Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 36 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

Noninteracting quasiparticles on Woods-Saxon potentials assign E1 transitions in 276Mt to a specific proton state change and generate alpha-decay spectra for the 288Mc chain that are compared to data.

2026-07-03 04:17 UTC pith:DLT4THID

load-bearing objection The paper assigns specific orbitals to E1 transitions in the 288Mc chain via quasiparticle calculations, but deformation parameters risk circularity if not independently sourced. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.01745 v1 pith:DLT4THID submitted 2026-07-02 nucl-th

Quasiparticle structure and α-decay scheme of nuclei along alpha-decay chain of ²⁸⁸Mc

L.A.Malov , N.Yu.Shirikova , A.N.Bezbakh , E.A.Kolganova , R.V.Jolos This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords superheavy nucleialpha-decay chainquasiparticle statesWoods-Saxon potentialE1 transitions288Mctwo-quasiparticle spectraodd-odd nuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper calculates excitation energies of two-quasiparticle states along the alpha-decay chain of 288Mc by applying the noninteracting quasiparticles approximation to Woods-Saxon single-particle potentials, testing different deformation parameter sets. It produces the associated alpha-decay spectra and directly compares those spectra to experimental measurements. The work further considers E1 transitions that can follow alpha decay, relating the ones observed in 276Mt to the proton transition from [505]9/2 to [615]11/2 and the ones in 272Bh to neutron single-quasiparticle states. A reader would care because the results supply concrete assignments that help interpret recent experimental spectra of odd-odd superheavy nuclei.

Core claim

Using the approximation of the noninteracting quasiparticles based on the Woods-Saxon single particle potentials with different sets of deformation parameters, the spectra of the low-lying two-quasiparticle states are calculated for nuclei belonging to the alpha-decay chain of 288Mc. The alpha-decay spectra of these nuclei are obtained and compared with the experimental data. It is shown that the E1 transitions in 276Mt can be related to the transition π[505]9/2→π[615]11/2. In 272Bh the E1 transition can be related to the neutron single quasiparticle states.

What carries the argument

The noninteracting quasiparticles approximation based on Woods-Saxon single particle potentials, used to compute two-quasiparticle excitation energies and alpha-decay spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The noninteracting quasiparticles approximation with the selected Woods-Saxon potentials and deformation parameters accurately captures the single-particle structure and low-lying excitations in these superheavy nuclei.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of the E1 transition energy or branching ratio in 276Mt that lies far from the calculated energy difference between the π[505]9/2 and π[615]11/2 proton states.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Alpha-decay spectra computed for the full 288Mc chain align with existing experimental data.
  • The observed E1 transitions in 276Mt are accounted for by the proton single-quasiparticle change from [505]9/2 to [615]11/2.
  • The E1 transitions in 272Bh are accounted for by neutron single-quasiparticle states.
  • Varying the deformation parameters shows how the spectra respond to changes in nuclear shape.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same quasiparticle framework could be used to predict unobserved low-lying states in neighboring superheavy chains.
  • Systematic mismatches with new data would indicate where residual quasiparticle interactions become important.
  • The transition assignments supply targets for future gamma-spectroscopy measurements on these nuclei.

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 calculates excitation energies of two-quasiparticle states for nuclei in the α-decay chain of 288Mc within the non-interacting quasiparticle approximation based on Woods-Saxon single-particle potentials. Different sets of deformation parameters are employed; the resulting α-decay spectra are compared with experimental data, and observed E1 transitions in 276Mt and 272Bh are assigned to the specific single-particle transitions π[505]9/2→π[615]11/2 and neutron quasiparticle excitations, respectively.

Significance. If the deformation parameters can be shown to be taken from independent sources and the calculated spectra reproduce measured energies and hindrance factors without post-hoc adjustment, the work would supply useful orbital assignments for interpreting recent experiments on odd-odd superheavy nuclei. The approach is standard for the field but its predictive power hinges on the independence of the input deformations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method] Method section (description of Woods-Saxon potentials and deformation sets): the text states that 'different sets of deformation parameters are considered' but supplies no explicit source, reference, or selection criterion for these parameters. Because single-particle level ordering in this mass region is known to be acutely sensitive to β2 and β4, it is essential to demonstrate that the chosen values are not adjusted to reproduce the very excitation energies or α-decay data under discussion; otherwise the comparison becomes a consistency check rather than an independent test of the quasiparticle structure.
  2. [Results (E1 transitions)] Results on E1 assignments (§ on 276Mt and 272Bh): the claim that the E1 transition in 276Mt corresponds to π[505]9/2→π[615]11/2 rests on the calculated two-quasiparticle energies matching the observed transition energy. Without an independent justification of the deformation parameters used to obtain those energies, the orbital assignment is not yet load-bearing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract and introduction should cite the specific experimental references for the α-decay data of 288Mc and its daughters so that the comparison can be assessed quantitatively.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the Nilsson labels (e.g., π[505]9/2) should be defined once at first use and used consistently.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the recommendation for major revision. The comments highlight an important point regarding the independence of the input parameters. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on this issue.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method] Method section (description of Woods-Saxon potentials and deformation sets): the text states that 'different sets of deformation parameters are considered' but supplies no explicit source, reference, or selection criterion for these parameters. Because single-particle level ordering in this mass region is known to be acutely sensitive to β2 and β4, it is essential to demonstrate that the chosen values are not adjusted to reproduce the very excitation energies or α-decay data under discussion; otherwise the comparison becomes a consistency check rather than an independent test of the quasiparticle structure.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sources and selection criteria for the deformation parameters must be provided. The parameters used in the manuscript were drawn from independent literature values commonly employed for the superheavy mass region (based on macroscopic-microscopic calculations and systematics for neighboring nuclei), rather than adjusted to the excitation energies or α-decay data presented here. However, we acknowledge that the original text did not include the necessary references or explicit statement of independence. In the revised manuscript we will add the specific references, describe the selection criterion (consistency with ground-state deformations of even-even nuclei in the chain), and include a brief discussion confirming that no post-hoc fitting to the two-quasiparticle spectra or hindrance factors was performed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (E1 transitions)] Results on E1 assignments (§ on 276Mt and 272Bh): the claim that the E1 transition in 276Mt corresponds to π[505]9/2→π[615]11/2 rests on the calculated two-quasiparticle energies matching the observed transition energy. Without an independent justification of the deformation parameters used to obtain those energies, the orbital assignment is not yet load-bearing.

    Authors: The proposed E1 assignment follows from the numerical agreement between the calculated two-quasiparticle energy spacing (for the indicated proton orbitals) and the observed transition energy, using one of the deformation sets considered. We accept that this assignment would be stronger with explicit documentation that the deformations are independent of the data under discussion. The revision described in response to the first comment will supply that documentation, allowing the orbital assignment to rest on firmer ground. We will also add a sentence in the results section reiterating that the deformation parameters were fixed prior to the comparison with the E1 data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies the standard noninteracting quasiparticle approximation on Woods-Saxon potentials, considers different deformation parameter sets, computes two-quasiparticle spectra, and compares the resulting alpha-decay and E1 assignments to experiment. No quoted step shows parameters fitted to the target excitation or decay data, no self-citation chain justifies a uniqueness claim, and no equation reduces by construction to its inputs. The derivation remains independent of the final comparisons and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the noninteracting quasiparticle approximation and the suitability of Woods-Saxon potentials with adjustable deformations for superheavy nuclei; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • deformation parameters
    Different sets are considered for nuclei in the chain; these shape parameters directly affect the single-particle energies and therefore the two-quasiparticle spectra.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Noninteracting quasiparticles approximation holds for low-lying states in these nuclei
    Explicitly stated as the basis for calculating two-quasiparticle excitation energies.
  • domain assumption Woods-Saxon potential with chosen deformations describes the mean field in superheavy nuclei
    Used to generate the single-particle spectrum underlying the quasiparticle states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5788 in / 1526 out tokens · 41055 ms · 2026-07-03T04:17:35.840574+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent experiments on $\alpha$-decay of odd-odd superheavy nuclei give an important information on the structure of the low-lying states of these nuclei. For this reason it is interesting to calculate the excitation spectra of these superheavy nuclei and compare the results with the experimental data. The aim of this work is to calculate the excitation energies of the two-quasiparticle states of nuclei belonging to the $\alpha$-decay chain of $^{288}$Mc. The approximation of the noninteracting quasiparticles based on the Woods-Saxon single particle potentials is used. Different sets of deformation parameters are considered. The spectra of the low-lying two-quasiparticle states are calculated. The $\alpha$-decay spectra of nuclei belonging to the $\alpha$-decay chain of $^{288}$Mc are obtained and compared with the experimental data. A possibility of the $E1$ transitions in $^{276}$Mt and $^{272}$Bh following $\alpha$-decay of $^{288}$Mc is considered. It is shown that the E1 transitions in $^{276}$Mt can be related to the transition $\pi[505]9/2\rightarrow\pi[615]11/2$. In $^{272}$Bh the $E1$ transition can be related to the neutron single quasiparticle states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01745 by A.N.Bezbakh, E.A.Kolganova, L.A.Malov, N.Yu.Shirikova, R.V.Jolos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The low-lying two-quasipartical states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The low-lying two-quasipartical states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The low-lying two-quasiparticle states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, J.Phys. G 34, R165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker, M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 142502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian, F. Sh. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, J. M. Gostic, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, A. N. Polyakov, A. V. Ramayya et al., Phys. Rev. C 87, 014302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Hofmann, D

    S. Hofmann, D. Ackermann, S. Antalic, H. G. Burkhard, V. F. Comas, R. Dressler, Z. Gan, S. Heinz, J. A. Heredia, F. P. Heßberger et al , Eur. Phys. J. A 32, 251 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Loveland, K

    W. Loveland, K. E. Gregorich, J. B. Patin, D. Peterson, C. Rouki, P. M. Zielinski, and K. Aleklett, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044617 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    E.Gregorich, W

    K. E.Gregorich, W. Loveland, D. Peterson, P. M. Zielin- ski, S. L. Nelson, Y. H. Chung, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, C. M. Folden, K. Aleklett, R. Eichler et al. Phys. Rev. C 72, 014605 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Stavsetra, K

    L. Stavsetra, K. E. Gregorich, J. Dvorak, P. A. Ellison, I. Dragojevi´ c, M. A. Garcia, and H. Nitsche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 132502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Rudolph, U

    D. Rudolph, U. Forsberg, P. Golubev, L. G. Sarmiento, A. Yakushev, L.-L. Andersson, A. Di Nitto, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, J. M. Gates, K. E. Gregorich et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 112502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Yu. Ts. Oganessian V. K. Utyonkov, N. D. Kovrizh- nykh, F. Sh. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, A. A. Dzhioev, D. Ibadullayev, M. G. Itkis, A. V. Karpov, D. A. Kuznetsov et al. , Phys. Rev. C 106, 064306 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Parkhomenko and A

    A. Parkhomenko and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 36, 3115 (2005)

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Parkhomenko and A

    A. Parkhomenko and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 35, 2447 (2004)

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Parkhomenko and A

    A. Parkhomenko and A. Sobiczewski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 36, 3095 (2005)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Eur. Phys. J. A 41, 235 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Herzberg and P

    R.-D. Herzberg and P. T. Greenlees, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 674 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    F. P. Heßberger, Eur. Phys. J. D 45, 33 (2007)

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    F. P. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, D. Ackermann, S. Antalic, B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, P. Kuusiniemi, M. Leino, B. Lommel, R. Mann, K. Nishio, A. G. Popeko, B. Sulignano, S. Saro, B. Streicher, M. Venhart and A. V. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 561 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    F. P. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, B. Streicher, B. Sulignano , S. Antalic, D. Ackermann, S. Heinz, B. Kindler, I. Ko- jouharov, P. Kuusiniemi, M. Leino, B. Lommel, R. Mann, A. G. Popeko, ˇS. ˇS´ aro, J. Uusitalo and A. V. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 41, 145 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Y. Shi, D. E. Ward, B. G. Carlsson, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, I. Ragnarsson, and D. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. C 90, 014308 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Kortelainen, J

    M. Kortelainen, J. McDonnell, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, M. V. Stoitsov, and S. M. Wild, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024304 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Y. Shi, J. Dobaczewski, and P.T. Greenlees, Phys.Rev. C 89, 034309 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Rudolph, Eur

    D. Rudolph, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 242 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    A. N. Bezbakh, V. G. Kartavenko, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, R. V. Jolos, and V. O. Nesterenko, Phys. Rev. C, 92, 014329 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024320 (2010)

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, S. N. Kuklin and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054304 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, S. N. Kuklin, B. N. Lu, L. A. Malov, and S. G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024324 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    A. N. Kuzmina, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014319 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Jachimowicz, M

    P. Jachimowicz, M. Kowal, and J. Skalski, Atomic Data and Nucl. Data Tables 138, 101393 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    A. N. Kuzmina, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Phys. Rev. C 85, 017302 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    C. J. Gallagher and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. 111, 1282 (1958)

    work page 1958

  30. [30]

    N. I. Pyatov, Izv. AN SSSR, ser. fiz. 27, 1436 (1963) [Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Phys. Ser. 27, 1409 (1963)]

    work page 1963

  31. [31]

    H. D. Jones, N. Onishi, T. Hess, and R. K. Sheline, Phys. Rev. C 3, 529 (1971)

    work page 1971

  32. [32]

    Alexa, J

    P. Alexa, J. Kvasil, R. K. Sheline, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 8, 337 (1999)

    work page 1999

  33. [33]

    A. K. Jain, R. K. Sheline, D. M. Headly, P. C. Sood, D. G. Burke, I. Hrivnacova, J. Kvasil, D. Nosec, R. W. Hoff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 843 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Nosec, J

    D. Nosec, J. Kvasil, R. K. Sheline, P. C. Sood, J. Noscova , Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 3, 967 (1994)

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    I. M. Green and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. 139B, 837 (1965)

    work page 1965

  36. [36]

    Heussler, R

    A. Heussler, R. V. Jolos, P. von Brentano, Phys. At. Nucl . 76, 807 (2013)

    work page 2013