Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 77 references

Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Non-axial deformations in fission of 252Cf broaden spin projections on the fission axis, enable tilting rotations, and reduce axial spin-spin correlations.

desk verdict Triaxial TDDFT trajectories for 252Cf fission broaden spin projections, enable tilting modes, and weaken axial correlations while perpendicular ones stay resilient, but the mean-field setup lacks validation or uncertainty checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.24466 v1 pith:AHZ367OJ submitted 2026-05-23 nucl-th

B. Li , D. D. Zhang , D. Vretenar , T. Nikšić , P. W. Zhao , J. Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords fissionspingenerationentanglementnon-axialdeformationtime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheory252Cfmutualinformationtiltingmode
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 applies nuclear time-dependent density functional theory to spontaneous fission of 252Cf while allowing both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric paths restrict rotations to counter-rotation along the fission axis and equiprobable bending or wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial paths remove these restrictions, widen the distribution of spin projections along the axis, and permit tilting collective rotations. Mutual information between fragment spins drops along the fission axis when axial symmetry is broken, yet perpendicular correlations stay largely intact. The work therefore supplies a microscopic route to intrinsic angular momentum and entanglement that depends on the degree of symmetry breaking.

What carries the argument

Time-dependent density functional theory trajectories that include non-axial deformations, with mutual information used to quantify spin-spin entanglement.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the width of spin-projection distributions along the fission axis and the mutual information between fragment spins in 252Cf fission events, compared against predictions from axial-only versus non-axial trajectories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Nuclear time-dependent density functional theory is used to investigate spin generation and entanglement of fission fragments in spontaneous fission of 252Cf, incorporating both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric fission trajectories enforce strict constraints: counter rotation (twisting mode) along the fission axis and equiprobable bending/wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial modes broaden the distributions of fission fragment spin projection on the fission axis, and allow for axial (tilting) collective rotations, which are forbidden on axially symmetric trajectories. Mutual information analysis reveals that axial-symmetry breaking reduces spin-spin correlations a

Load-bearing premise

The chosen Skyrme-type interaction in time-dependent density functional theory produces the observed collective spin modes and entanglement without extra fitted terms for pairing, dissipation, or fluctuations beyond mean field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-axial paths produce wider distributions of fission-fragment spin projections along the fission axis.
  • Tilting collective rotations appear only when axial symmetry is broken.
  • Spin-spin correlations measured along the fission axis decrease once axial symmetry is lost in symmetric fission.
  • Perpendicular spin correlations between fragments remain largely unchanged by the symmetry breaking.
  • Triaxial degrees of freedom modify the opening-angle distribution between the two fragment spins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Models that enforce axial symmetry throughout the fission path may systematically underestimate the spread in observed fragment spins.
  • Measurements that separate spin correlations parallel and perpendicular to the fission axis could distinguish the contribution of non-axial trajectories.
  • The resilience of perpendicular correlations suggests that certain angular observables in fission may be less sensitive to symmetry breaking than others.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies nuclear time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) to spontaneous fission of 252Cf, contrasting axially symmetric trajectories with those including non-axial deformations. It reports that non-axial modes broaden fission-fragment spin-projection distributions along the fission axis, permit axial tilting rotations forbidden under axial symmetry, and that mutual-information analysis shows axial-symmetry breaking reduces axial spin-spin correlations (while perpendicular correlations remain resilient); the impact on spin opening-angle distributions is also examined.

Significance. If robust, the work supplies a dynamical, parameter-free illustration of how triaxial degrees of freedom influence collective spin modes and fragment entanglement, a topic of interest in fission theory. The use of direct TDDFT evolution to generate the reported distributions and mutual-information values without additional fitted corrections is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results (spin distributions and mutual information)] Results section on spin-projection distributions and mutual information: the central claim that non-axial trajectories produce broader axial spin projections and reduced axial correlations rests on the untested fidelity of the chosen Skyrme functional within mean-field TDDFT; the manuscript supplies neither comparison to measured fission-fragment spin data nor error estimates on the reported distributions.
  2. [Method (TDDFT setup)] Method section describing the TDDFT trajectories: no discussion is given of how post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, or beyond-mean-field quantum fluctuations are (or are not) incorporated, yet these effects are known to influence angular-momentum generation and could alter the reported differences between axial and non-axial cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the specific Skyrme parametrization employed is not named, which would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Figures (mutual information)] Figure captions for the mutual-information plots: axis labels and units for the mutual-information values should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to better articulate the scope and limitations of our TDDFT calculations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section on spin-projection distributions and mutual information: the central claim that non-axial trajectories produce broader axial spin projections and reduced axial correlations rests on the untested fidelity of the chosen Skyrme functional within mean-field TDDFT; the manuscript supplies neither comparison to measured fission-fragment spin data nor error estimates on the reported distributions.

    Authors: The central claims concern the relative changes induced by breaking axial symmetry (broadening of axial spin projections, emergence of tilting modes, and reduction in axial mutual information) within a single, consistent TDDFT framework. These differences are generated dynamically by the same functional and initial conditions, so they do not rely on absolute fidelity to experiment. We agree that direct comparison to measured fragment spins and quantitative error bars are absent; such benchmarks lie outside the present scope. In revision we will add an explicit paragraph in the discussion section stating the model limitations and noting that future work should include functional benchmarking and uncertainty quantification. This is a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Method section describing the TDDFT trajectories: no discussion is given of how post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, or beyond-mean-field quantum fluctuations are (or are not) incorporated, yet these effects are known to influence angular-momentum generation and could alter the reported differences between axial and non-axial cases.

    Authors: The calculations follow the TDDFT evolution only up to the scission point, where the fragments separate while still connected by a neck. Post-scission de-excitation, dynamical pairing restoration, and beyond-mean-field fluctuations are not included. We will revise the method section to state this scope explicitly and to note that these omitted processes may modify absolute spin values and possibly the magnitude of the reported differences, although the qualitative effect of non-axial degrees of freedom on allowed collective modes is expected to remain. This is a full revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: results generated from TDDFT dynamical evolution

full rationale

The paper's central results on spin distributions, tilting modes, and mutual information changes are obtained directly from time-dependent density functional theory simulations of fission trajectories in 252Cf, incorporating axial and non-axial deformations. No equations reduce the reported quantities to input parameters by construction, no fitted inputs are relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chains or ansatzes are invoked to justify the load-bearing steps. The derivation remains self-contained within the mean-field evolution under the chosen interaction.

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

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The approach inherits standard assumptions of TDDFT mean-field dynamics and the validity of the chosen energy-density functional for collective motion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHZ367OJ

@misc{pith2026260524466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic generation of angular momenta and entanglement in fission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHZ367OJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24466}
}
abstract

Nuclear time-dependent density functional theory is used to investigate spin generation and entanglement of fission fragments in spontaneous fission of $^{252}$Cf, incorporating both axial and non-axial deformations. Axially symmetric fission trajectories enforce strict constraints: counter rotation (twisting mode) along the fission axis and equiprobable bending/wriggling modes perpendicular to it. Non-axial modes broaden the distributions of fission fragment spin projection on the fission axis, and allow for axial (tilting) collective rotations, which are forbidden on axially symmetric trajectories. Mutual information analysis reveals that axial-symmetry breaking reduces spin-spin correlations along the fission axis of symmetric cases, while perpendicular correlations remain more resilient. The effect of triaxial degrees of freedom on the opening angle distribution between the spins of the fission fragments is analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Left panel: Self-consistent deforma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The first row shows the probability dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Panels (1)-(4): The joint probabilit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Same as Fig. 3 but for projections alon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) The correlation indicator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Self-consistent deformation energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Panels (1)-(4): The one-body densiti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel: The one-body densities of FFs along traje [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The first row shows the time evolution of the expectat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Implementation of cutting-edge research and its application as pa rt of the Scientific Center of Excellence for Quantum and Complex Systems, and Representat ions of Lie Algebras

    5 and 0. 7, respectively, while maintaining the energy of the equilibrium minimum. While we have also investigated configurations with finite β32 deformations (see the supplemen- tal material [57]), the increase in deformation energy is considerab ly steeper in β32 than in β31 direction. For β31, we could select initial points with rather large deformation ...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    67 × 10− 4 zs. The pairing strength parameters: -0.125 MeV for neutrons, a nd -0.210 MeV for protons, are determined by the empirical pairing gaps of 252Cf, using the three-point odd-even mass formula. The subspace Vf is selected as z > 0, where the z-axis is along the fission direction, and the interval of z is from − 30 fm to 30 fm. In the computation of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Note that spherical harmonics satisfy the equation Y ∗ λµ (Ω) = ( − 1)µYλ − µ (Ω), and all deformation parameters βλµ are real numbers

    2A1/ 3 fm. Note that spherical harmonics satisfy the equation Y ∗ λµ (Ω) = ( − 1)µYλ − µ (Ω), and all deformation parameters βλµ are real numbers. III. DEFORMA TION ENERGY SURF ACE OF 252CF IN THE ( β20-β32) PLANE /s45/s49/s48 /s45/s54 /s45/s50 /s50 /s54 /s49/s48 /s69/s32/s91/s77/s101/s86/s93 /s51/s48 /s32/s61/s32/s49/s46/s48 FIG. 7. (Color online) Self-c...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Schmidt and B

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

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bender, R

    M. Bender, R. Bernard, G. Bertsch, S. Chiba, J. Dobaczews ki, N. Dubray, S. A. Giuliani, K. Hagino, D. Lacroix, Z. Li, P. Magierski, J. Maruhn, W. Naza rewicz, J. Pei, S. P´ eru, N. Pillet, J. Randrup, D. Regnier, P.-G. Reinhard, L. M. Robl edo, W. Ryssens, J. Sadhukhan, G. Scamps, N. Schunck, C. Simenel, J. Skalski, I. Stetcu, P. S tevenson, S. Umar, M. ...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Schunck and D

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

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J. R. Nix and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. 71, 1 (1965)

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    Rasmussen, W

    J. Rasmussen, W. N¨ orenberg, and H. Mang, Nucl. Phys. A 136, 465 (1969)

    work page 1969

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Zielinska-Pfab´ e and K

    M. Zielinska-Pfab´ e and K. Dietrich, Phys. Lett. B 49, 123 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    Bonneau, P

    L. Bonneau, P. Quentin, and I. N. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C 75, 064313 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    J. B. Wilhelmy, E. Cheifetz, R. C. Jared, S. G. Thompson, H . R. Bowman, and J. O. Rasmussen, Phys. Rev. C 5, 2041 (1972)

  4. [12]

    Wolf and E

    A. Wolf and E. Cheifetz, Phys. Rev. C 13, 1952 (1976)

    1952

  5. [13]

    J. N. Wilson, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jovanˇ cevi´ c, D. G jestvang, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.-B. Gerst, L. Gaudefroy, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Algora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. B ottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. Ciepl...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Marin, M

    S. Marin, M. S. Okar, E. P. Sansevero, I. E. Hernandez, C. A. Ballard, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, A. E. Lovell, I. Stetcu, O. Serot, O. Litaize, A. Che bboubi, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024602 (2021). 25

    2021

  7. [15]

    Marin, E

    S. Marin, E. P. Sansevero, M. S. Okar, I. E. Hernandez, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054609 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    N. P. Giha, S. Marin, J. A. Baker, I. E. Hernandez, K. J. Ke lly, M. Devlin, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, O. Lita ize, O. Serot, A. Chebboubi, C.-Y. Wu, S. D. Clarke, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014612 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Marin, I

    S. Marin, I. A. Tolstukhin, N. P. Giha, F. Tovesson, V. Pr otopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054617 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck , and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142502 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, K. Godbey, and I. Stetcu, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 128, 022501 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Scamps, Phys

    G. Scamps, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054614 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Scamps, I

    G. Scamps, I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. S tetcu, Phys. Rev. C 108, L061602 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, Phys. R ev. C 104, L021601 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Marevic, N

    P. Marevic, N. Schunck, and M. Verriere, arXiv:2506.10 777 [nucl-th]

  16. [24]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062502 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 106, L051601 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Randrup, T

    J. Randrup, T. Døssing, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014609 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064606 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Quantum fluctuations drive angular momenta in nuclear fissi on,

    M. H. Zhou, S. Y. Chen, Z. Y. Li, M. S. Smith, and Z. P. Li, “Quantum fluctuations drive angular momenta in nuclear fissi on,” (2024), arXiv:2311.06177 [nucl-th]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Døssing, S

    T. Døssing, S. ˚ Aberg, M. Albertsson, B. G. Carlsson, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034615 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    T. M. Shneidman, A. Rahmatinejad, G. G. Adamian, and N. V . Antonenko, Phys. Rev. C 111, 064621 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Scamps and G

    G. Scamps and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034616 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034603 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014624 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Scamps, Phys

    G. Scamps, Phys. Rev. C 109, L011602 (2024). 26

    2024

  27. [35]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, P. Talou, T. Kawano, S. Marin, S. A. Pozzi, and A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 222502 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Volume II: Nuclear Deformations (1975)

    1975

  29. [37]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

    J. Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

  31. [39]

    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    doi

  32. [40]

    Frauendorf and Jie Meng, Nucl

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

    1997

  33. [41]

    Lu, E.-G

    B.-N. Lu, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 85, 011301 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    B.-N. Lu, J. Zhao, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 89, 014323 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Ryssens, G

    W. Ryssens, G. Scamps, S. Goriely, and M. Bender, Eur. Ph ys. J. A 59, 96 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Ebata, T

    S. Ebata, T. Nakatsukasa, T. Inakura, K. Yoshida, Y. Has himoto, and K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034306 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Scamps and D

    G. Scamps and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014605 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Magierski, J

    P. Magierski, J. Grineviciute, and K. Sekizawa, Acta Ph ysica Polonica B 49, 281 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Scamps, D

    G. Scamps, D. Lacroix, G. F. Bertsch, and K. Washiyama, P hys. Rev. C 85, 034328 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. A 76, 040502 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044603 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135194 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Z. X. Ren, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, J. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 172501 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Z. X. Ren, J. Zhao, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044313 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, L011301 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    D. D. Zhang, B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024316 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. M eng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024614 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, Z. X. Ren, T. Nikˇ si´ c, J. Zhao, P. W. Z hao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014303 (2023). 27

    2023

  49. [57]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. D. Zhang, P. W. Zhao, a nd J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034611 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 110, 034302 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    B. Li, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138877 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. M eng, Phys. Lett. B 869, 139828 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Supplemental material to this article at [url], which includes additional Ref. [73 ]

    B. Li, D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, “Supplemental material to this article at [url], which includes additional Ref. [73 ].”

  54. [62]

    Z. X. Ren, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 95, 024313 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

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

    2019

  56. [64]

    Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, S. Q. Zhang, and J. Meng, Nucl. Phys. A 996, 121696 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    B. Li, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044307 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    F. F. Xu, B. Li, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014311 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    F. F. Xu, B. Li, P. Ring, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138893 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    F. F. Xu, Y. K. Wang, Y. P. Wang, P. Ring, and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 022501 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

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

    2010

  62. [70]

    Simenel and A

    C. Simenel and A. S. Umar, Phys. Rev. C 89, 031601 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Schunck and L

    N. Schunck and L. M. Robledo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 116301 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Hara and Y

    K. Hara and Y. Sun, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 04, 637 (1995)

    1995

  65. [73]

    Ma and Y.-G

    C.-W. Ma and Y.-G. Ma, Progress in Particle and Nuclear P hysics 99, 120 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 108, 014321 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, J. Zhao, P. W. Zhao, and J . Meng, Frontiers of Physics 19, 44201 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    B. Li, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, P hys. Rev. C 111, L051302 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Q. L. Hu, Z. C. Gao, and Y. S. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 734, 162 (2014). 28

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.