Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 194 references

Fermionic equations of motion in strongly-correlated media: applications to the nuclear many-body problem

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read These lectures claim that ab initio, density-functional, and beyond-mean-field nuclear models all descend from one fermionic equation-of-motion hierarchy.

desk verdict Solid lecture notes synthesizing the qPVC/RNFT program; treat the 'unified framework' claim as a program statement, not a demonstrated result, since the promised estimate of the dropped irreducible three-fermion term never appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18209 v2 pith:CEEAJBCO submitted 2024-12-24 nucl-th nucl-ex

Elena Litvinova This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex MSC 81V3581T17
keywords fermionicequationsofmotionnuclearmany-bodyproblemquasiparticle-vibrationcouplingGreenfunctionsresponsesuperfluidityrandomphaseapproximationdensityfunctionaltheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This lecture-notes paper argues that the many models used to describe atomic nuclei, from ab initio calculations to density functional theory to beyond-mean-field methods, are not competing approaches but controlled truncations of a single hierarchy of fermionic equations of motion. The hierarchy is generated from a Hamiltonian with one- and two-body interactions by deriving equations for the one-fermion propagator and the two-fermion response, whose interaction kernels contain higher-rank correlation functions. A symmetric rewriting of the kernels plus a cluster decomposition that keeps two-fermion correlations turns the hierarchy into tractable equations, with the dropped irreducible three-fermion term as the main uncontrolled ingredient. The paper shows that retaining two-fermion correlation functions is the minimal requirement for emergent collectivity, and that the resulting quasiparticle-vibration coupling approximations reproduce known limits such as RPA, second RPA, and nuclear field theory while improving giant-resonance and Gamow-Teller spectra in medium-heavy nuclei. A sympathetic reader would care because the claim, if right, makes the field's approximation ladder a single quantum field theory in disguise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric dynamical interaction kernel obtained by differentiating the one-fermion equation of motion twice, which splits the self-energy into a static mean-field piece and a dynamical piece containing the three-fermion correlation function $G^{(pph)}$. A cluster decomposition of $G^{(pph)}$ into products of one-fermion and two-fermion propagators, with the irreducible term $\sigma^{(pph)}$ dropped, produces the quasiparticle-vibration coupling (qPVC) self-energy, whose vertices are exact contractions of the bare interaction with the residues of the particle-hole and particle-particle propagators. This mapping is what lets an effective theory with phonon degrees of freedom be built from a fermionic Hamiltonian without introducing free parameters. The same machinery, carried out in the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov basis, yields the superfluid response equations and unifies normal and pairing phonons.

What would settle it

One could compute the omitted irreducible three-fermion term $\sigma^{(pph)}$ in the self-energy of a medium-heavy nucleus such as $^{68}$Ni or $^{90}$Zr within the same input interaction; if its contribution to single-particle energies or response functions turns out comparable to the retained qPVC terms, the central truncation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the exact equations of motion for the one-fermion and two-fermion propagators, written in a symmetric two-time form, already contain all of nuclear structure theory. Once the self-energy is split into a static Hartree-Fock term and a dynamical term built from a three-fermion correlation function, a cluster decomposition retaining one-fermion and two-fermion propagators maps exactly to quasiparticle-vibration coupling: the fermion self-energy becomes a sum of one-loop and two-loop diagrams with phonon vertices $\Gamma^{\mathrm{ph}}$ and $\Gamma^{\mathrm{pp}}$ that are themselves computed from the bare interaction contracted with two-fermion correlation functions. The same construction in the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov basis unifies normal and pairing phonons into a compact Gor'kov-Dyson equation. The consequence is that ab initio, density-functional, and beyond-mean-field implementations are not separate models but successive approximations within one hierarchy, with the quasiparticle-vibration coupling class as the leading unavoidable truncation for intermediate and strong coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two-fermion correlations carry the leading emergent collective effects, so the irreducible three-fermion term dropped from the cluster decomposition of the dynamical kernel makes only a small quantitative difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy is right, ab initio, density-functional, and beyond-mean-field calculations are not separate models but successive truncations of one exact equation chain, so improvements in one sector can be transferred to another.
  • The quasiparticle-vibration coupling emerges as the unavoidable leading approximation for intermediate and strong coupling, and its vertices are calculable from the bare interaction rather than fitted.
  • Retaining two-particle-two-hole, or one-phonon, configurations is necessary but not sufficient for spectroscopic accuracy; three-particle-three-hole, or two-phonon, configurations further fragment and broaden resonances, with indications of saturation.
  • In the superfluid phase, the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov basis unifies normal and pairing phonons into one dynamical kernel, reducing the multicomponent Gor'kov structure to compact qPVC vertices.
  • Subtracting the static limit of the dynamical kernel from effective-interaction implementations removes double counting and keeps the quasiparticle RPA Goldstone modes stable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open the quantitative size of the dropped irreducible three-fermion term; a natural next step is to evaluate it in a light or medium nucleus where exact or nearly exact benchmarks exist, which would test the claimed hierarchy directly.
  • If the hierarchy is correct, the parameters of existing density functionals could in principle be reinterpreted as static-limit approximations to the bare-interaction kernels, potentially allowing a systematic extraction of those parameters from a single underlying Hamiltonian.
  • The same equation-of-motion construction could be extended to include three-body forces, which are currently neglected with only a qualitative justification, and would become necessary if high-precision spectroscopy across the nuclear chart is the target.
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. These lecture notes, based on the 2024 Enrico Fermi School lectures, present a formal derivation of fermionic equations of motion (EOMs) for one- and two-fermion propagators in strongly correlated media, with a focus on the nuclear many-body problem. The manuscript develops the Dyson-form EOMs for the single-fermion propagator in normal and superfluid (HFB) phases, derives the cluster decomposition of the three-fermion correlation function, and shows how the resulting factorized terms map exactly onto quasiparticle-vibration coupling (qPVC) with emergent phonon degrees of freedom. It then constructs the superfluid response theory in the quasiparticle basis and illustrates applications to electric dipole and Gamow-Teller responses of medium-mass nuclei within the relativistic nuclear field theory (RNFT) framework. The central claim is that ab initio, density functional, and beyond-mean-field approaches can be understood as controlled approximations within a single model-independent EOM/QFT framework, with qPVC representing the leading systematically improvable truncation.

Significance. The paper provides a valuable pedagogical synthesis by making explicit the connections between different nuclear many-body approaches — ab initio Green's function methods, density functional theory, and phenomenological phonon-coupling models — through a unified EOM language. The algebraic derivations are consistent with the cited literature, and the mapping from cluster decomposition to qPVC is clearly laid out. The strengths include the transparent derivation of the dynamical self-energy in both normal and superfluid phases, the unified treatment of normal and pairing phonons in the HFB basis, and the summary of recent numerical results that demonstrate the impact of beyond-RPA correlations. However, the central claim that qPVC is the leading unavoidable truncation in intermediate and strong coupling rests on an unquantified assumption about the smallness of the irreducible three-fermion term sigma(pph). This missing estimate, together with the recent adjusted parameters in the illustrative applications, means the paper currently overstates the status of the ordering principle.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (30)] The text immediately after Eq. (30) states: 'After performing the decomposition (30) and dropping the last term (its role and quantitative contribution are commented on below)'. No such quantitative assessment of the irreducible three-fermion term sigma(pph) appears anywhere in the manuscript. The paragraph after Eq. (44) mentions the 2p1h RPA and Faddeev approximations for this term, but it reports no numerical or analytic estimate of its size. Since the dynamical self-energy is expressed exactly through the irreducible three-fermion propagator (Eqs. (29) and (44)), the relative magnitude of sigma(pph) is the factor that determines whether the retained two-fermion correlation terms dominate and thus whether qPVC is indeed the leading unavoidable truncation. Without this estimate, the identification of qPVC as the leading approximation is an unsupported power-counting conjecture. Please provide a quantitative estimate (analytic or numerical, e.g., from the cited 2p1h RPA or Faddeev literature) or explicitly flag this as an assumption to be tested in future work.
  2. [Section II.A] The input Hamiltonian is truncated at the two-body interaction V(2), and the neglect of three-body forces W(3) is justified only by the remark that their role in relativistic theory 'is not completely clear'. Since the abstract and introduction claim a 'model-independent framework' and systematically improvable hierarchy, the truncation of the input interaction at two-body forces should either be given a more explicit justification or be clearly presented as a limitation of the specific numerical realizations discussed in Section III, rather than as part of the formal framework itself. As written, the reader cannot distinguish between a limitation of the formalism and a pragmatic choice in the applications.
  3. [Section IV (also Section III.A, paragraph before Fig. 7)] The statement that 'the theory also indicates fast saturation with respect to the configuration complexity' (Section IV, and similarly in Section III.A) is presented as a general conclusion, but no quantitative measure of saturation is supplied. The comparison between 2p2h and 3p3h calculations is limited to a few nuclei and qualitative features of the strength distributions. To support the claim of systematic improvability, the authors should quantify saturation, for example, by comparing energy-weighted moments, peak positions, or integrated strength as a function of configuration complexity. In the absence of such quantification, the claim should be tempered to avoid overstating the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.C, Eq. (54)-(55)] The notation for the bra-vector rows in Eqs. (54) and (55) is typeset inconsistently, making it difficult to follow the matrix multiplication. Please check the formatting of the row vectors (U†, V†) and (V^T, U^T) in these equations.
  2. [Section II.D, Eq. (66)] In Eq. (66), the row vector (F^02, F^20) appears with a missing space or comma; the notation should be clarified to indicate it is a row vector contracted with the response matrix.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (30) and Fig. 3 caption] The symbolic notation 'G(pph)~ G(p)G(p)G(h)+...' in Eq. (30) is introduced without explaining the superscripts p and h in the text (they are mentioned in passing but not defined). A brief definition would help the uninitiated reader.
  4. [Section III.A, Fig. 7 caption] The caption for Fig. 7 states that the data are from Ref. [156] without specifying the experimental measurement (e.g., the reaction used). Adding this detail would improve clarity.
  5. [Section II.A, after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'the numerical implementation of the theory discussed in Section III is performed in a relativistic framework' is followed by a discussion of W(3) but the reader is not told until later which interactions are actually used in the numerical examples. Moving the mention of NL3 and the covariant DFT framework to the input definition in Eq. (1) would make the scope of the formalism versus applications clearer.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Formal EOM derivation is independent, but the 90Zr demonstration fits the IVSM mixing parameter to the low-energy GT strength it then claims to reproduce; the promised sigma(pph) estimate is missing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B, paragraph on 90Zr GT± strength (around Fig. 9)]
    "with the parameter α adjusted to the magnitude of the theoretical low-energy GT strength was adopted in the calculations. The values α = 9.1 × 10−3 and α = 7.5 × 10−3 fm−2, respectively, were used for the GT+ and GT− channels. The resulting strength delivers an improved description of the experiment also above 25-30 MeV in both GT± branches"

    The mixing parameter α controls the weight of the isovector spin-monopole contribution superposed on the Gamow-Teller operator. It is adjusted to the magnitude of the low-energy GT strength, which is precisely the feature highlighted as an improved description of the data. The low-energy peak height is therefore enforced by the fit rather than independently predicted. The high-energy region and the GT− branch retain some independent content, so the circularity is confined to this illustrative application and does not affect the formal EOM derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Sections II.A–II.D is parameter-free: the Dyson form of the single-fermion EOM (Eqs. (22)–(26)) and the Bethe-Salpeter-Dyson equation for the response (Eq. (71)) follow from the Heisenberg EOM and spectral representations, with no fitted input. The qPVC mapping (Eqs. (35)–(36)) is an exact rewriting of the two-fermion correlation-function contributions to the self-energy; it does not equate a predicted quantity to an input. The cluster decomposition (Eq. (30)) is an approximation scheme, and the paper is transparent that σ(pph) is dropped, although it promises a quantitative estimate that never appears; that is a support gap, not circularity. The heavy use of Refs. [17,18,46,61] is mostly provenance for derivations that are substantially re-derived in the text, so it does not by itself make the argument circular. The one genuine reduction-to-fit is the 90Zr application: the IVSM mixing parameter α is adjusted to the magnitude of the low-energy GT strength, and the same low-energy feature is then presented as improved agreement. This is a localized, transparent fit in an illustrative example, not the central claim. Overall score 4: some self-citation and one fitted-input demonstration, but the central formal framework remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The formal derivation has no free parameters. The free parameters enter in the applications, where effective interactions and a mixing parameter are adjusted to data. The axioms are standard QFT machinery plus the practical truncations of the many-body hierarchy.

free parameters (4)
  • NL3 effective interaction parameter set = not specified in this paper (see Ref. [110])
    Used for the static kernels in RQRPA, RQTBA, and REOM calculations. Fitted to nuclear masses and radii in the covariant DFT framework.
  • IVSM mixing parameter α = 9.1e-3 and 7.5e-3 fm^-2 for GT+ and GT- channels
    Adjusted to the magnitude of the theoretical low-energy GT strength in the 90Zr comparison (Section III B).
  • Smearing parameter Δ = 200 keV, 400 keV, 2 MeV, 1 MeV depending on nucleus and channel
    Chosen to match experimental resolution and estimated continuum width; affects the displayed strength functions.
  • Phonon selection for REOM3 = not quantified
    Only the most relevant phonon modes with largest isoscalar excited state probabilities are selected in the iterative cycle (Section III.A), a manual truncation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard second-quantized Hamiltonian with anticommutation relations and spectral (Källen-Lehmann) representations
    Used throughout Sections II.A-II.B to derive the EOMs.
  • domain assumption Three-body forces W(3) are neglected in the input Hamiltonian
    Section II.A states the justification is the smaller role of three-body forces in relativistic theory, but adds that 'whether the relativistic three-body forces should be included ... is not completely clear'.
  • domain assumption Cluster decomposition of the three-fermion correlation function truncates the hierarchy at the two-body level, dropping σ(pph)
    Eq. (30) and the following paragraph; the dropped term is never quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective interactions fitted to nuclear masses and radii can approximate the static kernel, with subtraction of the static limit (90) to remove double counting
    Section III.A; this is a practical modeling choice specific to the RNFT implementations.
  • standard math Weak external field and linear response approximation
    Section II.D around Eq. (64); used for the strength function.
invented entities (2)
  • Normal and pairing phonons as emergent collective excitations independent evidence
    purpose: Mediate the dynamical in-medium interaction between fermions; defined via contractions of two-fermion correlation functions with the interaction (Eqs. 35-40).
    Phonons correspond to observed collective nuclear excitations, so they are not invented ad hoc; they emerge from the formalism.
  • Unified superfluid phonon in the HFB quasiparticle basis independent evidence
    purpose: Packs normal and pairing phonon vertices into a single vertex structure Γ(11), Γ(02) (Eqs. 58-59), compactifying the Gor'kov-Dyson equation.
    Mathematical construction from Ref. [46]; its physical content is the unification of particle-hole and particle-particle phonons, supported by the derived spectral representations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fermionic equations of motion in strongly-correlated media: applications to the nuclear many-body problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEEAJBCO

@misc{pith2026241218209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fermionic equations of motion in strongly-correlated media: applications to the nuclear many-body problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEEAJBCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18209}
}
read the original abstract

These notes summarise the lectures given at the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" in Summer 2024 in Varenna (Italy) about the strongly coupled quantum many-body theory and its applications to nuclear structure. The lectures present a rather short overview of the subject with an emphasis on the analytical aspects of the nuclear many-body problem, aiming at a deep understanding of the complexity of strongly coupled nucleonic states and emergent collective phenomena. The major pedagogical focus is recognizing how all the models describing nuclear dynamics follow from a unified model-independent framework formulated in the universal language of quantum field theory. In particular, connections between the classes of ab initio, density functional theory, and beyond mean-field approaches are made accessible. Approximations of varying complexity are discussed in applications to excited states of medium-heavy nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The PVC ”anatomy”: the normal (top) and super [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The dynamical self-energy ( kernel Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The complete set of the qPVC amplitudes in the diagrammatic representation with the same conventions as in Figs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The superfluid dynamical self-energy in the quasiparticle (left) and single-particle (right) bases, related by Bogolyubov’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The superfluid dynamical two-fermion kernels in the qPVC approximation. The complete multicomponent two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total dipole photoabsorption cross section in stable medium-mass nuclei. The figure is adapted from Refs. [142, 143]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Giant dipole resonance in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. GTR in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The Gamow-Teller GT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

194 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Litvinova, European Physical Journal A 59, 291 (2023)

    E. Litvinova, European Physical Journal A 59, 291 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    Matsubara, Progress in Theoretical Physics 14 (1955)

    T. Matsubara, Progress in Theoretical Physics 14 (1955)

    1955

  3. [2]

    K. M. Watson, Physical Review 103, 489 (1956)

    1956

  4. [3]

    K. A. Brueckner and C. A. Levinson, Physical Review 97, 1344 (1955)

    1955

  5. [4]

    K. A. Brueckner, Physical Review 100, 36 (1955)

    1955

  6. [5]

    P. C. Martin and J. S. Schwinger, Physical Review 115, 1342 (1959)

    1959

  7. [6]

    Ethofer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A225, 353 (1969)

    S. Ethofer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A225, 353 (1969)

    1969

  8. [7]

    Schuck and S

    P. Schuck and S. Ethofer, Nuclear Physics A212, 269 (1973)

    1973

Show all 194 references
  1. [8]

    L. P. Gorkov, Soviet Physics JETP 7, 505 (1958)

    1958

  2. [9]

    L. P. Kadanoff and P. C. Martin, Physical Review 124, 670 (1961)

    1961

  3. [10]

    Ethofer and P

    S. Ethofer and P. Schuck, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 228, 264 (1969)

    1969

  4. [11]

    Migdal, Theory of finite Fermi systems and applica- tion to atomic nuclei (Wiley-Interscience Publ., 1967)

    A. Migdal, Theory of finite Fermi systems and applica- tion to atomic nuclei (Wiley-Interscience Publ., 1967)

    1967

  5. [12]

    Adachi and P

    S. Adachi and P. Schuck, Nuclear Physics A496, 485 (1989)

    1989

  6. [13]

    Danielewicz and P

    P. Danielewicz and P. Schuck, Nuclear Physics A567, 78 (1994)

    1994

  7. [14]

    Dukelsky, G

    J. Dukelsky, G. R¨ opke, and P. Schuck, Nuclear Physics A628, 17 (1998)

    1998

  8. [15]

    Popovici, P

    C. Popovici, P. Watson, and H. Reinhardt, Physical Review D 81, 105011 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Popovici, P

    C. Popovici, P. Watson, and H. Reinhardt, Physical Review D 83, 025013 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Litvinova and P

    E. Litvinova and P. Schuck, Physical Review C 100, 064320 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    M. L. Tiago, P. Kent, R. Q. Hood, and F. A. Reboredo, Journal of Chemical Physics 129, 084311 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    J. I. Martinez, J. Garc ´ ıa-Lastra, M. L´ opez, and J. Alonso, Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 044314 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Sangalli, P

    D. Sangalli, P. Romaniello, G. Onida, and A. Marini, Journal of Chemical Physics 134, 034115 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Schuck and M

    P. Schuck and M. Tohyama, European Physical Journal A 52, 307 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Olevano, J

    V. Olevano, J. Toulouse, and P. Schuck, Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 084112 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Schuck, D

    P. Schuck, D. Delion, J. Dukelsky, M. Jemai, E. Litvi- nova, G. Roepke, and M. Tohyama, Physics Reports 929, 1 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Schuck, European Physical Journal A55, 250 (2019)

    P. Schuck, European Physical Journal A55, 250 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Litvinova and P

    E. Litvinova and P. Schuck, Physical Review C 102, 034310 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Litvinova and P

    E. Litvinova and P. Schuck, Physical Review C 104, 044330 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear structure, Vol. 1 (World Scientific, 1969)

    1969

  21. [29]

    Bohr and B

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

    1975

  22. [30]

    R. A. Broglia and P. F. Bortignon, Physics Letters B65, 221 (1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    P. F. Bortignon, R. Broglia, D. Bes, and R. Liotta, Physics Reports 30, 305 (1977)

    1977

  24. [32]

    Bertsch, P

    G. Bertsch, P. Bortignon, and R. Broglia, Reviews of Modern Physics 55, 287 (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    Barranco, G

    F. Barranco, G. Potel, R. A. Broglia, and E. Vigezzi, Physical Review Letters 119, 082501 (2017). 23

    2017

  26. [34]

    Kamerdzhiev, J

    S. Kamerdzhiev, J. Speth, and G. Tertychny, Physics Reports 393, 1 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Tselyaev, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics 50, 780 (1989)

    V. Tselyaev, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics 50, 780 (1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Litvinova and V

    E. Litvinova and V. Tselyaev, Physical Review C 75, 054318 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Soloviev, Theory of Atomic Nuclei: Quasiparticles and Phonons (Institute of Physics Publishing, 1992)

    V. Soloviev, Theory of Atomic Nuclei: Quasiparticles and Phonons (Institute of Physics Publishing, 1992)

    1992

  30. [38]

    L. A. Malov and V. G. Soloviev, Nuclear Physics A 270, 87 (1976)

    1976

  31. [39]

    V. I. Tselyaev, Physical Review C 88, 054301 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Physical Re- view C 75, 064308 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Physical Re- view C 78, 014312 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Physical Re- view Letters 105, 022502 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and V. Tselyaev, Physical Re- view C 88, 044320 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Tselyaev, N

    V. Tselyaev, N. Lyutorovich, J. Speth, and P. G. Rein- hard, Physical Review C 97, 044308 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Litvinova, Physical Review C 107, L041302 (2023)

    E. Litvinova, Physical Review C 107, L041302 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Litvinova and Y

    E. Litvinova and Y. Zhang, Physical Review C 104, 044303 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Van der Sluys, D

    V. Van der Sluys, D. Van Neck, M. Waroquier, and J. Ryckebusch, Nuclear Physics A551, 210 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    A. V. Avdeenkov and S. P. Kamerdzhiev, Physics Let- ters B459, 423 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    A. V. Avdeenkov and S. P. Kamerdzhev, JETP Letters 69, 715 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    Barranco, R

    F. Barranco, R. Broglia, G. Gori, E. Vigezzi, P. Bor- tignon, and J. Terasaki, Physical Review Letters 83, 2147 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Barranco, P

    F. Barranco, P. Bortignon, R. Broglia, G. Col` o, P. Schuck, E. Vigezzi, and X. Vinas, Physical Review C 72, 054314 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    V. I. Tselyaev, Physical Review C 75, 024306 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    E. V. Litvinova and A. V. Afanasjev, Physical Review C 84, 014305 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Litvinova, Physical Review C 85, 021303 (2012)

    E. Litvinova, Physical Review C 85, 021303 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    A. V. Afanasjev and E. Litvinova, Physical Review C 92, 044317 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Idini, G

    A. Idini, G. Potel, F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi, and R. A. Broglia, Physical Review C 92, 031304 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    V. Soma, T. Duguet, and C. Barbieri, Physical Review C 84, 064317 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    V. Soma, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Physical Review C 87, 011303 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    V. Soma, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Physical Review C 89, 024323 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Som` a, C

    V. Som` a, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and P. Navr´ atil, Eu- ropean Physical Journal A 57, 135 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Litvinova and Y

    E. Litvinova and Y. Zhang, Physical Review C 106, 064316 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    D. R. Bes, R. A. Broglia, G. G. Dussel, and R. Liotta, Physics Letters B 56, 109 (1975)

    1975

  55. [63]

    D. Bes, R. Broglia, G. Dussel, R. Liotta, and R. Per- azzo, Nuclear Physics A 260, 77 (1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Terasaki, F

    J. Terasaki, F. Barranco, P. F. Bortignon, R. A. Broglia, and E. Vigezzi, Progress in Theoretical Physics108, 495 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    Y. Niu, G. Col` o, and E. Vigezzi, Physical Review C90, 054328 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    Y. Niu, Z. Niu, G. Col` o, and E. Vigezzi, Physical Re- view Letters 114, 142501 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Y. F. Niu, G. Colo, E. Vigezzi, C. L. Bai, and H. Sagawa, Physical Review C 94, 064328 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Gambacurta, M

    D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, and F. Catara, Physical Review C 84, 034301 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    Gambacurta, M

    D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, and J. Engel, Physical Re- view C 92, 034303 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Robin and E

    C. Robin and E. Litvinova, European Physical Journal A 52, 205 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Robin and E

    C. Robin and E. Litvinova, Physical Review Letters 123, 202501 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Soloviev, C

    V. Soloviev, C. Stoyanov, and A. Vdovin, Nuclear Physics A288, 376 (1977)

    1977

  65. [73]

    V. Yu. Ponomarev, P. F. Bortignon, R. A. Broglia, and V. V. Voronov, Nuclear Physics A687, 170 (2001)

    2001

  66. [74]

    Andreozzi, F

    F. Andreozzi, F. Knapp, N. Lo Iudice, A. Porrino, and J. Kvasil, Physical Review C 78, 054308 (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    Knapp, N

    F. Knapp, N. Lo Iudice, P. Vesel´ y, F. Andreozzi, G. De Gregorio, and A. Porrino, Physical Review C 90, 014310 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Bacca, Phys

    S. Bacca, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064619 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Knapp, N

    F. Knapp, N. Lo Iudice, P. Vesel´ y, F. Andreozzi, G. De Gregorio, and A. Porrino, Physical Review C 92, 054315 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    De Gregorio, F

    G. De Gregorio, F. Knapp, N. Lo Iudice, and P. Vesely, Physical Review C 94, 061301(R) (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    De Gregorio, F

    G. De Gregorio, F. Knapp, N. Lo Iudice, and P. Vesely, Physical Review C 93, 044314 (2016)

    2016

  72. [80]

    V. Yu. Ponomarev, Nucl. Phys. A649, 243 (1999)

    1999

  73. [81]

    Lo Iudice, V

    N. Lo Iudice, V. Y. Ponomarev, C. Stoyanov, A. V. Sushkov, and V. V. Voronov, Journal of Physics G39, 043101 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Savran et al

    D. Savran et al. , Phys. Rev. C84, 024326 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Tsoneva, M

    N. Tsoneva, M. Spieker, H. Lenske, and A. Zilges, Nu- clear Physics A990, 183 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Lenske and N

    H. Lenske and N. Tsoneva, European Physical Journal A 55, 238 (2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    M¨ uscher et al

    M. M¨ uscher et al. , Physical Review C 109, 044318 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Novak, M

    J. Novak, M. Q. Hlatshwayo, and E. Litvinova, (2024), arXiv:2405.02255 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Brockmann, Physical Review C 18, 1510 (1978)

    R. Brockmann, Physical Review C 18, 1510 (1978)

    1978

  80. [88]

    Boyussy, J.-F

    A. Boyussy, J.-F. Mathiott, N. V. Giai, and S. Marcos, Physical Review C 36, 380 (1987)

    1987

  81. [89]

    Poschenrieder and M

    P. Poschenrieder and M. K. Weigel, Physics Letters B 200, 231 (1988)

    1988

  82. [90]

    Poschenrieder and M

    P. Poschenrieder and M. K. Weigel, Physical Review C 38, 471 (1988)

    1988

  83. [91]

    Danielewicz and J

    P. Danielewicz and J. M. Namyslowski, Physics Letters B 81, 110 (1979)

    1979

  84. [92]

    V. A. Karmanov, Few Body Systems 50, 61 (2011)

    2011

  85. [93]

    K¨ all´ en, Helvetica Physica Acta25, 417 (1952)

    G. K¨ all´ en, Helvetica Physica Acta25, 417 (1952)

    1952

  86. [94]

    Lehmann, Nuovo Cimento 11, 342 (1954)

    H. Lehmann, Nuovo Cimento 11, 342 (1954)

    1954

  87. [95]

    Schuck, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A279, 31 (1976)

    P. Schuck, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A279, 31 (1976)

    1976

  88. [96]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 52, 377 (2004)

    2004

  89. [97]

    W. H. Dickhoff and D. V. Neck, Many-Body Theory Ex- posed! (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  90. [98]

    Kucharek and P

    H. Kucharek and P. Ring, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A339, 23 (1991)

    1991

  91. [99]

    Vinh Mau, in Theory of nuclear structure, Trieste Lectures 1069, p

    N. Vinh Mau, in Theory of nuclear structure, Trieste Lectures 1069, p. 931 (IAEA, Vienna, 1970). 24

    1970

  92. [100]

    N. V. Mau and A. Bouyssy, Nuclear Physics A257, 189 (1976)

    1976

  93. [101]

    Ring and P

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

    1980

  94. [102]

    G. A. Rijsdijk, K. Allaart, and W. H. Dickhoff, Nucl. Phys. A 550, 159 (1992)

    1992

  95. [103]

    Barbieri and M

    C. Barbieri and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Physical Review C 79, 064313 (2009)

    2009

  96. [104]

    Barbieri, Physical Review Letters 103, 202502 (2009)

    C. Barbieri, Physical Review Letters 103, 202502 (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    Litvinova and P

    E. Litvinova and P. Ring, Physical Review C73, 044328 (2006)

    2006

  98. [106]

    Schuck, F

    P. Schuck, F. Villars, and P. Ring, Nuclear Physics A 208, 302 (1973)

    1973

  99. [107]

    G. A. Rijsdijk, W. J. W. Geurts, K. Allaart, and W. H. Dickhoff, Physical Review C 53, 201 (1996)

    1996

  100. [108]

    Bogolubov, Journal of Physics 11, 23 (1947)

    N. Bogolubov, Journal of Physics 11, 23 (1947)

    1947

  101. [109]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. Bjelˇ ci´ c, T. Nikˇ si´ c, E. Litvinova, P. Ring, and P. Schuck, Physical Review C 105, 044326 (2022)

    2022

  102. [110]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Physical Review C 55, 540 (1997)

    1997

  103. [111]

    G. A. Lalazissis, S. Karatzikos, R. Fossion, D. P. Arteaga, A. V. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, Physics Let- ters B 671, 36 (2009)

    2009

  104. [112]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Physics Reports 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  105. [113]

    Avogadro and T

    P. Avogadro and T. Nakatsukasa, Physical Review C 84, 014314 (2011)

    2011

  106. [114]

    Schuck and M

    P. Schuck and M. Tohyama, Physical Review B 93, 165117 (2016)

    2016

  107. [115]

    Zelevinsky and A

    V. Zelevinsky and A. Volya, Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Wiley, 2017)

    2017

  108. [116]

    Lyutorovich, V

    N. Lyutorovich, V. Tselyaev, J. Speth, and P. Reinhard, Physical Review C 98, 054304 (2018)

    2018

  109. [117]

    Y. Niu, Z. Niu, G. Col` o, and E. Vigezzi, Physics Letters B 780, 325 (2018)

    2018

  110. [118]

    Litvinova, H

    E. Litvinova, H. Loens, K. Langanke, G. Martinez- Pinedo, T. Rauscher, P. Ring, F.-K. Thielemann, and V. Tselyaev, Nuclear Physics A823, 26 (2009)

    2009

  111. [119]

    Endres, E

    J. Endres, E. Litvinova, D. Savran, P. A. Butler, M. N. Harakeh, S. Harissopulos, R.-D. Herzberg, R. Kr¨ ucken, A. Lagoyannis, N. Pietralla, V. Y. Pono- marev, L. Popescu, P. Ring, M. Scheck, K. Sonnabend, V. I. Stoica, H. J. W¨ ortche, and A. Zilges, Physical Review Letters 1...

    2010

  112. [120]

    Massarczyk, R

    R. Massarczyk, R. Schwengner, F. D¨ onau, E. Litvi- nova, G. Rusev, R. Beyer, R. Hannaske, A. Junghans, M. Kempe, J. H. Kelley, et al. , Physical Review C 86, 014319 (2012)

    2012

  113. [121]

    Lanza, A

    E. Lanza, A. Vitturi, E. Litvinova, and D. Savran, Physical Review C 89, 041601 (2014)

    2014

  114. [122]

    Poltoratska, R

    I. Poltoratska, R. Fearick, A. Krumbholz, E. Litvinova, H. Matsubara, P. von Neumann-Cosel, V. Y. Pono- marev, A. Richter, and A. Tamii, Physical Review C 89, 054322 (2014)

    2014

  115. [123]

    D. Negi, M. Wiedeking, E. G. Lanza, E. Litvinova, A. Vitturi, R. A. Bark, L. A. Bernstein, D. L. Bleuel, D. S. Bvumbi, T. D. Bucher, B. H. Daub, T. S. Dinoko, N. Erasmus, J. L. Easton, A. G¨ orgen, M. Guttormsen, P. Jones, B. V. Kheswa, N. Khumalo8, A. C. Larsen, E. A. Lawrie,...

    2016

  116. [124]

    I. A. Egorova and E. Litvinova, Physical Review C 94, 034322 (2016)

    2016

  117. [125]

    Carter et al

    J. Carter et al. , Physics Letters B 833, 137374 (2022)

    2022

  118. [126]

    Markova et al

    M. Markova et al. , Physical Review C 109, 054311 (2024)

    2024

  119. [127]

    Markova, P

    M. Markova, P. von Neumann-Cosel, and E. Litvinova, Physics Letters B 860, 139216 (2025)

    2025

  120. [128]

    Scott et al

    M. Scott et al. , Physical Review Letters 118, 172501 (2017)

    2017

  121. [129]

    Robin and E

    C. Robin and E. Litvinova, Physical Review C 98, 051301(R) (2018)

    2018

  122. [130]

    Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  123. [131]

    Litvinova and H

    E. Litvinova and H. Wibowo, Physical Review Letters 121, 082501 (2018)

    2018

  124. [132]

    Litvinova and H

    E. Litvinova and H. Wibowo, European Physical Jour- nal A55, 223 (2019)

    2019

  125. [133]

    Litvinova, C

    E. Litvinova, C. Robin, and H. Wibowo, Physics Letters B800, 135134 (2020)

    2020

  126. [134]

    Litvinova and C

    E. Litvinova and C. Robin, Physical Review C 103, 024326 (2021)

    2021

  127. [135]

    B. S. Ishkhanov and I. M. Kapitonov, Phys.-Uspekhi 64, 141 (2021)

    2021

  128. [136]

    M. N. Harakeh and A. can der Woude, Giant Reso- nances: Fundamental High-Frequency Modes of Nuclear Excitation (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    2001

  129. [137]

    Savran, T

    D. Savran, T. Aumann, and A. Zilges, Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics 70, 210 (2013)

    2013

  130. [138]

    Garg and G

    U. Garg and G. Col` o, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 55 (2018)

    2018

  131. [139]

    Tselyaev, N

    V. Tselyaev, N. Lyutorovich, J. Speth, and P. G. Rein- hard, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064319 (2020)

    2020

  132. [140]

    Oishi and N

    T. Oishi and N. Paar, Physical Review C 100, 024308 (2019)

    2019

  133. [141]

    G. E. Brown and M. Bolsterli, Physical Review Letters 3, 472 (1959)

    1959

  134. [142]

    Broglia and V

    R. Broglia and V. Zelevinsky, eds., Fifty Years Of Nu- clear BCS: Pairing In Finite Systems (World Scientific, 2013)

    2013

  135. [143]

    Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure, International Review of Nuclear Physics, Vol

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

    2016

  136. [144]

    N. Paar, P. Ring, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and D. Vretenar, Physical Review C 67, 034312 (2003)

    2003

  137. [145]

    National Nuclear Data Center, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov

  138. [146]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 57, 470 (2006)

    2006

  139. [147]

    Trippa, G

    L. Trippa, G. Colo, and E. Vigezzi, Physical Review C 77, 061304 (2008)

    2008

  140. [148]

    Papakonstantinou and R

    P. Papakonstantinou and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 671, 356 (2009)

    2009

  141. [149]

    Shlomo and G

    S. Shlomo and G. Bertsch, Nuclear Physics A 243, 507 (1975)

    1975

  142. [150]

    Tselyaev, N

    V. Tselyaev, N. Lyutorovich, J. Speth, S. Krewald, and P. G. Reinhard, Physical Review C 94, 034306 (2016)

    2016

  143. [151]

    Kamerdzhiev, R

    S. Kamerdzhiev, R. J. Liotta, E. Litvinova, and V. Tselyaev, Physical Review C 58, 172 (1998)

    1998

  144. [152]

    Hagino and H

    K. Hagino and H. Sagawa, Nuclear Physics A 695, 82 (2001)

    2001

  145. [153]

    Matsuo, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 146, 110 (2002)

    M. Matsuo, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 146, 110 (2002). 25

    2002

  146. [154]

    E. Khan, N. Sandulescu, M. Grasso, and N. Van Giai, Physical Review C 66, 024309 (2002)

    2002

  147. [155]

    Daoutidis and P

    J. Daoutidis and P. Ring, Physical Review C 80, 024309 (2009)

    2009

  148. [156]

    D. M. Rossi, P. Adrich, F. Aksouh, H. Alvarez-Pol, T. Aumann, J. Benlliure, M. B¨ ohmer, K. Boretzky, E. Casarejos, M. Chartier, A. Chatillon, D. Cortina- Gil, U. Datta Pramanik, H. Emling, O. Ershova, B. Fernandez-Dominguez, H. Geissel, M. Gorska, M. Heil, H. T. Johansson, A....

    2013

  149. [157]

    D. P. Arteaga and P. Ring, Physical Review C 77, 034317 (2008)

    2008

  150. [158]

    Peru and H

    S. Peru and H. Goutte, Physical Review C 77, 044313 (2008)

    2008

  151. [159]

    Toivanen, B

    J. Toivanen, B. G. Carlsson, J. Dobaczewski, K. Mizuyama, R. R. Rodriguez-Guzman, P. Toivanen, and P. Vesely, Physical Review C 81, 034312 (2010)

    2010

  152. [160]

    Nakatsukasa, T

    T. Nakatsukasa, T. Inakura, and K. Yabana, Physical Review C 76, 024318 (2007)

    2007

  153. [161]

    Oishi, M

    T. Oishi, M. Kortelainen, and N. Hinohara, Physical Review C 93, 034329 (2016)

    2016

  154. [162]

    Nikˇ si´ c, N

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, N. Kralj, T. Tutiˇ s, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Physical Review C 88, 044327 (2013)

    2013

  155. [163]

    Kortelainen, N

    M. Kortelainen, N. Hinohara, and W. Nazarewicz, Physical Review C 92, 051302 (2015)

    2015

  156. [164]

    EOMs. Such calculations showed a good perfor- mance in the description of the single-quasiparticle states and Gamow-Teller strength distributions, respectively, already in the leading-order qPVC. The description of moderately deformed nuclei can be performed in a spher- ical b...

    1990

  157. [165]

    Q. Liu, J. Engel, N. Hinohara, and M. Kortelainen, Physical Review C 109, 044308 (2024)

    2024

  158. [166]

    Osterfeld, Review of Modern Physics 64, 491 (1992)

    F. Osterfeld, Review of Modern Physics 64, 491 (1992)

    1992

  159. [167]

    Ichimura, H

    M. Ichimura, H. Sakai, and T. Wakasa, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 56, 446 (2006)

    2006

  160. [168]

    N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, and G. Col´ o, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 691 (2007)

    2007

  161. [169]

    Roca-Maza and N

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 101, 96 (2018)

    2018

  162. [170]

    Krasznahorkay, M

    A. Krasznahorkay, M. Fujiwara, P. van Aarle, H. Akimune, I. Daito, H. Fujimura, Y. Fujita, M. N. Harakeh, T. Inomata, J. J¨ anecke, S. Nakayama, A. Tamii, M. Tanaka, H. Toyokawa, W. Uijen, and M. Yosoi, Physical Review Letters 82, 3216 (1999)

    1999

  163. [171]

    K. Yako, H. Sagawa, and H. Sakai, Physical Review C 74, 051303(R) (2006)

    2006

  164. [172]

    Roca-Maza, G

    X. Roca-Maza, G. Colo, and H. Sagawa, Physical Re- view C 86, 031306 (2012)

    2012

  165. [173]

    Liang, N

    H. Liang, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Physical Review Letters 101, 122502 (2008)

    2008

  166. [174]

    Z. M. Niu, Y. F. Niu, H. Z. Liang, W. H. Long, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Physics Letters B 723, 172 (2013)

    2013

  167. [175]

    Z. M. Niu, Y. F. Niu, H. Z. Liang, W. H. Long, and J. Meng, Physical Review C 95, 044301 (2017)

    2017

  168. [176]

    I. N. Borzov, Physical Review C 67, 025802 (2003)

    2003

  169. [177]

    Sarriguren, Physical Review C 87, 045801 (2013)

    P. Sarriguren, Physical Review C 87, 045801 (2013)

    2013

  170. [178]

    N. Paar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Physical Review C 69, 054303 (2004)

    2004

  171. [179]

    Marketin, E

    T. Marketin, E. Litvinova, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B706, 477 (2012)

    2012

  172. [180]

    Drozdz, S

    S. Drozdz, S. Nishizaki, J. Speth, and J. Wambach, Physics Reports 197, 1 (1990)

    1990

  173. [181]

    Gambacurta, M

    D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, and J. Engel, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 212501 (2020)

    2020

  174. [182]

    Litvinova, B

    E. Litvinova, B. Brown, D.-L. Fang, T. Marketin, and R. Zegers, Physics Letters B730, 307 (2014)

    2014

  175. [183]

    Yako et al

    K. Yako et al. , Physics Letters B 615, 193 (2005)

    2005

  176. [184]

    Wakasa et al

    T. Wakasa et al. , Physicsl Review C 55, 2909 (1997)

    1997

  177. [185]

    S. P. Kamerdzhiev, G. Y. Tertychny, and V. I. Tselyaev, Physics of Particles and Nuclei 28, 134 (1997)

    1997

  178. [186]

    Terasaki, Physical Review C 97, 034304 (2018)

    J. Terasaki, Physical Review C 97, 034304 (2018)

    2018

  179. [187]

    Litvinova, P

    E. Litvinova, P. Ring, V. Tselyaev, and K. Langanke, Physical Review C 79, 054312 (2009)

    2009

  180. [188]

    Nikˇ si´ c, T

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, T. Marketin, D. Vretenar, N. Paar, and P. Ring, Physical Review C 71, 014308 (2005)

    2005

  181. [189]

    M. T. Mustonen and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014304 (2016)

    2016

  182. [190]

    A. A. Dzhioev, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, A. I. Vdovin, and C. Stoyanov, Physical Review C 101, 025805 (2020)

    2020

  183. [191]

    Arnould, S

    M. Arnould, S. Goriely, and K. Takahashi, Phys. Rep. 450, 97 (2007)

    2007

  184. [192]

    Mumpower, R

    M. Mumpower, R. Surman, G. McLaughlin, and A. Aprahamian, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 86, 86 (2016)

    2016

  185. [193]

    Langanke, G

    K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and R. Zegers, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 84, 066301 (2021)

    2021

  186. [194]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thielemann, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 15002 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.