Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Towards Quantum Simulation of Rotating Nuclei using Quantum Variational Algorithms

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Variational quantum eigensolver benchmarks on four cranking nuclear models capture rotational alignment qualitatively but leave absolute energy errors of order 0.1-1.0 in the most complex cases.

desk verdict Sound benchmark idea, but the reported numbers contradict the paper's own claims and the key warm-started precision result is never shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18059 v3 pith:NWFWYYBF submitted 2025-06-22 nucl-th hep-phnucl-exquant-ph

Dhritimalya Roy , Somnath Nag This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-exquant-ph
keywords VQEcrankedNilsson-StrutinskypairingcorrelationsrotationalalignmentnuclearstructurequantumsimulationentanglemententropyJordan-Wignertransformation
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 sets out to establish a reproducible, hierarchical testbed for running the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) on Hamiltonians inspired by the cranked Nilsson-Strutinsky model of rotating nuclei, through four models of increasing complexity: a four-qubit Pauli toy model, a number-constrained two-fermion pairing system, a fermionic pairing Hamiltonian without cranking, and an eight-spin-orbital Hamiltonian combining pairing with a rotational cranking term. The intended payoff is to show where near-term quantum algorithms can be trusted in nuclear-structure problems and where they break down. The abstract claims that a multi-restart warm-starting strategy reaches near-machine precision ($|\Delta E|<10^{-4}$) across the whole cranking range and reproduces a $^{6}$He pairing benchmark, but the tables in the body report errors of order 0.1 to 1.0 for the larger models, and the discussion itself states that 'absolute energy precision remains a significant hurdle.' So the operative claim, as supported by the body, is that VQE captures the qualitative pairing-to-alignment transition and the monotonic rise of $\langle J_x\rangle$ with cranking frequency, while quantitative energy precision in eight-orbital spaces is still an open problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unified cranked-pairing Hamiltonian $H(\omega)=\sum_{i\sigma}\epsilon_i a^\dagger_{i\sigma}a_{i\sigma} - G\sum_i P^\dagger_i P_i - \omega \hat{J}_x$, in which the pairing term and the cranking term compete as $\omega$ increases; this is mapped to qubits by the Jordan-Wigner transformation and minimized with VQE circuits drawn from the hardware-efficient families (EfficientSU2 and RealAmplitudes, alternating single-qubit rotations with CNOT entanglers) and a custom $R_y$+CNOT layer, under the COBYLA optimizer with random restarts. The diagnostic machinery is the pair of observables $\langle J_x\rangle$ and the bipartite entanglement entropy, which separate physical rotational alignment from variational artifacts. The abstract's claimed mechanism of multi-restart warm-starting is not described in the body, where Model IV is run 'independently without warm starts.'

What would settle it

Run exact diagonalization of Model IV with the stated spectrum $\epsilon=\{0,0.2,0.5,0.8\}$, pairing strength $G=0.6$, and the cranking term whose matrix elements connect time-reversed spin-orbitals; if the exact ground-state energy at $\omega=0.9$ is not $-0.85$ and at $\omega=1.1$ is not $-1.00$, the tables do not match the specified model, and if a warm-started VQE run fails to reach $|\Delta E|<10^{-4}$ at those points, the abstract's precision claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is a measured map of VQE performance on a four-rung ladder of CNS-inspired Hamiltonians. On the positive side, noiseless VQE tracks exact diagonalization to within $10^{-3}$-$10^{-2}$ over most of the Model IV cranking range, and the expectation value $\langle J_x\rangle$ rises monotonically with $\omega$ in both the variational and exact results, reproducing the rotational-alignment physics. On the negative side, which the authors themselves stress, energy deviations reach $0.64$-$1.09$ units at some frequencies in Models III and IV, and no warm-started runs are reported in the body despite the abstract's $|\Delta E|<10^{-4}$ claim. The exact ground states have zero entanglement entropy in every model, so the spurious entropy in the VQE wave functions is diagnosed as symmetry leakage from number-nonconserving ansatze rather than physical entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark is only reproducible if the Hamiltonian coefficients and cranking matrix elements are fully specified; the paper lists placeholder coefficients $c_1,\ldots,c_8$ and never identifies the 'original simulations' its tables reproduce, so this reproducibility premise is load-bearing and, as written, it is not satisfied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For two-fermion, eight-spin-orbital CNS-inspired Hamiltonians, noiseless VQE with hardware-efficient ansatze can be trusted for the shape of the $\langle J_x\rangle(\omega)$ curve and for relative energy trends, but not for absolute energies at all frequencies.
  • Frequencies near the pair-breaking transition (around $\omega=0.8$-$1.1$ in Model IV) are where variational error spikes, marking the transition region as the target for better ansatze or optimizers.
  • The entanglement-entropy diagnostic can serve as a warning sign: nonzero VQE entropy in a problem whose exact ground state is a Slater determinant flags symmetry leakage from the circuit.
  • The qualitative success in Model IV supports the longer-term programme of using quantum simulation for rotational-alignment physics in valence spaces too large for exact diagonalization, once precision is improved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gap between the abstract's $|\Delta E|<10^{-4}$ claim and the body's errors of order $0.1$-$1.0$ suggests the two passages may describe different optimization protocols; a direct head-to-head comparison of cold-started and warm-started Model IV runs would settle which version is correct.
  • Because every exact ground state here is a single Slater determinant, number-conserving or fermionic ansatze (such as unitary coupled cluster or symmetry-restored circuits) should reach machine precision with far fewer parameters than the hardware-efficient circuits used; this is a testable consequence of the paper's own symmetry-leakage diagnosis.
  • The same benchmarking ladder could be sharpened by adding pair-correlation strength or the Quantum Fisher Information as a second probe of the pair-breaking transition, rather than relying on energy alone.
  • If the $^{6}$He benchmark reproduction is real and reproducible, it gives a clean external validation target: the warm-started VQE pipeline that reaches $|\Delta E|<10^{-4}$ on $^{6}$He should also reach it on Model IV, and the body tables suggest it does not, so checking the provenance of that benchmark matters.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces four progressively more complex CNS-inspired Hamiltonians (Models I-IV), maps them to qubit operators via the Jordan-Wigner transformation, and benchmarks Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) energies and observables against exact diagonalization (ED), including a supplementary noise simulation for Model IV. The printed abstract emphasizes a methodological baseline and identifies where hardware-efficient ansätze fail for 8-spin-orbital nuclear Hamiltonians. The arXiv metadata abstract, however, goes further, claiming near-machine-precision convergence with a warm-starting strategy, a reproduced 6He shell-model benchmark, and new entanglement-spectrum and Quantum Fisher Information diagnostics. As submitted, the manuscript is internally inconsistent: the metadata abstract's central claims are absent from and contradicted by the body's own tables, Model III is defined without a cranking term while its table shows clear cranking-frequency dependence, and the reproducibility appendix does not report the numerical parameters needed to reconstruct the benchmark data.

Significance. If the reported hierarchy and benchmark tables were reliable, the paper would provide a useful, if incremental, reference point for applying VQE to small nuclear-structure Hamiltonians. The use of ED as an independent benchmark is methodologically sound, the four-model progression is pedagogically clean, and the resource metrics in Table V are helpful. However, as submitted, the central claims cannot be evaluated because the abstract and the body report different results, a model's defining Hamiltonian is inconsistent with its own table, and the numerical parameters and 'original simulations' needed to reconstruct the data are not provided. The defensible remaining contribution is a cautionary observation that hardware-efficient ansätze with COBYLA have difficulty reaching accurate energies for 8-qubit CNS-like models; that observation does not support the advertised conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. §IV.D, Table IV, Table III] The arXiv abstract's central claim that a 'properly optimised multi-restart warm-starting strategy' achieves |ΔE| < 10^-4 across ω ∈ [0,1.2] and reproduces a 6He benchmark is not supported by the body. Section IV.D states that Model IV was run 'independently without warm starts', no warm-start data are reported in Tables III or IV, and Table IV lists |ΔE| = 0.105 at ω = 0.9 and 0.159 at ω = 1.1, with Table III showing errors up to 1.09. The claim in §IV.D that Model IV energies track ED 'to within 10^-3-10^-2' is itself contradicted by Table IV. Furthermore, the 6He benchmark, entanglement spectrum, and Quantum Fisher Information named in the abstract do not appear anywhere in the body. The authors must either provide the warm-started results or remove these unsupported claims.
  2. [§IV.C, Table III] Model III is defined in §IV.C as a fermionic CNS Hamiltonian 'without explicit cranking', yet Table III sweeps ω and the exact diagonalization energy changes from -0.800 at ω = 0 to -1.100 at ω = 1.2, with ⟨Jx⟩_ED growing from 0 to 1.239. A Hamiltonian without a -ωJx term cannot produce ω-dependent ED results. Either the model actually contains a cranking term and the text is wrong, or Table III belongs to a different model. This discrepancy must be resolved before the comparisons between Models III and IV can be interpreted.
  3. [§VI.B, Table II, body abstract] The printed abstract states that 'simpler models achieve high precision (errors < 0.005)', but Table II reports |ΔE| = 0.2437 for Model II, approximately 7% of the exact energy, and §IV.B describes Model II as achieving 'sub-percent accuracy'. Only Model I (|ΔE| = 6.6×10^-8) meets the 0.005 threshold. The accuracy statements in the abstract and §IV.B must be brought into line with the reported tables.
  4. [§VI, §IV.D, Appendix A, Appendix B] The statement in §VI that all tabulated values 'reproduce exactly those reported in the original simulations' is not checkable: the original simulations are never identified, §IV.D specifies only that the Jx matrix elements 'connect time-reversed spin-orbitals' without giving their numerical values, Appendix A's Table VI lists coefficients c1...c8 instead of their values, and Appendix B contains no optimization settings despite §V.B promising that maxiter, tol, and seeds are reported there. Without these data, no independent reader can reconstruct Tables III and IV or verify the benchmarking. The authors should provide complete Hamiltonian decompositions and a permanent code/data repository.
  5. [§VIII, Table IV] The discussion in §VIII attributes the largest energy gaps to the rugged optimization landscape but does not analyze the striking non-monotonicity in Table IV: |ΔE| peaks at 0.159 for ω = 1.1, drops to 0.0099 for ω = 1.2, and ⟨Jx⟩ changes sharply at ω = 0.8. Since the paper's stated purpose is to identify where and why hardware-efficient ansätze fail, these ω-specific failure and success patterns require a quantitative explanation rather than a single qualitative statement about rugged landscapes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistent: [6] lacks journal/volume/page data, [8] is incomplete, and some entries (e.g., [13], [35]) are given only as arXiv IDs without publication details.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including 'QV As' in the abstract, 'ans¨atze' in the text, and inconsistent spacing in equations and table entries; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [§VII, Fig. 4] The noise study is described only as a 'standard NISQ-inspired noise model' without specifying the amplitude-damping rate, dephasing rate, or readout-error levels, so the noise results cannot be reproduced; Fig. 4 also lacks tick labels and error bars.
  4. [Table V] The symbols Nθ, D, N_CNOT, and N_Pauli in Table V are not defined in the text or caption, making the resource metrics less useful than they could be.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; abstract/body discrepancies are internal-consistency and reproducibility issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined in the brief. Each model Hamiltonian is stated explicitly (Eq. (1) and Section IV), mapped to qubits via the standard Jordan–Wigner transformation, and VQE energies are compared against exact diagonalization (ED) of the same Hamiltonian. The model parameters (epsilon_i, G, omega) are schematic inputs chosen by hand, not fitted to the ED energies, so the ED benchmark is an independent external check rather than an output of the variational procedure. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper does contain serious reporting inconsistencies that a referee should flag as correctness or reproducibility problems: Section IV.D says 'For each value of omega, VQE is performed independently without warm starts,' while the abstract claims 'with a properly optimised multi-restart warm-starting strategy, VQE achieves near-machine-precision convergence (|Delta E| < 10^-4)'; Table IV instead shows |Delta E| = 0.105 at omega = 0.9 and 0.159 at omega = 1.1 for the no-warm-start runs, and Section VIII concedes 'absolute energy precision remains a significant hurdle.' Likewise, Section VI states 'All numerical values appearing in the tables below reproduce exactly those reported in the original simulations' without identifying those simulations, and Appendix A lists placeholder coefficients c1...c8 rather than the actual Pauli coefficients. These are missing-evidence and reproducibility defects, not circular reductions: the claimed warm-start results are simply not reported, and the placeholder appendices do not define the target result in terms of itself. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on many hand-set parameters (energies, pairing strengths, penalty, Pauli coefficients) and one set of unspecified cranking matrix elements. None of these are fitted to the exact diagonalization energies, so the benchmark comparison is not circular in that sense. The biggest ledger gap is the missing Jx matrix elements, which are load-bearing for the omega-dependence of Models II and IV. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities.

free parameters (6)
  • Single-particle energies for Model II = {-1.0, -0.5, 0.5, 1.0}
    Hand-chosen symmetric spectrum to mimic deformed-shell ordering; the benchmark results depend on these values.
  • Single-particle energies for Models III and IV = {0.0, 0.2, 0.5, 0.8}
    Schematic monotonic spacing chosen to study rotational alignment; no physical fitting to data.
  • Pairing strength G = 0.5 (Model II), 0.6 (Models III and IV)
    Hand-selected to produce a pairing-rotation competition in the toy models.
  • Number penalty strength lambda = 10
    Chosen so that wrong particle-number sectors are pushed above the physical states without making the landscape too stiff for VQE.
  • Cranking matrix elements of Jx = not specified
    The values determining the omega dependence in Models II and IV are never listed; the results tables depend on them.
  • Model I Pauli coefficients = 0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.5, 0.5
    Hand-set schematic values for the testbed Hamiltonian.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the fermionic operators to Pauli strings correctly.
    Used in Section III.C as the mapping from the second-quantized Hamiltonian to the qubit Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The four schematic Hamiltonians capture the essential competition between pairing and rotation in deformed nuclei.
    Section III.B states the parameter choices are schematic and not intended to reproduce detailed Nilsson spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption Ground states of the two-particle models are single Slater determinants with zero bipartite entanglement.
    Section VIII: 'The exact solutions exhibit zero bipartite entanglement entropy... reflecting that the ground state ... can be represented as a single Slater determinant.'
  • ad hoc to paper The results tables reproduce 'the original simulations' whose settings are not fully specified.
    Section VI: 'All numerical values appearing in the tables below reproduce exactly those reported in the original simulations'; the original simulations are not identified.
  • domain assumption COBYLA with random restarts finds the global minimum of the variational landscape.
    Section V.B: 'All VQE calculations are performed using the COBYLA optimizer ... with multiple random restarts in order to mitigate local minima'; no guarantee of global convergence is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Quantum Simulation of Rotating Nuclei using Quantum Variational Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWFWYYBF

@misc{pith2026250618059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Quantum Simulation of Rotating Nuclei using Quantum Variational Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWFWYYBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18059}
}
abstract

Quantum variational algorithms (QVAs) are increasingly potent tools for simulating quantum many-body systems on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices. This work examines the application of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to four progressively complex models based on the cranked Nilsson-Strutinsky (CNS) framework. By incorporating single-particle spacings, pairing correlations, and rotational cranking terms, we evaluate VQE performance against exact diagonalization (ED) benchmarks. We provide a systematic benchmarking of VQE across a hierarchy of CNS-inspired Hamiltonians, explicitly identifying where hardware-efficient ansatz succeed and fail, and introducing quantum information diagnostics, the entanglement spectrum and Quantum Fisher Information, as novel probes of the pairing-rotation. Our results demonstrate that with a properly optimised multi-restart warm-starting strategy, VQE achieves near-machine-precision convergence ($|\Delta E| < 10^{-4}$) across the full cranking frequency range $\omega \in [0,1.2]$ and we confirm that the same strategy reproduces an established $^{6}$He shell-model pairing benchmark, demonstrating that the RealAmplitudes ansatz is expressively sufficient for this problem class. The entanglement spectrum confirms the product-state character of the exact ground state throughout the pairing-rotation transition, while the Quantum Fisher Information identifies a finite-size precursor to the critical pair-breaking frequency. These results establish a systematic methodological baseline and provide a reproducible framework for the nuclear physics community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the exact and VQE energies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Effect of Noise on VQE Energy (Model IV). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots of (a) Ground state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of VQE and Exact Diagonalization: (a) Energy, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peruzzo, A., McClean, J., Shadbolt, P. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quan- tum processor. Nat Commun 5, 4213 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

  2. [2]

    Banerjee, F

    D. Banerjee, F. J. Jiang, T. Z. Olesen, P. Orland and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. B97, no.20, 205108 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.205108 [arXiv:1712.08300 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 549, no.7671, 242-246 (2017) doi:10.1038/nature23879 [arXiv:1704.05018 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang and S. Brierley, Quantum3, 156 (2019) doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156 [arXiv:1805.08138 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes and N. J. Mayhall, Nature Commun.10, 3007 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2 [arXiv:1812.11173 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    T.Bengtsson, I.Ragnarsson, and S. ˚Aberg. The Cranked Nilsson Model. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76356-4-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-76356-4-3

  7. [7]

    The Cranked Nilsson-Strutinsky versus the Spherical Shell Model: A Comparative Study of pf-Shell Nuclei

    A. Juodagalvis, I. Ragnarsson and S. Aberg, Phys. Rev. C73, 044327 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.044327 [arXiv:nucl-th/0502057 [nucl-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Cadeet al., Phys

    C. Cadeet al., Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Cervera-Lierta, Quantum2, 114 (2018)

    A. Cervera-Lierta, Quantum2, 114 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Fabaet al., Phys

    J. Fabaet al., Phys. Rev. A105, 062449 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. M. Wahlen-Strothmanet al., J. Chem. Phys.146, 054110 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, arXiv:2301.05976

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Feniouet al., arXiv:2301.10196

    C. Feniouet al., arXiv:2301.10196

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. D. Sapova and A. K. Fedorov, Commun. Phys.5, 199 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Qianet al., Phys

    W. Qianet al., Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043193 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    E. A. Ruiz Guzman and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C105, 024324 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Lacroix, Phys

    D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 230502 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Harshaet al., J

    G. Harshaet al., J. Chem. Phys.148, 044107 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    M. J. Cerviaet al., Phys. Rev. C104, 024305 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    E. F. Dumitrescuet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 210501 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    M. J. Savage, EPJ Web Conf.296, 01025 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zhanget al., Phys

    H. Zhanget al., Phys. Lett. B860, 139187 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Romaniegaet al., Eur

    C. Romaniegaet al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus135, 372 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kisset al., Phys

    O. Kisset al., Phys. Rev. C106, 034325 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    A. M. Romeroet al., Phys. Rev. C105, 064317 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. Baroni and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C105, 064308 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard and P. J. Love, J. Chem. Phys.137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Kashiwaet al., Phys

    K. Kashiwaet al., Phys. Rev. D99, 014033 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Gattringer and K

    C. Gattringer and K. Langfeld, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1643007 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    E. A. Martinezet al., Nature534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Kandalaet al., Nature549, 242 (2017)

    A. Kandalaet al., Nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    E. R. Marshalek, Nucl. Phys. A331, 429 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    Q. B. Chen and S. Frauendorf, Phys. Rev. C110, 064322 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sensharmaet al., Phys

    N. Sensharmaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 052501 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Frauendorf, arXiv:2405.02747

    S. Frauendorf, arXiv:2405.02747

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rajbanshiet al., Phys

    S. Rajbanshiet al., Phys. Rev. C110, 044315 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Prajapatiet al., Phys

    M. Prajapatiet al., Phys. Rev. C109, 034301 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.