Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Shell-model-like approach based on cranking covariant density functional theory with a separable pairing force

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The cranking shell-model-like approach (SLAP) is extended to a finite-range separable pairing force and reproduces all three observed rotational bands of 60Fe with cleaner convergence than the monopole-pairing version.

desk verdict A solid, honest method paper that adds a realistic separable pairing force to cranking CDFT-SLAP and tests it on one nucleus; the main soft spot is that convergence is only demonstrated at low rotational frequency, not where the band crossing happens. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03561 v1 pith:7OA26VBE submitted 2019-08-08 nucl-th

BinWu Xiong This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 21.10.-k21.60.Cs21.60.Jz27.50.+e
keywords shell-model-likeapproachcrankingcovariantdensityfunctionaltheoryseparablepairingforcecorrelationsrotationalbands60Femany-particleconfigurationspacebandcrossing
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

Rotating nuclei are usually modelled with pairing treated by BCS-like approximations that do not conserve particle number and can artificially quench pairing at high spin. This paper extends the cranking shell-model-like approach (SLAP), which diagonalizes the rotating many-body Hamiltonian in a truncated many-particle configuration space and conserves particle number exactly, by replacing the monopole pairing force with a finite-range separable pairing force from Ref. [65]. Applied to 60Fe, the method reproduces the positive-parity yrast (lowest-energy) band and the two negative-parity signature partner bands, matching available data at least as well as the monopole version and improving the negative-parity bandheads. The separable force also converges more cleanly as the configuration space grows, so the effective pairing strength no longer has to be re-fitted when the truncation is enlarged; that is what makes the calculation more predictive rather than phenomenological.

What carries the argument

SLAP is the shell-model-like approach: instead of a BCS quasiparticle vacuum, the cranking many-body Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\hat{H}'+\hat{H}_{\rm pair}$ is diagonalized exactly in a truncated many-particle configuration (MPC) space built from cranked single-particle Routhians (single-particle energies in the rotating frame), so particle number is conserved and blocking effects are handled automatically. The pair interaction is the separable finite-range force of Ref. [65], $\hat{V}_{\rm pair}=G\,\delta(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{R}')\,P(\mathbf{r})P(\mathbf{r}')\,\frac{1}{2}(1-P^{\sigma})$, with $P(\mathbf{r})=e^{-r^{2}/4a^{2}}/(4\pi a^{2})^{3/2}$. In the three-dimensional harmonic-oscillator basis its antisymmetrized matrix elements factorize into a sum of separable terms built from one-dimensional Talmi-Moshinsky brackets, which makes the many-body diagonalization practical and gives the cleaner convergence with MPC dimension. The finite Gaussian range avoids the ultraviolet divergence of zero-range forces and, because the force is not restricted to $J=0$ pairs, the pairing energy stays finite after band crossing; occupation probabilities from the diagonalization are fed back into the CDFT densities and currents for self-consistency.

What would settle it

Apply the same formalism and the same G and a to a neighbouring even-mass Fe isotope such as 58Fe or 62Fe and compare the calculated yrast energies and band-crossing frequencies with measured data; a systematic growing offset, or disagreement with measured odd-even mass differences, would show that the nuclear-matter-fitted parameters do not transfer to finite nuclei.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the PC-PK1 point-coupling density functional in the particle-hole channel and the separable pairing parameters $G = -728$ MeV fm$^3$ and $a = 0.644$ fm from Ref. [65] in the particle-particle channel, the cranking CDFT-SLAP reproduces the three observed rotational bands of 60Fe: band A (positive-parity yrast) and bands B and C (negative-parity signature partners). For band A the agreement is comparable to the monopole-pairing calculation and clearly better than ignoring pairing, with a band crossing that appears slightly later, about $\hbar\omega = 0.85$ MeV instead of $0.75$ MeV. For bands B and C the separable force gives a better bandhead description. The calculations also show smoother convergence with the dimension of the many-particle configuration space, and pairing energies that fall gradually with rotation without collapsing to zero, because the separable force carries correlations in pairs beyond $J = 0$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the separable pairing parameters fitted to nuclear-matter pairing gaps, $G = -728$ MeV fm$^3$ and $a = 0.644$ fm, retain their validity inside the finite nucleus 60Fe when used with the PC-PK1 functional and the SLAP diagonalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the positive-parity band A of 60Fe, the separable-pairing calculation places the band crossing at about $\hbar\omega=0.85$ MeV, slightly above the monopole and no-pairing values near $0.75$ MeV, and still reproduces the observed sudden structure change at spin $I=8\hbar$.
  • For the two negative-parity signature partner bands, the separable force yields a better description of the bandheads, and band B's crossing at $\hbar\omega\approx1.1$ MeV is reproduced well.
  • Total energy and angular momentum converge as the many-particle configuration space grows; enlarging the MPC dimension from 1000 to 2000 changes the total energy by only about 0.15 percent at $\hbar\omega=0.2$ MeV, whereas the monopole version needs its effective pairing strength re-tuned with dimension.
  • Neutron and proton pairing energies decrease smoothly with rotational frequency rather than collapsing, and for band A the separable-force neutron pairing energy stays near 1 MeV after crossing while the monopole result drops to almost zero.
  • Because the separable force includes pair correlations with angular momentum beyond $J=0$, the calculated quadrupole deformation is slightly larger than in the monopole calculation even where the pairing energy is larger.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the clean convergence with MPC dimension holds in other nuclei, the method turns the pairing strength into a fixed input and enables systematic large-scale surveys of rotating nuclei without truncation-dependent re-normalization.
  • Editorial inference: a sharper test of the separable force would be to compute odd-even mass differences or two-particle transfer strengths in odd and even Fe isotopes; the force's $J>0$ components should leave fingerprints beyond level energies.
  • Editorial inference: the slightly later band-crossing frequency in band A may be a systematic tendency of this nuclear-matter-fitted force; comparing 58Fe and 62Fe with the same parameters would show whether the offset grows in a predictable way with mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops the shell-model-like approach (SLAP) based on cranking covariant density functional theory (CDFT) with a separable pairing force of the Tian-Ma-Ring form, replacing the monopole pairing force used in the earlier cranking CDFT-SLAP of Ref. [42]. The method is applied to 60Fe to study the positive-parity yrast band A and the two negative-parity signature partner bands B and C. The calculated total energies, angular momenta, pairing energies, and deformation parameters are compared with data from Ref. [68] and with the monopole-pairing and no-pairing results of Ref. [42]. The paper reports better MPC-dimension convergence than the monopole variant and claims excellent agreement with the data.

Significance. The implementation is a genuine technical step: the separable pairing force is finite-range, avoids ultraviolet divergences, and is computationally cheaper than other finite-range forces, and the Appendix provides a detailed derivation of the pairing matrix elements in the 3D HO basis. The calculation is predictive in that the pairing parameters G and a are taken from a nuclear-matter fit rather than fitted to 60Fe data, and the comparison with the monopole-pairing variant is a useful benchmark. However, the quantitative evidence for the central claims is thin: convergence is tested only at one low frequency, the 'excellent agreement' is asserted without error measures, and the band-A crossing is admitted to be delayed. If these points are addressed, the paper would be a valid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Fig. 1] The MPC-dimension convergence test is reported only for ℏω = 0.2 MeV, where the changes between dimension 1000 and 2000 are 0.151% for the total energy and 0.667% for the alignment. The physics of interest, however, lies near the band crossing in band A at ℏω ≈ 0.85 MeV (Sec. IV.B), where configuration mixing is maximal and truncation errors are expected to be largest. Please report the same convergence data at frequencies across the crossing region, including total energies, alignments, and the crossing frequency itself as functions of MPC dimension. Without this, the delayed crossing and the claimed agreement could be truncation artifacts.
  2. [§IV.A, Fig. 2] The statement 'excellent agreement with the available data' is not supported by any quantitative error measure. No rms deviations or average differences for excitation energies, transition energies, or alignments are given. Please include a table comparing calculated and experimental level energies for bands A, B, and C with deviations. The text also concedes that the band crossing in band A occurs 'a bit later' than the data; quantify this delay and discuss whether it lies within the typical accuracy of the approach.
  3. [§IV.B, Fig. 3] For band A, the crossing frequency from the separable-pairing calculation is ℏω ≈ 0.85 MeV, versus ≈ 0.75 MeV from both the monopole-pairing and no-pairing calculations of Ref. [42]. Since the data indicate a structural change around I = 8ℏ, the separable force produces a larger crossing delay than the simpler monopole force. Please state explicitly whether this is an improvement or a known deficiency, and test whether the delay is sensitive to the MPC truncation (see the first major comment).
  4. [§II.B and §III] The separable-pairing parameters G = −728 MeV fm^3 and a = 0.644 fm are taken from a nuclear-matter fit to Gogny pairing gaps in Ref. [65]. The paper provides no evidence that these parameters are transferable to the finite nucleus 60Fe when combined with the PC-PK1 functional and the SLAP diagonalization. Please add a sensitivity study (for example, vary G and a by a few percent and show the effect on yrast energies and crossing frequencies) or cite previous finite-nucleus applications that validate this parameter set in the same framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page] The affiliation line contains visible spacing artifacts ('den sity', 'Chin a') that should be corrected.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 3] The experimental data are shown as solid dots in all panels, which makes it hard to distinguish bands A, B, and C at a glance; consider using distinct point styles for the data sets.
  3. [§IV.C] The comparison of neutron pairing energies from the separable and monopole forces is informative, but the text could clarify that these are model-dependent quantities rather than directly observable pairing condensates.
  4. [References] Ref. [42] is cited for both the monopole-pairing SLAP results and the no-pairing results; it would be helpful to state explicitly in the text which curves are reproduced from that paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all pairing parameters are taken from prior independent fits, and the 60Fe spectra are genuine predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The separable pairing force parameters G = -728 MeV fm^3 and a = 0.644 fm are quoted from Ref. [65], where they were fitted to nuclear-matter Gogny pairing gaps, and the monopole pairing strengths are quoted from Ref. [42]; neither is fitted to the 60Fe data that the paper predicts. The SLAP diagonalization is applied with fixed parameters and a chosen MPC truncation, and the resulting energies and alignments are compared directly with experimental bands. No quantity extracted from the 60Fe data is reinserted as an input, so the agreement is a genuine test rather than a fitted reproduction. The convergence check is reported at hbar-omega = 0.2 MeV only, and the skeptic's concern that convergence may be worse near the band crossing at hbar-omega ~ 0.85 MeV is a numerical-accuracy risk, not a circularity: it does not make the output equivalent to the input by construction. The self-citations to Refs. [42] and [65] are load-bearing only as sources of previously established formalism and parameters, both of which are external to this paper's claims, so they do not create circularity.

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

The central calculation uses no parameters fitted to 60Fe data. The G and a pairing parameters are from a nuclear matter fit in Ref. [65]; the numerical truncations (MPC dimension, N_f) are convergence choices. The model relies on standard CDFT and cranking assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • G (separable pairing strength) = -728 MeV fm^3
    Taken from Ref. [65], where it was fitted to the density dependence of pairing gaps in nuclear matter with Gogny forces; used unchanged here.
  • a (separable pairing range) = 0.644 fm
    Taken from Ref. [65], same fit as G.
  • MPC space dimension = 1000
    Chosen after convergence checks; changing 1000 to 2000 changes total energy by 0.151% and alignment by 0.667% at hbar-omega = 0.2 MeV.
  • Major oscillator shells N_f = 12
    Chosen after checking N_f=12 vs 14; changes are 0.004% in energy and 0.760% in alignment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The point-coupling density functional PC-PK1 provides a valid effective interaction in the particle-hole channel.
    Used in Sec. III; it is a standard functional fitted to nuclear matter and finite nuclei in prior work, but its use here is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The separable pairing force parameters G and a from nuclear matter are transferable to the finite nucleus 60Fe.
    They are applied unchanged in Sec. III; if not transferable, the comparison with data is not a valid test.
  • domain assumption The cranking condition J_x = sqrt(I(I+1)) relates the rotational frequency to the angular momentum quantum number.
    Eq. (18) is used to convert theoretical frequencies to spins; this semiclassical relation is standard but not exact.
  • domain assumption The three types of pairing matrix elements other than <a bbar|V_pair|c dbar>_a vanish due to spatial symmetries of the PAC density.
    Appendix A; this is carried over from Ref. [42] and is not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shell-model-like approach based on cranking covariant density functional theory with a separable pairing force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OA26VBE

@misc{pith2026190803561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shell-model-like approach based on cranking covariant density functional theory with a separable pairing force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OA26VBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03561}
}
abstract

The shell-model-like approach (SLAP) based on cranking covariant density functional theory (CDFT) with a separable pairing force is developed. The developed cranking CDFT-SLAP with separable pairing force is applied to investigate the rotational spectra in $^{60}$Fe, including the positive-parity yrast band and two negative-parity signature partner bands, in comparison with the cranking CDFT-SLAP with monopole pairing force calculations. Excellent agreement with the available data is achieved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) The total energies (upper panels) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The total energies for the positive-p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The angular momenta for the positive- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) The neutron and proton pairing energi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The quadrupole deformation paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980)

    1980

  2. [68]

    W. Y. Liang, C. F. Jiao, Q. Wu, X. M. Fu, and F. R. Xu, Phys. R ev. C 92, 064325 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [65]

    Molique and J

    H. Molique and J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1795 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [1]

    with given signature α self-consistently, the single- particle Routhian εµα and the corresponding eigenstate ψ µα for each level µ can be obtained [20, 24]. B. Cranking CDFT-SLAP The cranking CDFT-SLAP starts from a cranking many-body Hamilto nian including pairing correlations ˆH = ˆH ′ + ˆHpair, (5) where ˆH ′ = ∑ ˆh′ s. p. is the one-body Hamiltonian w...

  5. [2]

    (7) Here, R = 1 2(r1 +r2) and r = r1 −r2 denote the center-of-mass and the relative coordinates, respectively, and P (r) is the Gaussian function P (r) = 1 (4πa 2)3/ 2 e− r2 4a2

    = Gδ (R − R′)P (r)P (r′) 1 2 (1 −P σ ). (7) Here, R = 1 2(r1 +r2) and r = r1 −r2 denote the center-of-mass and the relative coordinates, respectively, and P (r) is the Gaussian function P (r) = 1 (4πa 2)3/ 2 e− r2 4a2. (8) The projector 1 2(1−P σ ) allows only the states with the total spin S = 0. The two parameters G and a were determined in Ref. [ 65] b...

    2000

  6. [3]

    (A2) Here, |nxnynz⟩ is the harmonic oscillator wave function in Cartesian coordinates, an d nx, n y, n z are the corresponding quantum numbers

    read |nxnynz;α = +⟩ = |nxnynz⟩iny √ 2 (−1)nz+1 [ | ↑⟩ + (−1)ny+nz| ↓⟩ ] , (A1) |nxnynz;α = −⟩ = |nxnynz⟩iny √ 2 [ | ↑⟩ + (−1)ny+nz+1| ↓⟩ ] . (A2) Here, |nxnynz⟩ is the harmonic oscillator wave function in Cartesian coordinates, an d nx, n y, n z are the corresponding quantum numbers. The labels α = + and α = − represent the states with positive and negati...

  7. [4]

    = Gδ (R − R′)P (r)P (r′) 1 2 (1 −P σ ) ≡W (r1, r2; r′ 1, r′

  8. [5]

    (A3) There are four types of such matrix elements, i.e., ⟨a¯b| ˆVpair|c ¯d⟩a, ⟨ab| ˆVpair|cd⟩a, ⟨ab| ˆVpair|¯c ¯d⟩a, and ⟨¯a¯b| ˆVpair|¯c ¯d⟩a

    1 2 (1 −P σ ). (A3) There are four types of such matrix elements, i.e., ⟨a¯b| ˆVpair|c ¯d⟩a, ⟨ab| ˆVpair|cd⟩a, ⟨ab| ˆVpair|¯c ¯d⟩a, and ⟨¯a¯b| ˆVpair|¯c ¯d⟩a. In the PAC-CDFT, the latter three types of matrix ele- ments vanish because of the spatial symmetries fulfilled by the nucle ar density distribution. As a result, only the matrix elements ⟨a¯b| ˆVpai...

Show all 86 references
  1. [6]

    Johnson, H

    A. Johnson, H. Ryde, and J. Sztarkier, Phys. Lett. B 34, 605 (1971)

    1971

  2. [7]

    F. S. Stephens and R. S. Simon, Nucl. Phys. A 183, 257 (1972)

    1972

  3. [8]

    P. J. Twin, B. M. Nyak´ o, A. H. Nelson, J. Simpson, M. A. Ben tley, H. W. Cranmer-Gordon, P. D. Forsyth, D. Howe, A. R. Mokhtar, J. D. Morrison et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 811 (1986)

    1986

  4. [9]

    Frauendorf, J

    S. Frauendorf, J. Meng, and J. Reif, in: M. A. Deleplanque (Ed.), Proceedings of the Confer- ence on Physics From Large γ-Ray Detector Arrays, in: Report LBL35687, Univ. of Califor nia, Berkeley vol. II , p. 52 (1994)

    1994

  5. [10]

    Frauendorf, Z

    S. Frauendorf, Z. Phys. A 358, 163 (1997)

    1997

  6. [11]

    Frauendorf, Rev

    S. Frauendorf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 463 (2001)

    2001

  7. [12]

    H¨ ubel, Prog

    H. H¨ ubel, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 1 (2005)

    2005

  8. [13]

    Frauendorf and J

    S. Frauendorf and J. Meng, Nucl. Phys. A 617, 131 (1997)

    1997

  9. [14]

    Meng and S

    J. Meng and S. Q. Zhang, J. Phys. G. 37, 064025 (2010)

    2010

  10. [15]

    Meng, Internat

    J. Meng, Internat. J. Modern Phys. E 20, 341 (2011)

    2011

  11. [16]

    J. Meng, Q. B. Chen, and S. Q. Zhang, Internat. J. Modern P hys. E 23, 1430016 (2014)

    2014

  12. [17]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Scr. 91, 053008 (2016)

    2016

  13. [18]

    B. W. Xiong and Y. Y. Wang, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 125, 193 (2019)

    2019

  14. [19]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, vol. 2 (Benjamin, New York, 1975)

    1975

  15. [20]

    Tim´ ar, Q

    J. Tim´ ar, Q. B. Chen, B. Kruzsicz, D. Sohler, I. Kuti, S. Q. Zhang, J. Meng, P. Joshi, R. Wadsworth, K. Starosta et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 062501 (2019)

    2019

  16. [21]

    Ring, Prog

    P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193 (1996). 17

    1996

  17. [22]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S.-G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L . S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006)

    2006

  18. [23]

    Meng and S.-G

    J. Meng and S.-G. Zhou, J. Phys. G 42, 093101 (2015)

    2015

  19. [24]

    H. Z. Liang, J. Meng, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rep. 570, 1 (2015)

    2015

  20. [25]

    Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure , vol

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

    2016

  21. [26]

    Koepf and P

    W. Koepf and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A 511, 279 (1990)

    1990

  22. [27]

    J. Peng, J. Meng, P. Ring, and S. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024313 (2008)

    2008

  23. [28]

    P. W. Zhao, S. Q. Zhang, J. Peng, H. Z. Liang, P. Ring, and J . Meng, Phys. Lett. B 699, 181 (2011)

    2011

  24. [29]

    J. Meng, J. Peng, S. Q. Zhang, and P. W. Zhao, Front. Phys. 8, 55 (2013)

    2013

  25. [30]

    Madokoro, J

    H. Madokoro, J. Meng, M. Matsuzaki, and S. Yamaji, Phys. Rev. C 62, 061301 (2000)

    2000

  26. [31]

    P. W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 773, 1 (2017)

    2017

  27. [32]

    L. F. Yu, P. W. Zhao, S. Q. Zhang, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys . Rev. C 85, 024318 (2012)

    2012

  28. [33]

    P. W. Zhao, J. Peng, H. Z. Liang, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys . Rev. Lett. 107, 122501 (2011)

    2011

  29. [34]

    P. W. Zhao, J. Peng, H. Z. Liang, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys . Rev. C 85, 054310 (2012)

    2012

  30. [35]

    P. W. Zhao, N. Itagaki, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 022501 (2015)

    2015

  31. [36]

    Z. X. Ren, S. Q. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, N. Itagaki, J. A. Maruhn , and J. Meng, Sci. China Phys. Mech. 62, 112062 (2019)

    2019

  32. [37]

    J. Meng, J. Peng, S. Q. Zhang, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 73, 037303 (2006)

    2006

  33. [38]

    J. Peng, H. Sagawa, S. Q. Zhang, J. M. Yao, Y. Zhang, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024309 (2008)

    2008

  34. [39]

    J. M. Yao, B. Qi, S. Q. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Y. Wang, and J. Men g, Phys. Rev. C 79, 067302 (2009)

    2009

  35. [40]

    J. Li, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 83, 037301 (2011)

    2011

  36. [41]

    B. Qi, H. Jia, N. B. Zhang, C. Liu, and S. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev . C 88, 027302 (2013)

    2013

  37. [43]

    J. Y. Zeng and T. S. Cheng, Nucl. Phys. A 405, 1 (1983)

    1983

  38. [44]

    Rowe, Nuclear Collective Motion (Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome and London, 1970)

    D. Rowe, Nuclear Collective Motion (Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome and London, 1970)

    1970

  39. [45]

    B. R. Mottelson and J. G. Valatin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 511 (1960)

    1960

  40. [46]

    J. Meng, J. Y. Guo, L. Liu, and S. Q. Zhang, Front. Phys. Ch ina 1, 38 (2006). 18

    2006

  41. [47]

    Z. Shi, Z. H. Zhang, Q. B. Chen, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Ph ys. Rev. C 97, 034317 (2018)

    2018

  42. [48]

    J. Y. Zeng, Y. A. Lei, T. H. Jin, and Z. J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 50, 746 (1994)

    1994

  43. [49]

    S. X. Liu, J. Y. Zeng, and E. G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 66, 024320 (2002)

    2002

  44. [50]

    X. T. He, S. X. Liu, S. Y. Yu, J. Y. Zeng, and E. G. Zhao, Euro . Phys. J. A 23, 217 (2005)

    2005

  45. [51]

    X. Wu, Z. H. Zhang, J. Y. Zeng, and Y. A. Lei, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034323 (2011)

    2011

  46. [52]

    Z. H. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, J. Meng, J. Y. Zeng, E. G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054314 (2013)

    2013

  47. [53]

    Z. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 94, 034305 (2016)

    2016

  48. [54]

    S. X. Liu, J. Y. Zeng, and L. Yu, Nucl. Phys. A 735, 77 (2004)

    2004

  49. [55]

    Z. H. Zhang, X. Wu, Y. A. Lei, and J. Y. Zeng, Nucl. Phys. A 816, 19 (2009)

    2009

  50. [56]

    Z. H. Zhang, Y. A. Lei, and J. Y. Zeng, Phys. Rev. C 80, 034313 (2009)

    2009

  51. [57]

    B. H. Li, Z. H. Zhang, and Y. A. Lei, Chin. Phys. C 37, 014101 (2013)

    2013

  52. [58]

    Y. C. Li and X. T. He, Sci. China Phys. Mech. 59, 672011 (2016)

    2016

  53. [59]

    Z. H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. A 949, 22 (2016)

    2016

  54. [60]

    Z. H. Zhang, J. Meng, E. G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev . C 87, 054308 (2013)

    2013

  55. [61]

    X. T. He, Z. Z. Ren, S. X. Liu, and E. G. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. A 817, 45 (2009)

    2009

  56. [62]

    Z. H. Zhang, J. Y. Zeng, E. G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. R ev. C 83, 011304 (2011)

    2011

  57. [63]

    Z. H. Zhang, X. T. He, J. Y. Zeng, E. G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou , Phys. Rev. C 85, 014324 (2012)

    2012

  58. [64]

    L. Liu, Z. H. Zhang, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 92, 044304 (2015)

    2015

  59. [66]

    X. M. Fu, F. R. Xu, J. C. Pei, C. F. Jiao, Y. Shi, Z. H. Zhang, and Y. A. Lei, Phys. Rev. C 87, 044319 (2013)

    2013

  60. [67]

    Pillet, P

    N. Pillet, P. Quentin, and J. Libert, Nucl. Phys. A 697, 141 (2002)

    2002

  61. [69]

    Liu, Phys

    L. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 99, 024317 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Y. Tian, Z. Y. Ma, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    Y. K. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054324 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Y. K. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064321 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    A. N. Deacon, S. J. Freeman, R. V. F. Janssens, M. Honma, M . P. Carpenter, P. Chowdhury, T. Lauritsen, C. J. Lister, D. Seweryniak, J. F. Smith et al. , Phys. Rev. C 76, 054303 (2007). 19

    2007

  66. [74]

    B¨ urvenich, D

    T. B¨ urvenich, D. G. Madland, J. A. Maruhn, and P.-G. Rei nhard, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044308 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034318 (2008)

    2008

  68. [76]

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

    2010

  69. [77]

    Koepf and P

    W. Koepf and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A 493, 61 (1989)

    1989

  70. [78]

    K¨ onig and P

    J. K¨ onig and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3079 (1993)

    1993

  71. [79]

    Kaneko, M

    K. Kaneko, M. Nakano, and M. Matsuzaki, Phys. Lett. B 317, 261 (1993)

    1993

  72. [80]

    Koepf and P

    W. Koepf and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 212, 397 (1988)

    1988

  73. [81]

    Dobaczewski and J

    J. Dobaczewski and J. Dudek, Comput. Phys. Commun. 102, 166 (1997)

    1997

  74. [82]

    J. M. Yao, H. Chen, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 74, 024307 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    Nikˇ si´ c, Z

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, Z. P. Li, D. Vretenar, L. Pr´ ochniak, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034303 (2009)

    2009

  76. [84]

    J. Y. Zeng, T. H. Jin, and Z. J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 50, 1388 (1994)

    1994

  77. [85]

    Nikˇ si´ c, P

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. Ring, D. Vretenar, Y. Tian, and Z. Y. Ma, P hys. Rev. C 81, 054318 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    Nikˇ si´ c, N

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Comput. P hys. Commun. 185, 1808 (2014). 20

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.