Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Microscopic Statistical Calculation of Nuclear Level Density Based on Relativistic Density Functional Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A relativistic-density-functional statistical model reproduces nuclear level densities and neutron resonance spacings from self-consistent single-particle levels alone.

desk verdict Solid systematic RDFT-based NLD application, but the f_rms validation is partly in-sample because dU is fit to neutron-resonance data, and the claimed parity dependence is really just parity equipartition. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03663 v1 pith:QGGHE64A submitted 2026-08-04 nucl-th

Zi-Cheng Wang , Peng-Xiang Du , Jian Li , T. M. Shneidman , Shan-Gui Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35 PACS 21.10.Ma
keywords nuclearleveldensityrelativisticfunctionaltheoryfinite-temperatureBCSneutronresonancespacingspincut-offparametercollectiveenhancementshapecoexistenceeven-evennuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that a microscopic statistical model built on relativistic density functional theory can predict nuclear level densities — how many quantum states a nucleus has at a given excitation energy — without fitting to level-density data. It takes self-consistent single-particle levels from RDFT, adds pairing in finite-temperature BCS theory, and multiplies in collective rotational and vibrational enhancement. The spin cut-off parameter that spreads level density over angular momenta is computed microscopically from the same single-particle levels, so shell structure and deformation are preserved. Tested against neutron resonance spacings for 67 even-even nuclei, the model agrees within a factor of about 2.3 (DD-ME2), comparable to established non-relativistic microscopic methods and better than a previous relativistic combinatorial calculation without pairing. If right, this gives a parameter-free-from-fitting route to level densities for nuclei where resonance data do not exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin cut-off parameter σ², computed by a microscopic sum over the magnetic-substate projections m² of the RDFT single-particle levels, weighted by the thermal occupation factor sech²(E/2T). This replaces fitted empirical spin-cutoff formulas and lets shell closures and deformation imprint themselves on the angular-momentum distribution. Around it sits the finite-temperature BCS saddle-point state density: quasiparticle energies from RDFT levels plus pairing gaps fix entropy and excitation energy, and collective effects enter as a rotational enhancement factor built from the perpendicular moment of inertia, suppressed by pairing, plus a vibrational enhancement f

What would settle it

Measure or calculate parity-resolved level densities near the neutron separation energy for a subset of the 67 nuclei, for example from neutron resonances with assigned parities or from parity-projected shell-model calculations; if the positive-to-negative parity ratio at the relevant spin and energy departs substantially from one, the equipartition assumption fails and the p-wave comparisons become an unreliable test of the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: a statistical level-density model built from relativistic density functional theory can reasonably reproduce measured nuclear level densities and s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings. The recipe uses self-consistent RDFT single-particle levels, finite-temperature BCS pairing, saddle-point state density, and rotational plus vibrational enhancement; the spin cut-off parameter is computed microscopically from the same levels. For 67 even-even nuclei with s-wave data, f_rms = 2.29 (DD-ME2) or 2.56 (DD-PC1); including 18 p-wave sets gives 2.41/2.64. The paper reads these as comparable to non-relativistic microscopic models, better than a relativistic combinatorial calculation w

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes positive- and negative-parity states are equally numerous at every excitation energy when comparing with neutron resonance data; if real parity distributions are skewed, the quoted p-wave accuracy and the mixed f_rms values would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For even-even nuclei without measured resonances, the approach provides level densities with accuracy comparable to existing non-relativistic microscopic models, so it can stand in for them in reaction and astrophysics calculations.
  • Because the spin cut-off parameter comes out of the structure calculation, the model automatically carries shell-closure dips and deformation effects that empirical spin-cutoff formulas miss or misplace.
  • The DD-ME2 and DD-PC1 interactions give consistent results, with DD-ME2 slightly closer to resonance data; remaining differences quantify functional uncertainty.
  • The 98Sr analysis shows that near shape coexistence, level density and rotational enhancement vary with deformation through single-particle level density and pairing gaps, not through collective-phase-space arguments alone.
  • The quoted agreement assumes equal positive- and negative-parity level densities, so the parity-blind part of the model is what is tested; parity-dependent extensions are the natural next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The parity-equipartition assumption blurs the distinction between spin and parity dependence: the p-wave comparison mostly tests the spin distribution, so a parity-projected version could sharpen the test.
  • Because the model computes σ² from thermalized single-particle levels, it could be inserted directly into Hauser–Feshbach reaction codes, replacing empirical spin-cutoff systematics and improving extrapolations to short-lived nuclei.
  • The single-particle levels are temperature-independent in this paper; at excitation energies well above the neutron separation energy, thermal reshaping of the mean field may change the high-energy slope, so the method's reach beyond measured energies is the main open question.
  • A sharper per-nucleus test than the global f_rms would compare the predicted spin cut-off parameter with values extracted from angular distributions or from shell-model Monte Carlo, since σ² is the channel through which all structure dependence flows.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a microscopic statistical model for nuclear level density (NLD) based on relativistic density functional theory (RDFT). It uses self-consistent single-particle levels from RDFT, finite-temperature BCS pairing, and rotational/vibrational collective enhancement factors, with a microscopically computed spin cut-off parameter. The model is applied to 67 even–even nuclei with experimental s-wave neutron resonance spacings, comparisons are made with phenomenological and non-relativistic microscopic models, and a detailed study of shape coexistence in 98Sr is presented. The central claim is that this RDFT-based statistical approach can reasonably reproduce experimental s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings and NLDs, with f_rms = 2.29 (DD-ME2) and 2.56 (DD-PC1) for s-wave spacings.

Significance. If the reported validation is genuinely predictive, the paper would establish an RDFT-based statistical NLD method with a microscopically computed spin cut-off as a viable tool for practical applications, comparable to existing non-relativistic microscopic methods and useful for nuclei where phenomenological fits are unreliable. The systematic comparison of two covariant interactions, the treatment of deformation effects, and the concrete study of 98Sr are valuable. However, the paper's central quantitative evidence is weakened by a potential in-sample fitting of the damping parameter dU to the same type of neutron resonance data used in the validation, and the assumption of parity equipartition for p-wave spacings. These issues need to be addressed before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.D] The damping parameter dU = 6.27 MeV is stated to be 'determined by fitting experimental data at the neutron separation energy.' The same paper then reports f_rms values for s-wave neutron resonance spacings (Sec. III.D) for 67 even–even nuclei. The manuscript does not state whether these 67 nuclei were excluded from the dU fit. If they were not excluded, the quoted f_rms values (2.29 and 2.56) are in-sample measures of fit quality, not out-of-sample tests of predictive power. This would directly affect the central claim in Sec. IV that the approach 'can reasonably reproduce experimental s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings' and the comparison to non-relativistic (f_rms=2.14) and phenomenological (f_rms=1.78) methods. The authors must clarify the fitting protocol and, if necessary, perform an out-of-sample validation (e.g., leave-one-out or fit on an independent subset).
  2. [Sec. III.D] The p-wave resonance spacing analysis assumes that positive and negative parities are equally distributed. The paper does not compute parity-dependent level densities, despite the introduction's claim to treat both spin and parity dependence. Since the p-wave f_rms and the combined s+p f_rms depend on this assumption, the authors should either justify the equipartition assumption with concrete estimates for the nuclei considered or compute parity-dependent NLDs. If parity equipartition is inaccurate for deformed or mid-shell nuclei, the reported p-wave f_rms (2.84/2.93) and combined f_rms (2.41/2.64) could shift significantly.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (14)] The perpendicular spin cut-off parameter σ²⊥ in Eq. (14) uses a simplified moment of inertia I⊥,k = (2/5) m R², with R presumably the nuclear radius. This rigid-body estimate is not derived from the RDFT density or the actual mass distribution. Since the spin cut-off is a claimed improvement in this work, the sensitivity of σ²⊥ to the choice of R (e.g., from RDFT vs. empirical formula) should be discussed. This is not fatal, but it is a load-bearing input for the resonance-spacing predictions and should be validated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'thes- andp-wave' should be 'the s- and p-wave'.
  2. [Sec. III.D] The f_rms comparison involves different sample sizes (67 vs. 278 vs. 295 nuclei). A statistical measure that accounts for sample size or a match to the same nuclei would make the comparison more meaningful.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (19)] The symbol Pa′ in Eq. (19) is not defined in the text; indicate that it is the deuteron pairing energy and give its source.
  4. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 3] Figure 3 legend is difficult to read; please increase font size and use distinct line styles for the six deformations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Resonance-spacing validation is partly in-sample: dU is fit to data at the neutron separation energy, then the same type of data is used for the f_rms evaluation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II, Eq. (18); Sec. III.D]
    "In the present work, dU = 6.27 MeV is determined by fitting experimental data at the neutron separation energy. ... For the 67 even–even nuclei with available experimental s-wave neutron resonance spacing data [3], the present RDFT-based calculations yield f_rms = 2.29 with DD-ME2 and f_rms = 2.56 with DD-PC1."

    The single fitted parameter dU enters every level density through the damping function f_dam(U) = 1/(1+exp[(U-E_def)/dU]). It is fit to 'experimental data at the neutron separation energy' — the same energy at which s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings are measured, with the level density at S_n being inversely related to D0. The manuscript never states that this fit excluded the 67 even-even nuclei (or the 18 with p-wave data) later used to compute f_rms. Thus the reported f_rms values are in-sample measures of fit quality, not out-of-sample predictions, and the central claim in Sec. IV that the approach 'can reasonably reproduce experimental s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings' is partly forced by the fitted parameter.

full rationale

The core derivation — RDFT single-particle levels (Eq. 1), finite-temperature BCS (Eqs. 6-10), microscopic spin cut-off (Eq. 13), and collective enhancements — is self-contained and not fitted to NLD data, and comparisons against Oslo-method data and non-relativistic/phenomenological models provide independent content. The only load-bearing reduction is the dU fit: one global parameter is adjusted to reproduce the scale of level densities at the neutron separation energy, and the same energy region/data type is then used to compute the f_rms values that carry the paper's quantitative validation claim. Because dU affects every resonance-spacing prediction via Eq. (17)-(18), the f_rms = 2.29/2.56 (s-wave) and combined 2.41/2.64 values are partially in-sample. This fits the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern and warrants a partial-circularity score of 6; the remainder of the paper's physics is independent. The parity-equipartition assumption is a modeling choice, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a hybrid: single-particle levels and pairing gaps come from RDFT, while the statistical mechanics and collective enhancement are taken from the established Demetriou-Goriely framework [46]. The main free parameter introduced here is the damping width dU, fitted to neutron resonance data. The parity equipartition and temperature-independent levels are explicit modelling assumptions. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • dU = 6.27 MeV
    Damping width parameter in fdam(U), Eq. (18). Determined by fitting experimental data at the neutron separation energy (Sec. II). It enters all calculated NLDs and therefore the resonance-spacing comparison, making the reported f_rms partly in-sample.
  • G_k (pairing strength) = not specified
    Constant of the finite-temperature BCS pairing interaction in Eqs. (7)-(8). The paper states its value is determined from the quasiparticle energies at zero temperature (Sec. II), i.e., calibrated to the RDFT pairing gap rather than fitted to NLD data; listed for completeness.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Saddle-point approximation for the state density, Eq. (3)
    The grand-canonical partition function is evaluated at the saddle point; a standard approximation that becomes less accurate at low excitation energy.
  • domain assumption Finite-temperature BCS treatment of pairing without particle-number projection
    BCS violates particle-number conservation; number projection is not performed, a common but limiting assumption in NLD calculations.
  • domain assumption Temperature-independent single-particle levels from zero-temperature RDFT
    The paper acknowledges in Sec. IV: 'the temperature dependence of the single-particle levels has not been explicitly considered in the present calculations.' This neglect can affect NLD at high excitation energies.
  • domain assumption Positive and negative parity are equally distributed
    Sec. IIID: 'it was assumed that positive and negative parities are equally distributed' when computing s- and p-wave resonance spacings. The paper does not calculate parity-dependent level densities despite the introduction's claim.
  • domain assumption Rotational enhancement based on rigid-body moment of inertia with pairing correction, Eq. (14)
    The perpendicular spin cut-off uses the rigid-body formula I = 2/5 mR^2, the empirical deformation relation delta = beta2/1.056, and the pairing correction g(delta hbar omega0 / 2 Delta), a simplified prescription taken from Ref. [46].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic Statistical Calculation of Nuclear Level Density Based on Relativistic Density Functional Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGGHE64A

@misc{pith2026260803663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic Statistical Calculation of Nuclear Level Density Based on Relativistic Density Functional Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGGHE64A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03663}
}
read the original abstract

A microscopic statistical model based on the relativistic density functional theory (RDFT) is developed to calculate the nuclear level density (NLD). The approach employs self-consistent single-particle levels obtained from RDFT as input, incorporates pairing correlations within a finite-temperature Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory, and accounts for rotational and vibrational collective enhancement effects. The spin cut-off parameter is calculated from the single-particle levels, thereby naturally retaining the shell effects and the structural characteristics of different nuclei. Using the shape-coexisting nucleus 98Sr as a representative example, the microscopic origin of the deformation effect on the NLD is investigated. In addition, the calculated NLDs are systematically compared with those from various phenomenological and microscopic models, as well as with available experimental data. The results indicate that although certain discrepancies exist among different models, they exhibit consistent overall evolutionary trends. Meanwhile, the RDFT-based microscopic statistical approach is capable of providing a reasonable description of the experimental NLDs as well as the s- and p-wave neutron resonance spacings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the spin cut-off parameters calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the potential energy curve of 98Sr cal￾culated using the DD-ME2 effective interaction. Two pronounced minima are observed at β2 = −0.33 and β2 = 0.46, with an energy difference of only about 0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 1 0 -1 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 5 1 0 7 1 0 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 98Sr  d e f ( M e V - 1 ) U (MeV)         0. 20 0. 46 0. 60 FIG. 3. Level densities of 98Sr for different deformations. 0.13 MeV. This smal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Temperature (a), entropy (b), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spin cut-off parameter(a), perpendicular spin cut-off parameter(b), rotational enhancement factor(c), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of NLDs from the RDFT-based method with those from non-relativistic microscopic models and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of NLDs calculated using the RDFT-based statistical method with results from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. A. Bethe, Nuclear Physics B. Nuclear Dynamics, Theoretical, Rev. Mod. Phys.9, 69 (1937)

    1937

  2. [2]

    A. V. Voinov, S. M. Grimes, C. R. Brune, M. J. Hornish, T. N. Massey, and A. Salas, Test of nuclear level density inputs for Hauser-Feshbach model calculations, Phys. Rev. C76, 044602 (2007). 11

    2007

  3. [3]

    Capote, M

    R. Capote, M. Herman, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y, P. Young, S. Goriely, T. Belgya, A. Ignatyuk, A. Koning, S. Hilaire, V. Plujko, M. Avrigeanu, O. Bersillon, M. Chadwick, T. Fukahori, Z. Ge, Y. Han, S. Kailas, J. Kopecky, V. Maslov, G. Reffo, M. Sin, E. Soukhovitskii, and P. Talou, RIPL – Reference Input Parameter Library for Calculation of Nuclear Reactions and N...

    2009

  4. [4]

    J. H. Luo, J. C. Liang, L. Jiang, F. Tuo, L. Zhou, and L. He, Measurement of 134Xe(n,2n)133m,gXe reaction cross sections in 14-MeV region with detailed uncertainty quantification, Nucl. Sci. Tech34, 4 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Wilson, J.N., Siem, S., Rose, S.J., Georgen, A., Gunsing, F., Jurado, B., and Bernstein, L., Nuclear Data for Reactor Physics: Cross sections and level densities in the actinide region, EPJ Web Conf.2, 12001 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    M. N. Nasrabadi and M. Sepiani, Study of components and statistical reaction mechanism in simulation of nu- clear process for optimized production of 64Cu and 67Ga medical radioisotopes using TALYS, EMPIRE and LISE + + nuclear reaction and evaporation codes, AIP Conf. Proc.1653, 020076 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Colombi, F

    A. Colombi, F. Barbaro, L. Canton, M. P. Carante, and A. Fontana, Improvement of nuclear reaction modeling for the production of 47Sc on natural vanadium targets for medical applications, EPJ Web Conf.261, 05008 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Schiller, L

    A. Schiller, L. Bergholt, M. Guttormsen, E. Melby, J. Rekstad, and S. Siem, Extraction of level density and γ strength function from primary γ spectra, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A447, 498 (2000)

    2000

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Spyrou, S

    A. Spyrou, S. Liddick, A.-C. Larsen, M. Guttorm- sen, K. Cooper, A. Dombos, D. Morrissey, F. Naqvi, G. Perdikakis, S. Quinn,et al., Novel technique for con- straining r-process (n, γ) reaction rates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 232502 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    V. W. Ingeberg, S. Siem, M. Wiedeking, K. Sieja, D. Bleuel, C. Brits, T. Bucher, T. Dinoko, J. Easton, A. G¨ orgen,et al., First application of the Oslo method in inverse kinematics, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 68 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Wiedeking, M

    M. Wiedeking, M. Guttormsen, A. C. Larsen, F. Zeiser, A. G¨ orgen, S. N. Liddick, D. M¨ ucher, S. Siem, and A. Spyrou, Independent normalization for γ-ray strength functions: The shape method, Phys. Rev. C104, 014311 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    H. A. Bethe, An attempt to calculate the number of energy levels of a heavy nucleus, Phys. Rev.50, 332 (1936)

    1936

  5. [13]

    Gilbert and A

    A. Gilbert and A. Cameron, A composite nuclear-level density formula with shell corrections, Can. J. Phys.43, 1446 (1965)

    1965

  6. [14]

    W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach, and M. Uhl, Level density parameters for the back-shifted fermi gas model in the mass range 40 < A < 250, Nucl. Phys. A217, 269 (1973)

    1973

  7. [15]

    A. V. Ignatyuk, J. L. Weil, S. Raman, and S. Kahane, Density of discrete levels in 116Sn, Phys. Rev. C47, 1504 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    and EMPIRE [ 17]. However, the parameters of these models rely on fitting existing experimental data, which limits their extrapolation capability and reliability in nuclear regions and energy ranges lacking experimental constraints [18]. To address these challenges, a range of...

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, TALYS: modeling of nuclear reactions, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 131 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Herman, R

    M. Herman, R. Capote, B. Carlson, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y, M. Sin, A. Trkov, H. Wienke, and V. Zerkin, EMPIRE: Nuclear Reaction Model Code System for Data Evalua- tion, Nucl. Data Sheets108, 2655 (2007), special Issue on Evaluations of Neutron Cross Sections

    2007

  11. [19]

    Hilaire, J

    S. Hilaire, J. Delaroche, and M. Girod, Combinatorial nu- clear level densities based on the Gogny nucleon-nucleon effective interaction, Eur. Phys. J. A12, 169 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Alhassid, S

    Y. Alhassid, S. Liu, and H. Nakada, Particle-Number Reprojection in the Shell Model Monte Carlo Method: Application to Nuclear Level Densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4265 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    W. E. Ormand, Estimating the nuclear level density with the Monte Carlo shell model, Phys. Rev. C56, R1678 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    J. A. White, S. E. Koonin, and D. J. Dean, Shell model Monte Carlo investigation of rare earth nuclei, Phys. Rev. C61, 034303 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Cerf, Combinatorial nuclear level density by a Monte Carlo method, Phys

    N. Cerf, Combinatorial nuclear level density by a Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. C49, 852 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Cerf, Realistic microscopic level densities for spherical nuclei, Phys

    N. Cerf, Realistic microscopic level densities for spherical nuclei, Phys. Rev. C50, 836 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    Zelevinsky, S

    V. Zelevinsky, S. Karampagia, and A. Berlaga, Constant temperature model for nuclear level density, Phys. Lett. B783, 428 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    R. A. Sen’kov and M. Horoi, High-performance algorithm to calculate spin- and parity-dependent nuclear level densities, Phys. Rev. C82, 024304 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Shimizu, Y

    N. Shimizu, Y. Utsuno, Y. Futamura, T. Sakurai, T. Mizusaki, and T. Otsuka, Stochastic estimation of nuclear level density in the nuclear shell model: An ap- plication to parity-dependent level density in 58Ni, Phys. Lett. B753, 13 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    J. Chen, M. Liu, C. Yuan, S. Chen, N. Shimizu, X. Sun, R. Xu, and Y. Tian, Shell-model-based investigation on level density of Xe and Ba isotopes, Phys. Rev. C107, 054306 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    W. E. Ormand and B. A. Brown, Microscopic calcula- tions of nuclear level densities with the Lanczos method, Phys. Rev. C102, 014315 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    J. Wang, S. Dutta, L.-J. Wang, and Y. Sun, Projected shell model description of nuclear level density: Collec- tive, pair-breaking, and multiquasiparticle regimes in even-even nuclei, Phys. Rev. C108, 034309 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    V. M. Kolomietz, A. I. Sanzhur, and S. Shlomo, Self- consistent mean-field approach to the statistical level density in spherical nuclei, Phys. Rev. C97, 064302 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    N. D. Dang, N. Q. Hung, and L. T. Q. Huong, Testing the constant-temperature approach for the nuclear level density, Phys. Rev. C96, 054321 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    N. Q. Hung, N. D. Dang, and L. T. Q. Huong, Simulta- neous Microscopic Description of Nuclear Level Density and Radiative Strength Function, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 022502 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    B. Dey, D. Pandit, S. Bhattacharya, N. Q. Hung, N. D. Dang, L. T. Phuc, D. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Pal, A. De, and S. R. Banerjee, Level density and thermody- namics in the hot rotating 96Tc nucleus, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054326 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    B. Dey, N. Quang Hung, D. Pandit, S. Bhat- tacharya, N. Dinh Dang, L. Quynh Huong, D. Mondal, S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Pal, A. De, and S. Banerjee, S- shaped heat capacity in an odd–odd deformed nucleus, Phys. Lett. B789, 634 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Hilaire and S

    S. Hilaire and S. Goriely, Global microscopic nuclear level densities within the HFB plus combinatorial method for 12 practical applications, Nucl. Phys. A779, 63 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, and A. J. Koning, Improved micro- scopic nuclear level densities within the Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov plus combinatorial method, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064307 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Hilaire, M

    S. Hilaire, M. Girod, S. Goriely, and A. J. Koning, Temperature-dependent combinatorial level densities with the D1M Gogny force, Phys. Rev. C86, 064317 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Uhrenholt, S

    H. Uhrenholt, S. ˚Aberg, A. Dobrowolski, T. Døssing, T. Ichikawa, and P. M¨ oller, Combinatorial nuclear level- density model, Nucl. Phys. A913, 127 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Geng, P.-X

    K.-P. Geng, P.-X. Du, J. Li, and D.-L. Fang, Calculation of microscopic nuclear level densities based on covariant density functional theory, Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 141 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Jiang and X.H

    X.F. Jiang and X.H. Wu and P.W. Zhao and J. Meng, Nuclear level density from relativistic density functional theory and combinatorial method, Phys. Lett. B849, 138448 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    G. B. He, N. C. Tang, Y. Tian, Y. Cui, J. Li, Y. Xu, and R. R. Xu, Systematic study of microscopic nuclear level densities of Sn isotopes within a relativistic framework*, Chin. Phys. C50, 054107 (2026)

    2026

  35. [43]

    Du and J

    P. Du and J. Li, Nuclear level densities in the relativis- tic Hartree-Bogoliubov plus combinatorial framework, (2026), arXiv:2605.04862 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Agrawal and A

    B. Agrawal and A. Ansari, Excitation energy and angular momentum dependence of nuclear level densities and spin cut-off factor in SPA and SPA + RPA approaches, Nucl. Phys. A640, 362 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Goriely, A new nuclear level density formula including shell and pairing correction in the light of a microscopic model calculation, Nucl

    S. Goriely, A new nuclear level density formula including shell and pairing correction in the light of a microscopic model calculation, Nucl. Phys. A605, 28 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Decowski, W

    P. Decowski, W. Grochulski, A. Marcinkowski, K. Siwek, and Z. Wilhelmi, On superconductivity effects in nuclear level density, Nucl. Phys. A110, 129 (1968)

    1968

  39. [47]

    Demetriou and S

    P. Demetriou and S. Goriely, Microscopic nuclear level densities for practical applications, Nucl. Phys. A695, 95 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Minato, Nuclear Level Densities with Microscopic Sta- tistical Method Using a Consistent Residual Interaction, J

    F. Minato, Nuclear Level Densities with Microscopic Sta- tistical Method Using a Consistent Residual Interaction, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol48, 984 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    A. N. Bezbakh, T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Level densities of heaviest nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 97 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Rahmatinejad, T

    A. Rahmatinejad, T. M. Shneidman, N. V. Antonenko, A. N. Bezbakh, G. G. Adamian, and L. A. Malov, Col- lective enhancements in the level densities of Dy and Mo isotopes, Phys. Rev. C101, 054315 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    J. Zhao, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and D. Vretenar, Microscopic model for the collective enhancement of nuclear level densities, Phys. Rev. C102, 054606 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. Gao, G. T. Zhang, and Z. Y. Li, Level density of odd-A nuclei at saddle point, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34, 124 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Auberson, L

    G. Auberson, L. Epele, G. Mahoux, and F. R. A. Sim˜ ao, Partition functions of the quark–gluon black body and density of states, J. Math. Phys.27, 1658 (1986)

    1986

  46. [54]

    Rossignoli, A

    R. Rossignoli, A. Ansari, and P. Ring, Projected statis- tics and level densities, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1061 (1993)

    1993

  47. [55]

    Hilaire, S

    S. Hilaire, S. Goriely, S. P´ eru, and G. Gosselin, A new approach to nuclear level densities: The QRPA plus boson expansion, Phys. Lett. B843, 137989 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Kucharek and P

    H. Kucharek and P. Ring, Relativistic field theory of superfluidity in nuclei, Z. Phys. A339, 23 (1991)

    1991

  49. [57]

    Ring, Relativistic mean field theory in finite nuclei, Prog

    P. Ring, Relativistic mean field theory in finite nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. Afanasjev, G. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Relativistic Hartree–Bogoliubov theory: static and dy- namic aspects of exotic nuclear structure, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. Zhou, S. Zhang, W. Long, and L. Geng, Relativistic continuum Hartree Bogoliubov theory for ground-state properties of exotic nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.57, 470 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring, and E.-G. Zhao, Neutron halo in deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C82, 011301(R) (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Relativistic nuclear energy density functionals: Mean-field and beyond, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in con- tinuum, Phys. Rev. C85, 024312 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    Afanasjev, S

    A. Afanasjev, S. Agbemava, D. Ray, and P. Ring, Nuclear landscape in covariant density functional theory, Phys. Lett. B726, 680 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Meng and S

    J. Meng and S. G. Zhou, Halos in medium-heavy and heavy nuclei with covariant density functional theory in continuum, J. Phys. G:Nucl. Part. Phys.42, 093101 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Meng,Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016)

    J. Meng,Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Zhou, Multidimensionally constrained covariant density functional theories—nuclear shapes and potential energy surfaces, Phys

    S.-G. Zhou, Multidimensionally constrained covariant density functional theories—nuclear shapes and potential energy surfaces, Phys. Scr.91, 063008 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Z. X. Ren, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, J. Zhao, and J. Meng, Dynamical Synthesis of 4He in the Scission Phase of Nuclear Fission, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 172501 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    H. H. Xie and J. Li, Impact of intrinsic electromagnetic structure on the nuclear charge radius in relativistic density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C110, 064319 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    H. H. Xie, J. Li, Y. L. Yang, and P. W. Zhao, Charge radii of calcium isotopes within relativistic density functional theory: The finite size of the nucleon and quadrupole shape-fluctuation effects, Phys. Rev. C112, L021303 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    J.-n. Zang, D. Chen, R. Guo, J. Li, D. Yang, and Y. Shi, Coexistence of possible magnetic and chiral rotation in 129Cs and 131La: A microscopic investigation, Phys. Rev. C112, 034338 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Ring, Energy density functional theory in nuclei: does it have to be relativistic?, Phys

    P. Ring, Energy density functional theory in nuclei: does it have to be relativistic?, Phys. Scr.2012, 014035 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    J. N. Ginocchio, Pseudospin as a Relativistic Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 436 (1997)

    1997

  65. [73]

    J. Meng, K. Sugawara-Tanabe, S. Yamaji, P. Ring, and A. Arima, Pseudospin symmetry in relativistic mean field theory, Phys. Rev. C58, R628 (1998)

    1998

  66. [74]

    J. Meng, K. Sugawara-Tanabe, S. Yamaji, and A. Arima, Pseudospin symmetry in Zr and Sn isotopes from the proton drip line to the neutron drip line, Phys. Rev. C 59, 154 (1999)

    1999

  67. [75]

    Chen, H.-F

    T.-S. Chen, H.-F. L¨ u, J. Meng, S.-Q. Zhang, and S.-G. Zhou, Pseudospin Symmetry in Relativistic Framework with Harmonic Oscillator Potential and Woods-Saxon 13 Potential, Chin. Phys. Lett.20, 358 (2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    J. N. Ginocchio, Relativistic symmetries in nuclei and hadrons, Phys. Rep.414, 165 (2005)

    2005

  69. [77]

    Liang, J

    H. Liang, J. Meng, and S.-G. Zhou, Hidden pseudospin and spin symmetries and their origins in atomic nuclei, Phys. Rep.570, 1 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    Shang, Q

    T. Shang, Q. Zhao, and J. Li, Pseudospin symmetry: Mi- croscopic origin of the ground-state inversion in neutron- rich odd-A Cu isotopes, Phys. Lett. B850, 138527 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    A. V. Afanasjev and H. Abusara, Time-odd mean fields in covariant density functional theory: Rotating systems, Phys. Rev. C82, 034329 (2010)

    2010

  72. [80]

    J. Meng, J. Peng, S.-Q. Zhang, and P.-W. Zhao, Progress on tilted axis cranking covariant density functional the- ory for nuclear magnetic and antimagnetic rotation, Front. Phys.8, 55–79 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    R. J. Furnstahl and C. E. Price, Relativistic Hartree calculations of odd-A nuclei, Phys. Rev. C40, 1398 (1989)

    1989

  74. [82]

    Hofmann and P

    U. Hofmann and P. Ring, A new method to calculate magnetic moments in relativistic mean field theories, Phys. Lett. B214, 307 (1988)

    1988

  75. [83]

    J. M. Yao, H. Chen, and J. Meng, Time-odd triaxial relativistic mean field approach for nuclear magnetic moments, Phys. Rev. C74, 024307 (2006)

    2006

  76. [84]

    J. Li, J. X. Wei, J. N. Hu, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Rela- tivistic description of magnetic moments in nuclei with doubly closed shells plus or minus one nucleon, Phys. Rev. C88, 064307 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    J. Li, Y. Zhang, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, Magnetic moments of 33Mg in the time-odd relativistic mean field approach, Sci. China, Ser. G:Phys., Mech. Astron.52, 1586 (2009)

    2009

  78. [86]

    Li and J

    J. Li and J. Meng, Nuclear magnetic moments in covari- ant density functional theory, Front. Phys.13, 132109 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Y. Tian, Z. Ma, and P. Ring, A finite range pairing force for density functional theory in superfluid nuclei, Phys. Lett. B676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  80. [88]

    Tian, Z.-y

    Y. Tian, Z.-y. Ma, and P. Ring, Separable pairing force for relativistic quasiparticle random-phase approxima- tion, Phys. Rev. C79, 064301 (2009)

    2009

  81. [89]

    Behkami and J

    A. Behkami and J. Hulzenga, Comparison of experimen- tal level densities and spin cutoff factors with microscopic theory for nuclei near A = 60, Nucl. Phys. A217, 78 (1973)

    1973

  82. [90]

    Gholami, M

    M. Gholami, M. Kildir, and A. N. Behkami, Microscopic study of spin cut-off factors of nuclear level densities, Phys. Rev. C75, 044308 (2007)

    2007

  83. [91]

    von Egidy and D

    T. von Egidy and D. Bucurescu, Experimental energy- dependent nuclear spin distributions, Phys. Rev. C80, 054310 (2009)

    2009

  84. [92]

    S. M. Grimes, J. D. Anderson, J. W. McClure, B. A. Pohl, and C. Wong, Level density and spin cutoff parameters from continuum (p, n) and ( α, n) spectra, Phys. Rev. C 10, 2373 (1974)

    1974

  85. [93]

    Nikˇ si´ c, N

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, DIRHB—A relativistic self-consistent mean-field framework for atomic nuclei, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1808 (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    Døssing and S

    T. Døssing and S. ˚Aberg, Collective enhancements in nuclear level densities, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 249 (2019)

    2019

  87. [95]

    G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, New relativistic mean-field interaction with density- dependent meson-nucleon couplings, Phys. Rev. C71, 024312 (2005)

    2005

  88. [96]

    Chankova, A

    R. Chankova, A. Schiller, U. Agvaanluvsan, E. Al- gin, L. A. Bernstein, M. Guttormsen, F. Ingebretsen, T. L¨ onnroth, S. Messelt, G. E. Mitchell, J. Rekstad, S. Siem, A. C. Larsen, A. Voinov, and S. Ødeg ˚ ard, Level densities and thermodynamical quantities of heated 93−98Mo i...

    2006

  89. [97]

    A. C. Larsen, I. E. Ruud, A. B¨ urger, S. Goriely, M. Gut- tormsen, A. G¨ orgen, T. W. Hagen, S. Harissopulos, H. T. Nyhus, T. Renstrøm, A. Schiller, S. Siem, G. M. Tveten, A. Voinov, and M. Wiedeking, Transitional γ strength in Cd isotopes, Phys. Rev. C87, 014319 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    S. Siem, M. Guttormsen, K. Ingeberg, E. Melby, J. Rek- stad, A. Schiller, and A. Voinov, Level densities and γ- strength functions in 148,149Sm, Phys. Rev. C65, 044318 (2002)

    2002

  91. [99]

    Melby, M

    E. Melby, M. Guttormsen, J. Rekstad, A. Schiller, S. Siem, and A. Voinov, Thermal and electromagnetic properties of 166Er and 167Er, Phys. Rev. C63, 044309 (2001)

    2001

  92. [100]

    Giacoppo, F

    F. Giacoppo, F. L. Bello Garrote, L. A. Bernstein, D. L. Bleuel, T. K. Eriksen, R. B. Firestone, A. G¨ orgen, M. Guttormsen, T. W. Hagen, B. V. Kheswa, M. Klinte- fjord, P. E. Koehler, A. C. Larsen, H. T. Nyhus, T. Ren- strøm, E. Sahin, S. Siem, and T. Tornyi, Level densities ...

    2014

  93. [101]

    Guttormsen, B

    M. Guttormsen, B. Jurado, J. N. Wilson, M. Aiche, L. A. Bernstein, Q. Ducasse, F. Giacoppo, A. G¨ orgen, F. Gun- sing, T. W. Hagen, A. C. Larsen, M. Lebois, B. Leniau, T. Renstrøm, S. J. Rose, S. Siem, T. Tornyi, G. M. Tveten, and M. Wiedeking, Constant-temperature level densi...

    2013

  94. [102]

    ¨Ozdo˘ gan, Y

    H. ¨Ozdo˘ gan, Y. A.¨Unc¨ u, M.S ¸ekerci, and A. Kaplan, Estimations of level density parameters by using artifi- cial neural network for phenomenological level density models, Appl. Radiat. Isot.169, 109583 (2021)

    2021

  95. [103]

    Du, T.-S

    P.-X. Du, T.-S. Shang, K.-P. Geng, J. Li, and D.-L. Fang, Inference of parameters for the back-shifted Fermi gas model using a feedforward neural network, Phys. Rev. C109, 044325 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    Shang, J

    T.-S. Shang, J. Li, and Z.-M. Niu, Prediction of nuclear charge density distribution with feedback neural network, Nucl. Sci. Tech.33, 153 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    T. S. Shang, H. H. Xie, J. Li, and H. Liang, Global prediction of nuclear charge density distributions using a deep neural network, Phys. Rev. C110, 014308 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Wang, T.-S

    Y.-D. Wang, T.-S. Shang, H.-H. Xie, P.-X. Du, J. Li, and H.-Z. Liang, Predictions of charge density distributions for nuclei with Z≥8, Nucl. Sci. Tech.37, 93 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.