Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Validity of Brink Axel Hypothesis for calculations of allowed stellar weak rates of heavy nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reusing ground-state Gamow-Teller strength for every excited state—the Brink-Axel shortcut—misestimates stellar beta-decay rates for fp- and fpg-shell nuclei by up to three orders of magnitude.

desk verdict The BA test itself holds up internally, but the neon-burning and three-order claims outrun the tables and the benchmark is model-internal. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13123 v1 pith:6FJKIXEK submitted 2024-11-20 nucl-th astro-ph.SR

Fakeha Farooq , Jameel-Un Nabi , Ramoona Shehzadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.SR PACS 23.40.-s26.50.+x21.60.Jz
keywords Brink-Axelhypothesisproton-neutronQRPAGamow-Tellerstrengthstellarweakratesbetadecayelectroncapturecore-collapsesupernovaefp-andfpg-shellnuclei
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 tests whether a standard shortcut used in nuclear astrophysics—the Brink-Axel (BA) hypothesis, which reuses the ground-state Gamow-Teller (GT) strength distribution for every excited parent state—is safe for computing allowed weak transitions in heavy nuclei. Because stellar $\beta$-decay and electron-capture rates set the lepton fraction, entropy, and collapsing-core mass during presupernova evolution, unreliable rates directly change the dynamics and nucleosynthesis of core-collapse supernovae. Using the proton-neutron QRPA model to compute GT strength functions state by state for eighty nuclei with proton numbers 20–34 and mass numbers 48–83, the authors compare the resulting rates with rates obtained from the global and localized BA recipes across temperatures of 1–30 GK and densities of $10$–$10^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$. They report that BA-based $\beta$-decay rates deviate by up to three orders of magnitude, that the deviation starts as early as neon-burning conditions, and that a localized BA version reduces but does not remove the error. The paper concludes that BA is not an appropriate assumption for reliable stellar weak rates under these conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation (pn-QRPA), a microscopic nuclear-structure method that builds correlated multi-quasiparticle states and computes Gamow-Teller strength functions from each parent state individually, including highly excited states. This state-by-state output defines the reference rates $\lambda_{\mathrm{QRPA}}$ against which the Brink-Axel hypothesis—the assertion that a strength function depends only on the transition energy, not on which excited state decays—is tested. The paper quantifies the comparison with the Brink errors $\Delta^{\mathrm{GBA}}$ and $\Delta^{\mathrm{LBA}}=(\lambda_{\mathrm{QRPA}}-\lambda_{\mathrm{BA}})/\lambda_{\mathrm{QRPA}}$ for the global and localized BA recipes, plus standard deviations over the temperature–density grid. Those error measures, together with tables of total GT strengths and centroid energies, are what show that BA systematically misplaces strength and misestimates rates.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to compute the same six representative nuclides (78Ge, 67Ni, 57Ni, 58Cr, 67Co, 70Cu) with an independent state-by-state nuclear model whose excited-state strengths are not taken from the pn-QRPA, on the same temperature–density grid, and compare the BA-versus-microscopic rate ratios. If an independent model finds ratios within a factor of a few rather than up to three orders of magnitude, the claimed BA failure would be a property of the QRPA excited-state strengths rather than of the nuclei.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that the Brink-Axel hypothesis fails quantitatively for the weak rates that matter in pre-collapse and collapsing stellar cores. For each selected nucleus, the pn-QRPA model supplies GT transition strengths from individual parent states, including states well above the ground state; replacing those excited-state strength distributions with the ground-state profile (global BA), or with a profile built from the first one or few excited states (local BA), changes the integrated $\beta$-decay and electron-capture rates in a way that grows with temperature and density. In the $\beta$-decay direction the BA-based rates differ from the state-by-state rates by up to three orders of magnitude, and the standard deviation of the Brink error over the grid is more than a hundred times larger for $\beta$ decay than for electron capture. Deviations emerge at temperatures above about 3 GK and densities above about $10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$, conditions that correspond roughly to neon burning in massive stars. The authors read these results as evidence that BA-based stellar weak rates are not reliable for core-collapse supernova conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pn-QRPA model's Gamow-Teller strength functions from highly excited parent states are accurate enough to serve as the benchmark, yet only ground-state strengths are checked against experiment; if those excited-state strengths are wrong, the reported BA violation could be a model artifact rather than a reflection of real nuclei.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar weak-rate databases for fp- and fpg-shell nuclei that rely on the Brink-Axel shortcut will need to be remade with explicit excited-state strength functions if they are to be trusted in pre-supernova and collapse simulations.
  • Because the deviations set in around neon-burning conditions, the error enters existing models well before the final collapse, so it can alter the lepton fraction and core entropy over an extended evolutionary phase.
  • The localized BA recipe reduces the standard deviation by one to two orders of magnitude but still leaves beta-decay rates off by large factors; it is a partial remedy, not a solution.
  • Beta decay is the direction that breaks first and hardest; any future approximation that treats beta decay and electron capture symmetrically will misrepresent the dominant error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper deliberately leaves the source of the BA failure undissected: the larger total GT strengths and misplaced centroids are tabulated, but the three-order-of-magnitude beta-decay error is never broken into a phase-space contribution and a strength-shape contribution.
  • An adaptive recipe is a natural next step: compute excited states explicitly below some excitation threshold and use a renormalized ground-state strength above it; the local-BA results suggest this could recover much of the accuracy at a fraction of the cost.
  • Because only ground-state strengths are benchmarked against experiment, a measurement of excited-state GT strength for any one representative nucleus, such as 58Cr, would be the most direct external check of whether the reported violation is real or a QRPA artifact.
  • The same model can be run on the full set of newly proposed presupernova nuclei to produce BA-free weak-rate tables, which would let supernova simulators quantify how much of their output depends on the approximation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates whether the Brink-Axel (BA) hypothesis can be used to compute stellar weak rates of fp- and fpg-shell nuclei. Using a proton-neutron QRPA model, the authors compute state-by-state Gamow-Teller strength distributions for parent excited states and compare the resulting electron-capture (EC) and beta-decay (BD) rates with rates obtained by replacing excited-state strength functions with ground-state (or low-lying state) distributions according to global or local BA. They report deviations that grow with temperature and density, with BD rates differing by up to three orders of magnitude, and conclude that BA is not appropriate for high-temperature, high-density conditions. For one EC set (78Ge, 67Ni, 57Ni) and one BD set (58Cr, 67Co, 70Cu), the paper reports Brink-errors and standard deviations; it also compares selected rates with IPM, IPM-03, and large-scale shell-model rates.

Significance. If the central claim were robustly supported, the paper would provide useful quantitative guidance for astrophysical rate tabulations and would reinforce earlier work questioning BA. The study's strength is that it performs a fully state-by-state QRPA calculation over a broad temperature-density grid and carefully distinguishes global and local BA; the standard-deviation reduction from GBA to LBA is a clear, potentially useful result. Its principal weakness is that the benchmark itself -- the excited-state GT strength distributions -- is not validated against experiment or an independent model, and the model's force constants are not given. The paper is therefore best read as a model-internal warning; the general conclusion that BA is not appropriate outruns the presented evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (Figs. 2-3, Tables 4-6) and Section 1 (Eqs. 5-8, 37)] The BA test uses the pn-QRPA excited-state GT strength distributions as the benchmark, but only ground-state strengths are compared with data (Figs. 2-3). The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section 1 and Section 2 that the model is a zero-temperature approximation with a schematic pairing-plus-quadrupole Hamiltonian and separable GT forces (Eq. 37), and the force constants χGT and κGT appearing in Eqs. (5)-(8) are never specified in the text or a table. Without an independent check of excited-state strengths (e.g., a comparison with finite-temperature QRPA or shell-model results, or a sensitivity study in χGT and κGT), the reported deviations cannot be attributed to a failure of BA rather than to the specific excited-state response of this model. This is the load-bearing point of the paper.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3 (Table 4)] The claim that deviations "become significant as early as neon burning" is not supported by Table 4. For 58Cr at T = 3 GK and ρYe = 10^6 g cm^-3, ΔGBE = 0.00, and at T = 5 GK it is only 0.01; large deviations appear only at T = 15 GK and above. The three-order-of-magnitude deviation occurs only at T = 30 GK and ρYe = 10^11 g cm^-3, an extreme corner of the grid where the zero-temperature approximation is least trustworthy and where the rates are of order 10^-100 s^-1. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to state the actual onset conditions and the magnitude of deviations at physically relevant presupernova conditions.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (47)] The standard deviation σGBE is dominated by the largest |Δ| values rather than by typical behavior. For 58Cr, σGBE = 330.85 is driven by Δ ≈ -1814 at the T = 30 GK, ρYe = 10^11 g cm^-3 grid point; the median and quartile deviations are far smaller. Reporting percentiles of the Brink-error distribution, or evaluating deviations only in the astrophysically relevant window (T ≲ 10 GK, ρYe ≲ 10^10 g cm^-3), would give a fairer measure of BA's validity and would not leave the impression that three-order deviations are typical.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the first sentence: "the the validity" should be "the validity."
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliations contain spacing errors: "Pakist an" should be "Pakistan."
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (47)] The text says k is the "total number of temperature-density grid points," but the grid is not listed anywhere; please specify the grid points or provide a table, so that σGBE and σLBE are reproducible.
  4. [Table 7 caption] The caption says "total GT strength (arbitrary units)," but B(GT) is normally dimensionless; please clarify the normalization or change the caption.
  5. [Section 2, last paragraph] The sentence "The pn-QRPA approach ... was able to calculate GT strength distributions from parent excited states in the computation of stellar rates" is awkwardly phrased; consider rephrasing for clarity.
  6. [Figures 2-5] The figure captions and axis labels appear garbled in the manuscript text; please ensure that the published figures have legible captions and clearly labeled axes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BA test is an internal model comparison with external ground-state benchmarks, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim that the Brink-Axel hypothesis is unreliable for stellar weak rates is tested by a controlled model-internal substitution. The pn-QRPA state-by-state rates (lambda_QRPA) are compared with rates obtained by replacing excited-state GT strength distributions with ground-state (or low-lying) distributions (lambda_GBA / lambda_LBA), and the Brink error is merely the ratio (lambda_QRPA - lambda_BA)/lambda_QRPA. Nothing is fitted to the target rates; the deviation is a computed consequence of the model's own strength functions, not an input assumption renamed as a prediction. Ground-state GT strengths are checked against measured (n,p)/(p,n) data in Figures 2 and 3, providing an external anchor for part of the model, although the excited-state strength distributions used as the benchmark are not independently validated. That lack of validation is a correctness risk, not circularity. The paper's self-citations, e.g., [12], [13], [27], [38]-[42], are used to justify the model, the nucleus selection, and prior applications, but the BA-violation conclusion is computed here and does not reduce to those citations. No load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its own input.

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

The central test rests on the pn-QRPA model's excited-state strength functions, which are not independently validated, and on unspecified GT force constants.

free parameters (4)
  • chi_GT = not stated in paper
    Particle-hole GT force strength in equation (7); controls the GT centroid and is generally fitted to reproduce Gamow-Teller resonance data.
  • kappa_GT = not stated in paper
    Particle-particle GT force strength in equation (5); controls GT quenching; not specified, must be inherited from the cited QRPA literature.
  • Nuclear deformation parameters = from Moller et al. [62]
    Nilsson potential deformations used in the single-particle Hamiltonian; empirical/fitted values.
  • Daughter excitation cutoff = 20 MeV
    Chosen to achieve convergence in rates; a computational choice that affects the rate values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption pn-QRPA ground state is the vacuum for QRPA phonons, and excited states are phonon-correlated multi-quasiparticle states constructed in first-order perturbation theory.
    This is the core model assumption for computing state-by-state GT strengths; invoked throughout Section 1.
  • domain assumption Temperature enters weak rates only through Boltzmann occupation probabilities of parent states; nuclear matrix elements are computed at zero temperature.
    Stated explicitly in Section 1; this limits the model, but is shared with FFN and LSSM recipes.
  • ad hoc to paper The QRPA excited-state GT strength functions are accurate enough to serve as the benchmark for testing BA.
    Only ground-state strengths are compared with experiment (Figures 2-3); excited-state strengths are unvalidated and this is the key load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption The BA approximation is represented by replacing excited-state GT strength distributions with the ground-state (global BA) or ground plus low-lying states (local BA) distributions.
    Follows the recipes of FFN [20] and LSSM [6] as described in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validity of Brink Axel Hypothesis for calculations of allowed stellar weak rates of heavy nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FJKIXEK

@misc{pith2026241113123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validity of Brink Axel Hypothesis for calculations of allowed stellar weak rates of heavy nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FJKIXEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13123}
}
read the original abstract

The knowledge of beta decay transitional probabilities and GamowTeller (GT) strength functions from highly excited states of nuclides is of particular importance for applications to astrophysical network calculations of nucleosynthesis in explosive stellar events. These quantities are challenging to achieve from measurements or computations using various nuclear models. Due to unavailability of feasible alternatives, many theoretical studies often rely on the Brink Axel (BA) hypothesis, that is, the response of strength functions depends merely on the transition energy of the parent nuclear ground state and is independent of the underlying details of the parent state, for the calculation of stellar rates. BA hypothesis has been used in many applications from nuclear structure determination to nucleosynthesis yield in the astrophysical matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributions of nucleons among single-particle orbits in a nucleus; (a) without pairing correlations (the simplest shell model), (b) with pairing correlations. (c) Ground state wave function in the proton-neutron quasi-particle RPA. The line connecting circles, which denotes quasi-particles, indicates angular momentum coupling of a proton-neutron pair. Both pairs have the same spin-parity. even nucleus is considere… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of QRPA calculated ground-state GT strength distributions of 51V, 55Mn, 55Co and 56Ni with measurements. For 51V, experimental data (n,p) was taken from [65]. The (n,p) data of 55Mn was taken from [66], whereas the (p,n) data of 55Co and 56Ni was taken from [67] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of reported BD rates, both QRPA (λQRP A) and Global (λGBA), with the previous rates using IPM [20] and LSSM [6] (for fp-shell nucleus 53Mn) and IPM-03 [49] (for fpg-shell nucleus 75Ga), at selected astrophysical densities (g cm−3 ) and temperatures. [15] Goo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Nabi J-U, Nayab M and Johnson C W 2022 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 49 065201

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Bethe H A 1990 Rev. Mod. Phys. 62 801-866

    work page 1990

  3. [2]

    Iwamoto K, Brachwitz F, Nomoto K, Kishimoto N, Umeda H, Hix W R an d Thielemann F-K 1999 Astrophys. J. suppl. 125 439-462

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Hix W R, Messer O E B, Mezzacappa A, Liebend¨ orfer M, Sampaio J, Langanke K, Dean D J and Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G 2003Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 201102

    work page

  5. [4]

    Chandrasekhar S 1939 An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

    work page 1939

  6. [5]

    Brown G E, Bethe H A and Baym G 1982 Nucl. Phys. A 375 481-532

    work page 1982

  7. [6]

    Langanke K and Mart ´ ınez-Pinedon G 2000 Nucl. Phys. A 673 481-508

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    Fuller G M and Meyer B S 1991 Astrophys. J. 376 701-716

    work page 1991

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Heger A, Langanke K, Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G and Woosley S E 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 1678

    2001

  2. [9]

    C 75 035803

    Nabi J-U and Rahman M-U 2007 Phys.Rev. C 75 035803

    2007

  3. [10]

    Fuller G M, Fowler W A and Newman M J 1982 Astrophys. J. 252 715-740

    1982

  4. [11]

    Aufderheide M B, Fushiki I, Woosley S E and Hartmann D H 1994 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 91 389-417

    1994

  5. [12]

    Nabi J-U, Ullah A and Khan A A 2021 Astrophys. J. 911 93

    2021

  6. [13]

    Data Nucl

    Nabi J-U and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V 2004 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 88 237-476

    2004

  7. [14]

    Doering R, Galonsky A, Patterson D and Bertsch G 1975 Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 1691 Validity of BA Hypothesis for heavy nuclei 18 Table 1: Calculated QRPA ( λ QRP A) and global (G)BA ( λ GBA) EC rates on 78Ge at different values of stellar temperature, T (GK) and density, ρYe (g cm ...

    1975

  8. [15]

    Goodman C D, Goulding C A, Greenfield M B, Rapaport J, Bainum D E, Foster C C, Love W G and Petrovich F 1980 Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 1755

    1980

  9. [16]

    Caurier E, Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G, Nowacki F, Poves A and Zuker A 2005 Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 427

    2005

  10. [17]

    Brink D M 1955 D. Phil. thesis (unpublished) Oxford University UK

    1955

  11. [18]

    Axel P 1962 Phys. Rev. 126 671-683

    1962

  12. [19]

    Loens H P, Langanke K, Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G and Sieja K 2012 Eur. Phys. J. A 48 34

    2012

  13. [20]

    Fuller G M, Fowler W A and Newman M J 1980 Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 42 447; 1982 Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 48 279; 1985 Astrophys. J. 293 1

    1980

  14. [21]

    Kar K, Ray A and Sarkar S 1994 Astrophys. J. 434 662

    1994

  15. [22]

    Kajino T, Shiino E, Toki H, Brown B A and Wildenthal B H 1988 Nucl. Phys. A 480 175

    1988

  16. [23]

    Fischer T, Langanke K and Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G 2013 Phys. Rev. C 88 065804

    2013

  17. [24]

    Caurier E, Langanke K, Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G and Nowacki F 1999 Nucl. Phys. A 653 439

    1999

  18. [25]

    Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G and Langanke K 1999 Nucl. Phys. A 654 904 Validity of BA Hypothesis for heavy nuclei 28 /s49/s48 /s45 /s50/s48 /s49/s48 /s45 /s49/s48 /s49/s48 /s48 /s49/s48 /s45 /s50/s54 /s49/s48 /s45 /s49/s54 /s49/s48 /s45 /s54 /s49/s48 /s52 /s49/s48 /s45 /s50/s54 /s49/s...

    1999

  19. [26]

    Cole A, Anderson T, Zegers R, Austin S M, Brown B, Valdez L, Gup ta S, Hitt G and Fawwaz O 2012 Phys. Rev. C 86 015809

    2012

  20. [28]

    Johnson C W 2015 Phys. Lett. B 750 72-75

    2015

  21. [29]

    Lu Y and Johnson C W 2018 Phys. Rev. C 97 034330

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kruse M, Ormand W and C W Johnson 2019 Eur. Phys. J. A 55 225

    2019

  23. [31]

    Raman S, Shahal O and Slaughter G 1981 Phys. Rev. C 23 2794

    1981

  24. [32]

    Szefli´ nski Z, Szefli´ nska G, Wilhelmi Z, Rz¸ aca-Urban T, Klapdor H V, Anderson E, Grotz K and Metzinger J 1983 Phys. Lett. B 126 159-163

    1983

  25. [33]

    Guttormsen M, Larsen A C, G¨ orgen A, Renstrøm T, Siem S, Tor nyi T G and Tveten G M 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 012502

    2016

  26. [34]

    Angell C T, Hammond S L, Karwowski H J, Kelley J H, Krti˘ cka M, K wan E, Makinaga A and Rusev G 2012 Phys. Rev. C 86 051302(R)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Larsen A C et al 2007 Phys. Rev. C 76 044303 Validity of BA Hypothesis for heavy nuclei 29

    2007

  28. [36]

    Frazier N, Brown B A, Millener D and Zelevinsky V 1997 Phys. Lett. B 414 7-12

    1997

  29. [37]

    Misch G W, Fuller G M and Brown B A 2014 Phys. Rev. C 90 065808

    2014

  30. [38]

    Data Nucl

    Nabi J-U and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V 1999 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 71 149-345

    1999

  31. [39]

    Nabi J-U 2009 Eur. Phys. J. A 40 223-230

    2009

  32. [40]

    Majid M and Nabi J-U 2016 Rom. Rep. Phys. 68 1447–1465

    2016

  33. [41]

    Nabi J-U 2012 Eur. Phys. J. A 48 84

    2012

  34. [42]

    Nabi J-U and Riaz M 2019 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46 085201

    2019

  35. [43]

    Dzhioev A A, Vdovin A I, Ponomarev V Yu, Wambach J, Langanke K and Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G 2010 Phys. Rev. C 81 015804

    2010

  36. [44]

    Y¨ uksel E, Paar N, Col` o G, Khan G E and Niu Y F 2020 Phys. Rev. C 101 044305

    2020

  37. [45]

    Herrera R A, Johnson C W and Fuller G M 2022 Phys. Rev. C 105 015801

    2022

  38. [46]

    Dzhioev A A, Langanke K, Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo G, Vdovin A I and Sto yanov Ch 2020 Phys. Rev. C 101 025805; Dzhioev A A, Vdovin A I and Stoyanov Ch 2019 Phys. Rev. C 100 025801

    2020

  39. [47]

    Niu Y F, Paar N, Vretenar D and Meng J 2011 Phys. Rev. C 83 045807

    2011

  40. [48]

    Paar N, Col´ o G, Khan E and Vretenar D 2009 Phys. Rev. C 80 055801; Fantina A F, Khan E, Col´ o G, Paar N and Vretenar D 2012 Phys. Rev. C 86 035805

    2009

  41. [49]

    Pruet J and Fuller G M 2003 Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 149 189

    2003

  42. [50]

    Data Nucl

    Oda T, Hino M, Muto K, Takahara M and Sato K 1994 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 56 231-403

    1994

  43. [51]

    Suhonen J and Civitarese O 1998 Phys. Rep. 300 123-214

    1998

  44. [52]

    Kuz-Min V A and Soloviev V G 1988 Nucl. Phys. A 486 118-132

    1988

  45. [53]

    Halbleib J A Sr and Sorensen R A 1967 Nucl. Phys. A 98 542-568

    1967

  46. [54]

    Muto K, Bender E, Oda T and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V 1992 Z. Phys. A 341 407-415

    1992

  47. [55]

    M¨ oller P and Randrup J 1990 Nucl. Phys. A 514 1

    1990

  48. [56]

    Bender E, Muto K and Klapdor H V 1988 Phys. Lett. B 208 53

    1988

  49. [57]

    Muto K, Bender E and Klapdor H V 1989 Z. Phys. A 333 125

    1989

  50. [58]

    Nilsson S G 1955 Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk 29 1-69

    1955

  51. [59]

    Wang M, Audi G, Wapstra A H, Kondev F G, Cormick M, Pfeiffer M an d Xu X B 2012 Chin. Phys. C 36 1603

    2012

  52. [60]

    https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.h tml

  53. [61]

    Data Nucl

    M¨ oller P, Mumpower M R, Kawano T and Myers W D 2019 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 125 1–192

    2019

  54. [62]

    M¨ oller P, Sierk A J, Ichikawa T and Sagawa H. 2016 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109 1-204

    2016

  55. [63]

    Nakamura K et al (Particle Data Group) 2010 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 37(7) 075021

    2010

  56. [64]

    Data Nucl

    Gove N B and Martin M J 1971 At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 10 205-219

    1971

  57. [65]

    Alford W P et al 1993 Phys. Rev. C 48 2818

    1993

  58. [66]

    El-Kateb S et al 1994 Phys. Rev. C 49 3128

    1994

  59. [67]

    Sasano M et al 2012 Phys. Rev. C 86 034324

    2012

  60. [68]

    Williams A L et al 1995 Phys. Rev. C 51 1144

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.