density parameter, because the compiled data dip well below the global trend there.
  • Droplet-model users should keep the Reisdorf parameters rather than switching to the newly fitted global or combined droplet-model parameters, which perform worse.
  • For $A$-power parametrizations, the new global formula $a=0.125A+1.10\times10^{-4}A^2$ improves on the older homogeneous sets, though the existing $a_{33}$ set still matches more data points in a $\pm5\%$ band.
  • Ground-state deformation effects are small overall, but fits for transitional nuclei in roughly $A\in[60,150]$ and $A\in[190,220]$ should include the $B_s$ and $B_k$ shape factors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Oslo-method values carry the positive bias the paper flags, the reported edge over Töke-Swiatecki could shrink or reverse; a simple robustness check is to refit without those data and compare rankings.
  • The dips near mass numbers 28, 78, 125, and 208 indicate shell structure that a smooth liquid-drop curve cannot capture, so a mass-region-specific correction or shell-damping term may do better than any single global formula.
  • The paper's confidence-interval counting favors Reisdorf even though its RMSD is not the smallest; this suggests robust comparison criteria that penalize local outliers may be more informative than raw RMSD for choosing parameters in statistical models.
  • A direct test of practical value would be to feed the new global LDM parameters into Hauser-Feshbach or evaporation codes and compare predicted cross sections or spectra with measurements, since the paper's claim is about statistical model calculations, not just residuals in $a$.
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 compiles experimental back-shifted Fermi gas level density parameters (LDPs) from von Egidy-Bucurescu and newer Oslo-method and proton-evaporation sources, and uses unweighted least-squares fits to obtain global and mass-interval ('combined') parameterizations of liquid-drop, droplet, and power-law forms. It compares the root-mean-square deviations of the new and existing parameter sets against the compiled data, and studies the effect of ground-state deformation and isospin corrections. The central claims are that the new global liquid-drop parameters are better than the Töke-Swiatecki parameters, that the Reisdorf droplet-model parameters remain the best overall, and that smaller LDP values should be used near A=208.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a modest but useful update of LDP parameterizations for statistical model codes, and the recommendation for smaller level densities near A=208 is a falsifiable suggestion. The strengths are the systematic compilation beyond Ref. [33], the transparent least-squares fitting procedure, and the direct RMSD comparisons across many literature parameter sets. However, the headline comparison is an in-sample fit on the same dataset used for fitting, and no statistical model calculation is actually performed, so the significance currently rests on a weaker claim than the abstract asserts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (9); Abstract] The abstract states that the newly fitted global LDM-type parameters 'outperform the commonly used Toke-Swiatecki parameters in various statistical model calculations,' but no statistical model calculation is reported anywhere in the manuscript. The only evidence is the in-sample RMSD comparison σ_G=2.078 MeV^-1 versus σ_3=2.175 MeV^-1 computed on the same dataset used for the new fit. Because the new parameters were fitted to these data while the literature parameters were not, this comparison does not establish predictive superiority in statistical model calculations. Please either perform an out-of-sample or cross-validated comparison, or revise the abstract and Section 4 to state that the claim is about in-sample RMSD on the compiled dataset.
  2. [Section 4 (and the missing appendix)] The fit in Eq. (9) uses an unweighted compilation of LDP values from Ref. [33], Oslo-method extractions, and proton-evaporation measurements. The paper itself cautions in Section 4 that using the Oslo method 'may be a problem of fitting a larger LDP due to the large range of resonance energy of α.' If a subset of the Oslo values is systematically biased, the fitted coefficients in Eq. (9) shift, and the small 4.5% RMSD gap over the Töke-Swiatecki parameters could disappear or invert. In addition, the text repeatedly refers to 'the dataset of LDP in the appendix,' but no appendix is present in the manuscript, and Fig. 1(l) shows visible 'twists' from multiple experimental values for single nuclides. Please provide the full dataset as supplementary material, flag multiple entries per nuclide, and perform a sensitivity analysis with the potentially biased Oslo values excluded or downweighted.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The deformation relation is stated as α2 = sqrt(4/(5π)) β2, while the standard relation used in the references that define B_s and B_k is α2 = sqrt(5/(4π)) β2. If Eq. (6) is not a typographical error, the shape factors in Eqs. (7) and (8) are scaled, and all deformation-dependent fits (Eqs. (9), (10), (14), (15)) and the deformation comparison in Section 3.1 are affected. Please correct the relation or provide the convention used and justify its consistency with the cited sources.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Summary] There is an internal inconsistency in the power-law comparison: the text says 'a33 is better than the newly fitted global parameters,' while the Summary states that 'For parameter fitting of A's integer power class, global parameters are better.' In addition, Fig. 4(g) reports σ_G=2.175 MeV^-1, identical to σ_3 for the Töke-Swiatecki LDM parameters in Fig. 1(c); please clarify which parameter set is recommended and whether the numerical equality is coincidental.
  2. [Eq. (11)] For literature parameter sets that were not fitted to the compiled data, the number of fitted parameters t in Eq. (11) should be zero. The manuscript does not state whether t=0 was used in those cases; please specify this so the RMSD values are on an equal footing.
  3. [Figures 1-4] The subscript 'def' in σ_def is never defined; presumably it denotes calculations without ground-state deformation. Please define it in the caption or text.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'Olso method' should be 'Oslo method' (Sections 2 and 4), 'root-mean standard deviation' should be 'root-mean-square deviation' (Section 3.1), and the spelling 'Töke-Swiatecki' should be made consistent (e.g., 'Töke-Świątecki').
  5. [Sections 2 and 3] The phrase '±5% confidence interval' is not a statistically defined confidence interval; a band of ±5% around the calculated values is better described as a '±5% band' or '±5% deviation range.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline LDM "outperformance" claim is an in-sample least-squares comparison presented as predictive; the fitted coefficients are evaluated on the same dataset used to produce them.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Eq. (9), Eq. (11), Fig. 1(k); Abstract]
    "After fitting the dataset of LDP in the appendix, which includes 310 nuclei listed in Ref. [33] and the new experimental data using the least squares method, the global parameters of LDM-type LDP are given, namely: a= 0.045A+ 0.322A2/3Bs. (9) ... Comparing the RMSD values of each group, for the LDP parameters of LDM class, we found that the newly fitted global parameters were better than the existing coefficient values of the third group, namely the Töke-Swiatecki parameter [43], which is commonly used in various statistical model calculations."

    The global coefficients in Eq. (9) are produced by least-squares minimization of the same RMSD objective, Eq. (11), over the same appendix dataset against which every parameter set is scored in Fig. 1. Töke-Swiatecki (row 3 of Table 1: a_v=0.068, a_s=0.213) is a fixed point in the same two-parameter functional family, so the optimized fit's training-data residual is lower by construction of the optimizer. The abstract converts this in-sample minimization into 'outperform the commonly used Toke-Swiatecki parameters in various statistical model calculations,' but no independent statistical-model calculation or held-out validation is reported. The claimed advantage therefore restates the fitting objective rather than providing external predictive evidence.

full rationale

The paper is a calibration study: it compiles experimental BSFG level-density parameters and least-squares fits three empirical forms (LDM, DM, power-law in A). This is not first-principles derivation, and no term is defined in terms of the target quantity, so there is no self-definitional circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: Refs. [33,34] are by von Egidy and Bucurescu, not the current authors, and the shape factors and BSFG form are standard external inputs. The DM and power-law comparisons are also in-sample, but the paper draws weaker conclusions there (Reisdorf best; a33 best), and those rankings are likewise training-data evaluations. The one significant circular element is the central LDM claim: because Eq. (9) is the least-squares minimizer of Eq. (11) on the same dataset used for the Fig. 1 comparison, the lower σG relative to Töke-Swiatecki is an expected artifact of the fitting procedure, not a demonstrated predictive improvement. The paper's own Section 4 caveat that Oslo-method LDPs 'may be a problem of fitting a larger LDP due to the large range of resonance energy of α' further weakens the external validity of the fitted target set. These are soundness and validation concerns; the derivation itself is not circular beyond the in-sample prediction claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted coefficients and a dataset that is not shown. No new physical entities are introduced. The paper assumes the BSFG model, the three empirical functional forms, the Myers-Swiatecki shape factors, and the reliability of heterogeneous experimental extractions; the authors' own Section 4 caveat about Oslo-method values weakens the last assumption. The mass-range partition and the 5% confidence band are arbitrary choices that influence the rankings.

free parameters (10)
  • LDM global coefficients (av, as) = av = 0.045 MeV^-1, as = 0.322 MeV^-1 (Eq. 9)
    Least-squares fit to the compiled LDP dataset; central to the claim of improvement over Töke-Swiatecki.
  • LDM combined (piecewise) coefficients = A in [18,100]: av=0.102, as=0.073; A in (100,180]: av=-0.028, as=0.711; A in (180,252]: av=0.102, as=-0.019 (Eq. 10)
    Separate least-squares fits in three mass ranges chosen by the authors.
  • DM global coefficients (av, as, ak) = av = -0.140 MeV^-1, as = 2.087 MeV^-1, ak = -4.244 MeV^-1 (Eq. 14)
    Global least-squares fit; the paper concludes it is unsatisfactory.
  • DM combined coefficients = (-0.145, 1.982, -3.722), (-0.171, 1.991, -2.937), (-0.678, 8.572, -24.510) for three mass ranges (Eq. 15)
    Piecewise fit; the large negative curvature coefficient in the heavy range indicates instability.
  • Power-law global coefficients (a1, a2) = a1 = 0.125 MeV^-1, a2 = 1.10e-4 MeV^-1 (Eq. 18)
    Least-squares fit of a = a1 A + a2 A^2 to the compiled dataset.
  • Power-law combined coefficients = (0.124, -5.11e-5), (0.136, -1.60e-4), (0.045, 2.43e-4) for three mass ranges (Eq. 19)
    Piecewise fit; the curve shows a bend due to multiple experimental values per nuclide.
  • No-deformation LDM/DM global and combined coefficients = LDM global (0.057, 0.265); DM global (0.018, 0.663, -0.975); piecewise sets in Eqs. (13) and (17)
    Fits with Bs = Bk = 1; used to quantify the deformation effect.
  • Mass-range partition for combined fits = [18,100], (100,180], (180,252]
    Chosen by authors rather than derived; the heavy-range DM fit is unstable.
  • Confidence-interval half-width for parameter ranking = ±5%
    Ad hoc threshold used to count experimental points inside bands; the ranking (Reisdorf best) depends on this choice.
  • Isospin-corrected coefficients for a3 and a11 = Table 2: a3G (0.0702, 0.210); a11G (0.0701, 0.210, 0.380); combined variants
    Fitted with an isospin correction factor to test its effect; the paper concludes it has almost no effect.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The back-shifted Fermi gas level density is proportional to exp(2 sqrt(a E*)) with a single level density parameter a.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and throughout; all compiled values are interpreted within this model.
  • domain assumption The level density parameter can be represented as av A + as A^(2/3) Bs, optionally plus ak A^(1/3) Bk, or as a1 A + a2 A^2.
    Eqs. (3)-(5); these functional forms are taken from prior literature, not derived here.
  • standard math Shape factors Bs and Bk are given by the expansions in Eqs. (7)-(8) from Hasse-Myers and Myers-Swiatecki.
    Used to include ground-state deformation; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption The compiled LDP values, including 310 values from Ref. [33] plus Oslo-method and proton-evaporation values, are unbiased and can be combined in one unweighted dataset.
    The paper itself flags possible bias in Oslo-method extractions in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The unpublished appendix dataset is complete and correctly transcribed.
    All fits depend on it, but it is not included in the preprint.
  • standard math Least-squares RMSD with N-t degrees of freedom (Eq. 11) is an appropriate figure of merit for comparing parameter sets.
    Assumes independent, equal-weight data with no reported uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New level density parameter beyond Egidy-Bucurescu's systematics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IXBVQQC

@misc{pith2026250602322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New level density parameter beyond Egidy-Bucurescu's systematics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IXBVQQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02322}
}
read the original abstract

Extending beyond the Egidy-Bucurescu systematics, the nuclear level density parameters (LDPs) for the back-shifted Fermi gas model were compiled. Three forms of LDPs were fitted: the liquid-drop model (LDM), the droplet model (DM), and the power-law dependence on mass number A. Additionally, the root-mean-square deviations (RMSDs) of the new LDPs and existing literature values were calculated. The newly fitted global LDM-type parameters outperform the commonly used Toke-Swiatecki parameters in various statistical model calculations. In contrast, neither the global nor the combined DM-type parameters yielded satisfactory results. Among the tested parameter sets, the widely adopted Reisdorf parameters exhibited the best overall performance, as evidenced by the larger number of experimental data points falling within their narrower RMSD confidence intervals. For the power-law A-dependence, the new global parameters performed better than the existing homogeneous ones. The ground-state deformation and isospin correction factors had minimal overall impact on the LDP fits. However, the current results suggest that theoretical calculations for transitional nuclei should account for ground-state deformation effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The root-mean standard deviation (RMSD) of empirical formula for the LDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to Fig. 1, the RMSD of the DM-type LDP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The RMSD of the LDPs with and without considering isospin parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The RMSD of the empirical formula for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    von Egidy, D

    T. von Egidy, D. Bucurescu, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 044311; Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 049901(E)

    work page 2005

  2. [1]

    Burbidge, G.R

    E.M. Burbidge, G.R. Burbidge, W.A. Fowler, F. Hoyle. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957) 547

    work page 1957

  3. [2]

    Kajino, W

    T. Kajino, W. Aoki, A.B. Balantekin, R. Diehl, M.A. Famiano, G.J. Mathews, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107 (2019) 109

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Cowan, C

    J.J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J.E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Martínez-Pinedo, F.-K. Thielemann. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021) 015002

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Larsen, A

    A.C. Larsen, A. Spyrou, S.N. Liddick, M. Guttormsen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107 (2019) 69

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Schunck, D

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

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Fröbrich, I.I

    P. Fröbrich, I.I. Gontchar, Phys. Rep. 292 (1998) 131. 14

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    Schmidt, B

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

    work page 2018

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    B.B. Back, H. Esbensen, C.L. Jiang, K.E. Rehm, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86 (2014) 317

    2014

  2. [9]

    Hauser, H

    W. Hauser, H. Feshbach, Phys. Rev. 87 (1952) 366

    1952

  3. [10]

    Bethe, Phys

    H.A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 50 (1936) 332

    1936

  4. [11]

    Gilbert, A.G.W

    A. Gilbert, A.G.W. Cameron, Can. J. Phys. 43 (1965) 1446

    1965

  5. [12]

    Ignatyuk, K.K

    A.V. Ignatyuk, K.K. Istekov, G.N. Smirenkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 29 (1979) 450

    1979

  6. [13]

    Ignatyuk, J.L

    A.V. Ignatyuk, J.L. Weil, S. Raman, S. Kahane, Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 1504

    1993

  7. [14]

    Sepiani, M.N

    M. Sepiani, M.N. Nasrabadi, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 50 (2023) 055103

    2023

  8. [15]

    Williams Jr., Nucl

    F.C. Williams Jr., Nucl. Phys. A 133 (1969) 33

    1969

  9. [16]

    Mainegra, R

    E. Mainegra, R. Capote, Comput. Phys. Commun. 150 (2003) 43

    2003

  10. [17]

    Nakada, Y

    H. Nakada, Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 2939

    1997

  11. [18]

    Alhassid, S

    Y. Alhassid, S. Liu, H. Nakada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4265

    1999

  12. [19]

    Alhassid, S

    Y. Alhassid, S. Liu, H. Nakada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 162504

    2007

  13. [20]

    Koonin, D.J

    S.E. Koonin, D.J. Dean, K. Langanke, Phys. Rep. 278 (1997) 1

    1997

  14. [21]

    J. Wang, S. Dutta, L.J. Wang, Y. Sun, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 034309

    2023

  15. [22]

    Jiang, X.H

    X.F. Jiang, X.H. Wu, P.W. Zhao, J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 849 (2024) 138448

    2024

  16. [23]

    Shimizu, Y

    N. Shimizu, Y. Utsuno, Y. Futamura, T. Sakurai, T. Mizusaki, T. Ot- suka, Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 13

    2016

  17. [24]

    J. Chen, M. Liu, C. Yuan, S. Chen, N. Shimizu, X. Sun, R. Xu, Y. Tian, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 054306

    2023

  18. [25]

    Ormand, B.A

    W.E. Ormand, B.A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 014315. 15

    2020

  19. [26]

    Brancazio, A.G.W

    P.J. Brancazio, A.G.W. Cameron, Can. J. Phys. 47 (1969) 1029

    1969

  20. [27]

    Ignatyuk, G.N

    A.V. Ignatyuk, G.N. Smirenkin, A.S. Tishin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 21 (1975) 255

    1975

  21. [28]

    Iljinov, M.V

    A.S. Iljinov, M.V. Mebel, N. Bianchi, E. De Sanctis, C. Guaraldo, V. Lucherini, V. Muccifora, E. Polli, A.R. Reolon, P. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. A 543 (1979) 450

    1979

  22. [29]

    Rauscher, F.-K

    T. Rauscher, F.-K. Thielemann, K.-L. Kratz, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 1613

    1997

  23. [30]

    Blann, T.T

    M. Blann, T.T. Komoto, Phys. Rev. C 29 (1984) 1678

    1984

  24. [31]

    Gavron, Phys

    A. Gavron, Phys. Rev. C 21 (1980) 230

    1980

  25. [32]

    Charity, D.R

    R.J. Charity, D.R. Bowman, Z.H. Liu, R.J. McDonald, M.A. McMahan, G.J. Wozniak, L.G. Moretto, S. Bradley, W.L. Kehoe, A.C. Mignerey, Nucl. Phys. A 476 (1988) 516

    1988

  26. [34]

    von Egidy, D

    T. von Egidy, D. Bucurescu, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 054310

    2009

  27. [35]

    Schiller, L

    A. Schiller, L. Bergholt, M. Guttormsen, E. Melby, J. Rekstad, S. Siem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 447 (2000) 498

    2000

  28. [36]

    Schiller, M

    A. Schiller, M. Guttormsen, E. Melby, J. Rekstad, S. Siem, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 044324

    2000

  29. [37]

    https://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/english/research/about/infrastructure/ocl/nuclear- physics-research/compilation/, 2025 (accessed 23 March 2025)

    Oslo database: Level densities andγray strength functions. https://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/english/research/about/infrastructure/ocl/nuclear- physics-research/compilation/, 2025 (accessed 23 March 2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Voinov, M

    A.V. Voinov, M. Hartos, C.R. Brune, S.M. Grimes, Y. Jones-Alberty, T.N. Massey, S. Paneru, S.K. Subedi, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 054601

    2024

  31. [39]

    Hasse, W.D

    R.W. Hasse, W.D. Myers, Geometrical Relationships of Macroscopic Nuclear Physics, Springer, Heidelberg, 1988

    1988

  32. [40]

    Myers, W.J

    W.D. Myers, W.J. Światecki, Ann. Phys. 84 (1974) 186. 16

    1974

  33. [41]

    Ignatyuk, M.G.S

    A.V. Ignatyuk, M.G.S. Itki, V.N. Okolovich, G.N. Smirenkin, A.S. Tishin, Yad. Fiz. 21 (1975) 1185

    1975

  34. [42]

    Sauer, H

    G. Sauer, H. Chandra, U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 264 (1976) 211

    1976

  35. [43]

    T¨ oke, W.J

    J. T¨ oke, W.J. Światecki, Nucl. Phys. A 372 (1981) 141

    1981

  36. [44]

    Manailescu, arXiv:2001.02345, 2014

    C. Manailescu, arXiv:2001.02345, 2014

    2001 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Iljinov, M.V

    A.S. Iljinov, M.V. Mebel, Nucl. Phys. A 543 (1992) 517

    1992

  38. [46]

    Kataria, V.S

    S.K. Kataria, V.S. Ramamurthy, S.S. Kapoor, Phys. Rev. C 18 (1978) 549

    1978

  39. [47]

    Schmidt, H.B

    K.-H. Schmidt, H.B. Jurad, C. Amouroux, C. Schmitt, Nucl. Data Sheets 131 (2016) 107

    2016

  40. [48]

    Iljinov, D.I

    A.S. Iljinov, D.I. Ivanov, M.V. Mebel, V.G. Nedorezov, A.S. Sudov, G.Ya. Kezerashvili, Nucl. Phys. A 539 (1992) 263

    1992

  41. [49]

    Ignatyuk, Statistical Properties of Excited Nuclei, IAEA report: INDC (CCP)-233/L, 1985

    A.V. Ignatyuk, Statistical Properties of Excited Nuclei, IAEA report: INDC (CCP)-233/L, 1985

    1985

  42. [50]

    Koning, D

    A.J. Koning, D. Rochman, Nucl. Data Sheets 113 (2012) 2841

    2012

  43. [51]

    Reisdorf, Z

    W. Reisdorf, Z. Phys. A 300 (1981) 227

    1981

  44. [52]

    Shlomo, Nucl

    S. Shlomo, Nucl. Phys. A 539 (1992) 17

    1992

  45. [53]

    Barranco, J

    M. Barranco, J. Treiner, Nucl. Phys. A 351 (1981) 269

    1981

  46. [54]

    Mughabghab, Phys

    S.F. Mughabghab, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4083

    1998

  47. [55]

    Prakash, J

    M. Prakash, J. Wambach, Z.Y. Ma. Phys. Lett. B 128 (1983) 141

    1983

  48. [56]

    Nerlo-Pomorska, K

    B. Nerlo-Pomorska, K. Pomorski, J. Bartel, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 034327

    2006

  49. [57]

    Ivanyuk, C

    F.A. Ivanyuk, C. Ishizuka, M.D. Usang, S. Chiba, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054331. 17

    2018

  50. [58]

    Young, E.D

    P.G. Young, E.D. Bozoian, Transport Data Libraries for Incident Proton and Neutron Energies to 100 MeV (No. LA-UR-89-2210; CONF-891103- 4), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 1989

    1989

  51. [59]

    Talou, I

    P. Talou, I. Stetcu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 269 (2021) 108087

    2021

  52. [60]

    Iljinov, E.A

    A.S. Iljinov, E.A. Cherepanov, S.E. Chigrinov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1980) 166

    1980

  53. [61]

    Kawano, S

    T. Kawano, S. Chiba, H. Koura, J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 43 (2006) 1. 18

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.