Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Reexamination of nuclear structure properties and shape coexistence of nuclei around A70

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For eight A~70 waiting-point nuclei, the DD-ME2 deformation fed into pn-QRPA reproduces measured beta-decay half-lives better than other tested deformation inputs.

desk verdict Systematic QRPA sensitivity study whose 'best deformation' claim is a 0.01 tie that flips under leave-one-out; the tables are useful, the conclusion is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00387 v1 pith:EEPJ776F submitted 2024-12-31 nucl-th astro-ph.SR

Jameel-Un Nabi , Tuncay Bayram , Mahmut Boyukata , Asim Ullah , Anes Hayder , Syeda Zainab Naqvi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.SR
keywords Gamow-Tellerstrengthpn-QRPAmodelrelativisticmeanfieldshapecoexistencebeta-decayhalf-liveswaiting-pointnucleiA~70massregionnucleardeformation
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 paper tests how the assumed ground-state deformation ($\beta_2$) alters predicted $\beta$-decay behavior of eight neutron-deficient nuclei near A~70: 68Se, 70Se, 70Br, 70Kr, 72Kr, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr. These are waiting-point nuclei in the rapid-proton-capture process, so their $\beta$-decay half-lives feed directly into models of X-ray burst nucleosynthesis. The authors compute $\beta_2$ from several sources—the IBM-1 model (spherical), the relativistic mean-field model with DD-ME2 and DD-PC1 functionals (oblate and prolate minima), the FRDM mass model, and measured values where available—and then use each $\beta_2$ as input to the pn-QRPA model. They find that the half-lives change substantially with $\beta_2$, and that the $\beta_2$ from the DD-ME2 functional gives the best overall agreement with measured half-lives. The same RMF calculation also supports shape coexistence, with near-degenerate oblate and prolate minima, for 68Se, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pn-QRPA—a random-phase-approximation model of $\beta$-decay transitions built on an axially deformed Nilsson mean field, with separable particle-hole and particle-particle Gamow-Teller forces, BCS pairing, and the quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta_2$ as the key adjustable input. The RMF model supplies $\beta_2$ by mapping potential energy surfaces with the DD-ME2 and DD-PC1 functionals; IBM-1 supplies the spherical alternative. The pn-QRPA then converts each $\beta_2$ into a Gamow-Teller strength distribution, partial half-lives, branching ratios, and a total half-life, so $\beta_2$ is the single parameter that controls the comparison with measured decay data.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a calculation that mixes the two coexisting RMF minima, allowing the oblate and prolate configurations to admix, and compares the resulting half-lives with the single-$\beta_2$ pn-QRPA values; if the mixed calculation reproduces the measured half-lives while no pure-$\beta_2$ run does, the ranking of deformation inputs in Table 12 is an artefact of ignoring shape mixing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the quadrupole deformation computed with the density-dependent meson-exchange functional DD-ME2, used as a fixed input to the deformed proton-neutron QRPA, yields $\beta$-decay half-lives in best agreement with the measured values for the eight A~70 waiting-point nuclei. In the authors' average ratio ($\bar{R}$) of calculated to measured half-lives, the DD-ME2 oblate input scores $\bar{R}=1.52$, closely followed by the FRDM deformation at $1.53$, while the spherical IBM-1 input scores $1.89$ and the DD-PC1 prolate input scores $1.90$. Measured $\beta_2$ values, where available, do even better ($\bar{R}=1.24$) but exist for only four of the eight nuclei, which the authors flag as less reliable for ranking. The paper also establishes that deformation choice reshapes Gamow-Teller strength distributions: spherical input concentrates strength in few states, deformed inputs fragment it, and the resulting half-lives vary by factors of two or more. Alongside the half-life result, the RMF potential energy surfaces predict oblate ground states for 70Se, 70Br, 70Kr, and 72Kr, and near-degenerate oblate-prolate coexistence for 68Se, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr.

Load-bearing premise

Each half-life calculation assumes the nucleus sits in one fixed, static ellipsoidal shape set by $\beta_2$, so the coexisting oblate and prolate configurations found in the RMF energy surfaces are never mixed; if the real ground state is a mixture of shapes, no single-$\beta_2$ calculation can be expected to match the measured half-life.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the DD-ME2 deformation is the right input, astrophysical rp-process network calculations for A~70 can adopt these half-lives, changing the waiting time at these nuclei and the resulting nucleosynthesis flow.
  • The strong $\beta_2$ dependence of Gamow-Teller strength and half-lives means that treating A~70 waiting-point nuclei as spherical, as IBM-1 does, systematically degrades half-life predictions (average ratio 1.89).
  • The near-degenerate oblate and prolate minima for 68Se, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr imply that their beta-decay observables are sensitive to which minimum is populated, so experiments that pin the ground-state shape also pin the expected half-life.
  • For the four nuclei with measured deformations, using the measured $\beta_2$ gives the best average ratio (1.24), suggesting that improved deformation measurements, not improved beta-decay models, are the shortest path to better half-lives in this region.
  • The paper's predicted energy levels and separation energies for 70Kr and 74Sr can be checked directly once experimental data for those ground-state bands become available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the near-tie between DD-ME2 (1.52) and FRDM (1.53) suggests the robust practical lesson is that any reasonable deformed input beats spherical, not that DD-ME2 is uniquely correct.
  • Beyond the paper, the two nuclei with the largest half-life deviations, 70Br and 74Rb, are exactly the two with no measured $\beta_2$; measuring their quadrupole shapes would directly test whether the DD-ME2 oblate minimum is the right input.
  • Beyond the paper, a shape-mixed calculation would likely place the effective half-life between the pure oblate and pure prolate predictions, which could make the DD-ME2 and FRDM rankings partially coincidental.
  • Beyond the paper, the same method could be applied to other rp-process waiting-point regions, such as A~80 and A~100, to see whether DD-ME2 deformations remain the best QRPA input or whether the pattern is specific to A~70.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines IBM-1, RMF (DD-ME2 and DD-PC1), and pn-QRPA calculations to study eight neutron-deficient A~70 waiting-point nuclei (68Se, 70Se, 70Br, 70Kr, 72Kr, 74Kr, 74Rb, 74Sr). It presents IBM-1 energy levels, RMF binding energies, two-nucleon separation energies, potential energy surfaces, and quadrupole deformation parameters, and then uses six alternative beta2 inputs in pn-QRPA to compute Gamow-Teller strength distributions and beta-decay half-lives. The paper's headline conclusion is that beta2 from DD-ME2 gives half-lives in best agreement with measured data, with an average ratio Rbar = 1.52 in Table 12.

Significance. If the central comparative claim were robust, it would identify a preferred deformation input for rp-process beta-decay calculations in this mass region and would strengthen the case for DD-ME2-based shape predictions in A~70. The paper also provides useful systematic material: state-by-state BGT strengths, branching ratios, and partial half-lives for eight nuclei under six deformation inputs, and a transparent ratio metric R_i for comparison with experiment. The validation against measured GT strength distributions for 76Se, 76Rb, 76Sr, and 74Kr, and the reproduction of most measured half-lives within a factor of two, are genuine strengths of the numerical work. The comparative ranking, however, is not supported at the level claimed in the abstract and summary.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 and Table 12] The summary statement is internally inconsistent with Table 12: the text says "The predicted half-lives using QRPAβ2(DD−ME2(P)) & QRPAβ2(DD−ME2(O)) were in best agreement with the measured data," but Table 12 lists Rbar = 1.77 for DD-ME2(P), which is worse than both FRDM (1.53) and DD-PC1(O) (1.72). Only DD-ME2(O) is competitive with FRDM; the summary should be corrected or reworded.
  2. [Abstract and Tables 10-12] The claim that DD-ME2 gives the best half-lives is statistically fragile. In Table 12, DD-ME2(O) has Rbar = 1.52 versus FRDM Rbar = 1.53, a difference of 0.01 with no uncertainty estimate. Recomputing Rbar without 74Rb using the individual R_i values in Tables 10 and 11 reverses the ranking: DD-PC1(O) becomes best (1.17), then DD-ME2(O) (1.24), then FRDM (1.48). The abstract's statement that "The β2 computed via DD-ME2 functional resulted in half-lives in best agreement with the measured data" is therefore an artifact of one outlier nucleus and of post-hoc selection among six deformation inputs; it should be substantially softened or supported by a robustness test.
  3. [Section 3 and Tables 10-11] The interpretation of the half-life comparison is limited by the single-deformation, no-shape-mixing treatment. For 68Se, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr the RMF PES shows two minima of near-equal depth, yet each pn-QRPA run uses one pure beta2 value and there is no mixing between coexisting configurations. Since the measured half-life may not correspond to either pure shape, the ranking of deformation inputs in Table 12 is not necessarily a clean test of which functional is correct. The authors should either include a caveat to this effect or, where feasible, test the sensitivity of the ranking to shape mixing for the nuclei with near-degenerate minima.
  4. [Tables 10-11 and Eq. (17)-(18)] No uncertainties are propagated into the R_i or Rbar values, despite the experimental half-life uncertainties quoted in Tables 10 and 11. Because the DD-ME2(O) and FRDM averages differ by only 0.01, such uncertainties are essential for deciding whether the difference is meaningful; without them the comparison is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, text after Fig. 7] There is a notation mismatch: the text says the strength distributions with input deformation parameters from "DD-ME2 (O) and DD-PC1 (O)" namely "QRPAβ2(DD−ME2(P)) and QRPAβ2(DD−PC1(O))" are shown; the O/P labels should be made consistent.
  2. [Eqs. (11) and (12)] The formula for the pairing gaps appears typeset incorrectly; the expression "△pp = 2 8(−1)Z+1[...]" should be checked and rewritten with proper fractions and exponents.
  3. [Table 1] The parameter set for 74Sr lists κ′ as blank; the text says all four Hamiltonian parameters were fitted for each nucleus, so either the missing value should be supplied or the exception should be explained.
  4. [Section 3, binding energy paragraph] Minor typo: "HFN+Sly4" should read "HFB+SLy4" to match the model name used elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RMF β2 inputs are independent of the half-life data, and the DD-ME2 'best agreement' claim is a model comparison rather than a constructional identity; one minor self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: RMF/IBM potential-energy surfaces produce β2 values; those β2 values are used as fixed inputs to pn-QRPA; QRPA outputs are compared with measured half-lives. Nothing in this chain fits β2 to the half-life data being compared, so the central 'DD-ME2 β2 gives best half-lives' statement is not equivalent to its input by construction. The QRPA interaction strengths are adopted from an external 1/A^0.7 parameterization (Ref. [49]), and the pairing gaps are computed from separation energies via Eqs. (11)-(12), not from the target half-lives. The only self-citation with a possible calibrative flavor is Ref. [53], cited in Section 2.3: 'recent findings [53] revealed that the three-term formula, based on neutron and proton separation energies, resulted in overall best prediction of β-decay half-lives using the current pn-QRPA model.' This is a minor self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for the paper's central comparison: the pairing formula is common to all six β2 inputs, and the β2 values themselves come from independent RMF/IBM/FRDM calculations. The paper's own caveat that the QRPAβ2(NNDC) average covers only four nuclei and the small DD-ME2(O)/FRDM gap in Table 12 are robustness concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard model parameters adopted from the literature, one set of parameters fitted here (IBM-1), and the structural assumption that each nucleus can be treated as a pure deformed shape for beta decay. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • IBM-1 Hamiltonian parameters (epsilon, kappa, kappa-prime, chi) per nucleus = Table 1; example 68Se: epsilon=544.2 keV, kappa=39.9 keV, kappa-prime=32.5 keV, chi=-0.58
    Fitted to experimental low-lying levels of each even-even nucleus; used to construct the PES and the spherical beta2 input.
  • pn-QRPA GT particle-hole and particle-particle interaction strengths = Not tabulated; scaled as 1/A^0.7 per Homma et al. (1996)
    These interaction strengths were calibrated in prior studies to reproduce allowed Gamow-Teller transitions and beta-decay half-lives; the present paper adopts them unchanged.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The separable pn-QRPA Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) with particle-hole and particle-particle GT forces adequately describes beta decay of these nuclei.
    Justified by Hirsch et al. (1993) and prior applications, but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The mean-field plus BCS pairing description of the A~70 ground states is adequate.
    Standard for QRPA models; pairing gaps are computed from separation energies via Eqs. (11) and (12).
  • ad hoc to paper The two minima in the RMF PES correspond to distinct coexisting shapes, even though no barrier-height or mixing calculation is performed.
    The paper infers shape coexistence from the presence of two nearly degenerate minima without demonstrating that they are quasidegenerate and weakly mixed.
  • ad hoc to paper The nucleus decays from a single pure beta2 shape in each QRPA run, and shape mixing is neglected.
    Each half-life calculation uses one beta2 value, while the same nucleus is predicted to have two minima in the RMF calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reexamination of nuclear structure properties and shape coexistence of nuclei around A70." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEPJ776F

@misc{pith2026250100387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reexamination of nuclear structure properties and shape coexistence of nuclei around A70},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEPJ776F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00387}
}
read the original abstract

We reexamine the nuclear structure properties of waiting point nuclei around A70 using the interacting boson model 1 (IBM 1) and the relativistic mean field (RMF) model. Effective density dependent meson exchange functional (DD ME2) and density dependent point coupling functional (DD PC1) were used for the RMF calculations. We calculated the energy levels, the geometric shapes, binding and separation energies of nucleons and quadrupole deformation parameters (\b{eta}2). The shape coexistence phenomena in A 70 nuclei (68Se, 70Se, 70Br, 70Kr, 72Kr, 74Kr, 74Rb, and 74Sr) was later investigated. Spherical and deformed shapes of the selected waiting point nuclei were computed using the IBM 1 and RMF models, respectively. The proton neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation (pn QRPA) model was used to calculate \b{eta} decay properties (Gamow Teller strength distributions, \b{eta} decay half lives, and branching ratios) of selected nuclei as a function of \b{eta}2. The results revealed a significant variation in calculated half lives and Gamow Teller strength distributions as the shape parameter was changed. The \b{eta}2 computed via DD ME2 functional resulted in half lives in best agreement with the measured data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00387 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The experimental (solid), calculated (dashed) and predicted (dotted) energy spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The calculated BE/A values with DD-ME2 and DD-PC1 functionals in comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The calculated two-neutron (a) and two-proton (b) separation energies of selected nuclei. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The PESs of 68Se, 70Se, 70Br, 70Kr, 72Kr, 74Kr, 74Rb and 74Sr obtained from DD-ME2 calculation. See text for further details. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4 but for DD-PC1 interaction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of pn-QRPA calculated GT+ strength distributions of 76Se, 76Rb and 76Sr with measured data [62, 63]. The abscissa shows excitation energies in daughter nuclei. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of pn-QRPA calculated GT+ strength distributions of 74Kr with measured data [64]. The abscissa shows excitation energies in daughter nuclei. See text for explanation of symbols. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GT strength distributions of 68Se as a function of deformation parameter obtained from models shown in the inset. The abscissa shows excitation energies in daughter nuclei. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as Fig. 8 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. N. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Dan. Mat- fys. Medd 27, No. 16 (1953)

    work page 1953

  2. [2]

    Morinaga, Phys

    H. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. 1(101), 254 (1956)

    work page 1956

  3. [3]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    P. E. Garrett, M. Zielinska, E. Clement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124, 103931 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Moreno, P

    O. Moreno, P. Sarriguren, R. Alvarez-Rodriguez, E. M. De Guerra, Phys. Rev. C 73(5), 054302 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    N. Bree, K. Wrzosek-Lipska, A. Petts, A. Andreyev, B. Bastin, M. Bender, A. Blazhev, B. Bruyneel, P. A. Butler, J. Butterworth, M. P. Carpenter,Phys. Rev. Lett. 16(112), 162701 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    McLatchie, J

    W. McLatchie, J. E. Kitching, W. Darcey, Phys. Lett. B 30, 529 (1969)

    work page 1969

  8. [8]

    Frisk, I

    F. Frisk, I. Hamamoto, X. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2468 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Sarriguren, E

    P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, A. Escuderos, A. C. Carrizo, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 55 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C79, 044315 (2009);Phys. Lett. B680, 438 (2009); Phys. Rev. C 83, 025801 (2011)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 87, 045801 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Sarriguren, J

    P. Sarriguren, J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064314 (2010); P. Sarriguren, A. Algora, J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034311 (2014)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Poirier et al., Phys

    E. Poirier et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034307 (2004); E. Nacher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 232501 (2004); A. B. Perez-Cerdan et al., Phys. Rev. C 88, 014324 (2013). 15

    2004

  6. [14]

    Petrovici, et al., Phys

    A. Petrovici, et al., Phys. Rev. C, 78 044315 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    J. -U. Nabi, M. B ¨oy¨ukata, Nucl. Phy. A, 947 182 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    J. -U. Nabi, M. B ¨oy¨ukata, Astrophys Space Sci. 362 9 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    J. -U. Nabi, M. Ishfaq, M. B ¨oy¨ukata, M. Riaz, Nucl. Phy. A, 966 1 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    P. J. Davies, et al., Phys. Rev. C 99, 021302(R) (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Nazarewicz, J

    W. Nazarewicz, J. Dudek, R. Bengtsson, I. Ragnarsson, Nucl. Phys. A 435 397 (1985)

    1985

  12. [20]

    Bonche, H

    P. Bonche, H. Flocard, P. H. Heenen, S. J. Kreiger, M. S. Weiss, Nucl. Phys. A 443 39 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Petrovici, K

    A. Petrovici, K. W. Schmid, A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. A 647 197 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Petrovici Phys

    A. Petrovici Phys. Rev. C, 91 014302 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Petrovici, et al., Nucl

    A. Petrovici, et al., Nucl. Phys. A, 665 333-350 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    Schatz, et al., Phys

    H. Schatz, et al., Phys. Rep., 294 167 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Moller, et al., At

    P. Moller, et al., At. Dta Nucl. Data Tables 109110, 1 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC), http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Iachello, A

    F. Iachello, A. Arima, Interacting Boson Model, Cambridge University Press (1987)

    1987

  20. [28]

    R. F. Casten, D. D. Warner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60 389 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    A. E. L. Dieperink, O. Scholten 1980 Nucl. Phys. A 346 125

    1980

  22. [30]

    J. N. Ginocchio, M. W. Kirson 1980 Nucl. Phys. A 350 31

    1980

  23. [31]

    A. N. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure (in 2 volumes), World Scientific Publishing Company (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    B. D. Serot, J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    B. D. Serot, J. D. Walecka, Internat. J. Modern Phys. E 6, 515 (1997). 16

    1997

  26. [34]

    Boguta and A

    J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys. A 292, 413 (1977)

    1977

  27. [35]

    Nik ˇsi´c and D

    T. Nik ˇsi´c and D. Vretenar and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

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

    1997

  29. [37]

    Ring, Prog

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

    1996

  30. [38]

    Typel and H

    S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A 656, 331 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V . Afanasjev and G. A. Lalazissis, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

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

    2006

  33. [41]

    Haddad, Acta Phys

    S. Haddad, Acta Phys. Pol. B 38, 2121 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Roca-Maza, X

    X. Roca-Maza, X. Vinas, M. Centelles, P. Ring and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054309 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Typel, Particles 1 3 (2018)

    S. Typel, Particles 1 3 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikˇsi´c, D. Vretenar and P. Ring,Phys. Rev. C71, 024312 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Nik ˇsi´c, D

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

    2008

  38. [46]

    Nik ˇsi´c, N

    T. Nik ˇsi´c, N. Paar, D. Vretenar and P. Ring,Computer Physics Communica- tions, 185, 1808 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Staudt, E

    A. Staudt, E. Bender, K. Muto, H. V . Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 44 79-132 (1990)

    1990

  40. [48]

    Hirsch, A

    M. Hirsch, A. Staudt, K. Muto, H. V . Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 53 165-193 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Homma, E

    H. Homma, E. Bender, M. Hirsch, K. Muto, H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, T. Oda, Phys. Rev. C 54, 2972 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    S. G. Nilsson, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk 29, 16 (1955). 17

    1955

  43. [51]

    Ragnarsson, R

    I. Ragnarsson, R. K. Sheline, Phys. Scripta 29, 385 (1984)

    1984

  44. [52]

    F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, G. Audi, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030001 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Ullah, J.-U

    A. Ullah, J.-U. Nabi and M. Tahir Braz. J. Phys. 53:39 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Bayram and A

    T. Bayram and A. H. Yılmaz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1350068 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    G. A. Lalazissis, S. Raman and P. Ring, Atom. Data N. Data Tab. 71, 1 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    M. V . Stoitsov, J. Dobaczewski, N. Nazarewicz, S. Pittel and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054312 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    M. Wang, G. Audi, F. G. Kondev, W.J. Huang, S. Naimi and X. Xu, Chin. Phys. C 41, 030003 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Yasuda et al., Phys

    J. Yasuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 132501 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    C. J. Guess et al., Phys. Rev. C, 83, 064318 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Wakasa et al., Phys

    T. Wakasa et al., Phys. Rev. C, 85, 064606 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Gao et al., Phys

    B. Gao et al., Phys. Rev. C, 101, 014308 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    R. L. Helmer et al., Phys. Rev. C, 55, 2802-2810 (1997)

    1997

  55. [63]

    A. B. P ´erez-Cerd´an et al., Phys. Rev. C, 88, 014324 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Poirier et al., Phys

    E. Poirier et al., Phys. Rev. C, 69, 034307 (2004). 18 01 /Plus 21 /Plus 41 /Plus 61 /Plus 81 /Plus 101 /Plus 22 /Plus 42 /Plus 62 /Plus 82 /Plus 102 /Plus 01 /Plus 21 /Plus 41 /Plus 61 /Plus 81 /Plus 101 /Plus 22 /Plus 42 /Plus 62 /Plus 82 /Plus 102 /Plus 34 68Se34 V/LParen1Β...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.