Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 73 references

Evolution of shell structure at $\mathbf{N=32}$ and 34: Insights from realistic nuclear forces

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the $N=34$ subshell gap persists from calcium down to silicon while the $N=32$ gap weakens below calcium, with the tensor component of realistic nuclear forces decisive for $N=32$ and a combined central-tensor effect…

desk verdict Solid VS-IMSRG study with new spectroscopy predictions for 46Si and 48S and a clear spin-tensor decomposition, but the claim that the N=34 gap keeps widening below Ca rests on an untested core-crossing comparison under IMSRG(2). read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03265 v2 pith:QOSOZCM5 submitted 2024-12-04 nucl-th nucl-ex

Subhrajit Sahoo , Praveen C. Srivastava This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords shellevolutionN=32subshellgapN=34valence-spaceIMSRGchiralnuclearforcestensorforcespin-tensordecompositionshapecoexistence
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 argues that the appearance of the $N=32$ and $N=34$ subshell gaps in neutron-rich nuclei, and their behavior below calcium, can be derived from realistic chiral two- and three-nucleon forces using the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG). Within this framework, the $N=34$ gap strengthens and persists down to silicon, while the $N=32$ gap, strong in calcium and titanium, weakens below calcium. The paper traces the two gaps to different parts of the nuclear force: the tensor component drives $N=32$, while $N=34$ requires both central and tensor components together. It also predicts that the $N=32$ isotones $^{50}$Ar, $^{48}$S, and $^{46}$Si have strongly oblate-deformed ground-state bands coexisting with weakly deformed excited bands. These predictions matter because they connect magic numbers far from stability to the underlying force between nucleons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG) method applied to the chiral EM1.8/2.0 Hamiltonian, which decouples an effective shell-model Hamiltonian for a chosen valence space. The shell gaps are read off from effective single-particle energies (ESPEs), computed from the angular-momentum-averaged monopole matrix elements $V^{\text{mon.}}_{jj'}$, and from the excitation energies $E(2^+_1)$. To identify which part of the force is responsible, the two-body interaction is decomposed by spin-tensor rank into central ($k=0$), spin-orbit ($k=1$), and tensor ($k=2$) components; comparing their separate contributions to the ESPE gaps is what isolates the role of the tensor force.

What would settle it

Measure the first $2^+$ excitation energy and $B(E2)$ values in $^{46}$Si and $^{48}$S: a persistent $N=34$ gap requires a high $2^+_1$ and weak $E2$ strength at $N=34$, while a strong $N=32$ gap would suppress $2^+_1$ in the $N=32$ isotones below Ca. Alternatively, an IMSRG(3) calculation in a small model space could check whether the induced three-body terms move the $\nu p_{1/2}$–$\nu p_{3/2}$ splitting back above the value needed for an $N=32$ closure below calcium.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is a systematic pattern in effective single-particle energies and first $2^+$ excitation energies: in the $fp$ shell above $^{40}$Ca, the $N=32$ subshell closure appears in Ca and Ti, weakens in Cr, and disappears in Fe, while the $N=34$ gap appears only in Ca within that shell. Moving below calcium, the $N=34$ gap persists and widens in Ar, S, and Si, whereas the $N=32$ gap becomes weak in Ar and S and vanishes in Si. A spin-tensor decomposition of the effective interaction attributes the $N=32$ gap primarily to the tensor force between the spin-orbit partners $\pi f_{7/2}$ and $\nu f_{5/2}$, and the $N=34$ gap to a combined central plus tensor effect. The paper further claims that, in the $N=32$ isotones $^{50}$Ar, $^{48}$S, and $^{46}$Si, large oblate deformation in the ground-state band coexists with a weakly deformed band, with interband $E2$ transitions indicating configuration mixing.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation truncates the renormalization-group flow at the two-body level, the IMSRG(2) approximation, and assumes that the neglected induced three- and higher-body terms do not change the qualitative trends of the monopole matrix elements that set the shell gaps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the VS-IMSRG pattern is right, $N=34$ behaves as a robust subshell closure from Ca down to Si, so future experiments on $^{46}$Si and $^{48}$S should see a high $2^+_1$ and a relatively spherical ground state at $N=34$.
  • The weakening of $N=32$ below Ca implies that $^{50}$Ar, $^{48}$S, and $^{46}$Si should not be treated as near-closed-shell nuclei; their ground states should show large oblate deformation and a low-lying coexisting band.
  • The tensor component of the effective interaction, particularly between $\pi f_{7/2}$ and $\nu f_{5/2}$, is the decisive driver of the $N=32$ gap, so interactions that miss or weaken this tensor component will fail to reproduce the shell evolution in this region.
  • The $N=34$ gap being a combined central-plus-tensor effect means that both components must be constrained simultaneously; phenomenological adjustments of only one will not reproduce the trend from Ca to Si.
  • Comparison of central and tensor monopole matrix elements with phenomenological interactions shows the VS-IMSRG tensor terms are stronger, so the shell evolution below Ca is a sensitive test of the tensor part of realistic nuclear forces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of this work is to compute the same ESPE trends at the IMSRG(3) level: if the induced three-body terms shift the $\nu f_{5/2}$ orbital, the predicted persistence of $N=34$ to silicon could change, providing a direct test of where the two-body truncation matters.
  • The predicted shape coexistence in $^{46}$Si, $^{48}$S, and $^{50}$Ar suggests that measuring quadrupole moments or $E2$ transition strengths in these isotopes would discriminate between the oblate ground-state band and the weakly deformed band, and could also constrain the monopole part of the effective interaction.
  • If tensor renormalization persistency holds for VS-IMSRG interactions, as it does for some other ab initio effective interactions, then the $N=32$ and $34$ shell gaps below Ca should be largely insensitive to the SRG resolution scale; this is a check that could be done with the same machinery at different $\lambda$ values.
  • The predicted drip lines at $N=32$ for Si and $N=34$ for S, where two-neutron separation energies turn negative, imply that the same forces that create the shell gaps also set the neutron drip line in this region; mass measurements of $^{44}$Si or $^{48}$S could test this indirectly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG) method with the chiral EM1.8/2.0 two- and three-nucleon interaction to study shell evolution at N=32 and N=34 for neutron-rich nuclei with Z=14-26. The authors compute binding energies, E(2+) systematics, effective single-particle energies (ESPEs), and a spin-tensor decomposition of the effective interaction, and they present spectroscopy and B(E2) predictions for the N=32 isotones 50Ar, 48S, and 46Si. The central claims are that the N=34 subshell gap strengthens below Ca (persisting to Si) while the N=32 gap weakens below Ca, that the tensor force is responsible for the N=32 gap while a combination of central and tensor forces governs N=34, and that the N=32 isotones below Ca have strongly oblate deformed ground-state bands coexisting with weakly deformed excited bands.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable ab initio-based prediction for an experimentally active region, with the advantage that the chiral interaction is fixed by nucleon-nucleon scattering and few-body data rather than by the specific shell-gap observables. The paper includes a convergence check for 60Fe, relies on the well-established IMSRG++ and KSHELL codes, and makes falsifiable predictions for 48S and 46Si. The spin-tensor decomposition provides a transparent link from the effective interaction to shell-gap trends, and the comparison with the phenomenological GXPF1Br interaction helps calibrate the tensor strength. The main weakness is that the central below-Ca trend is inferred from a comparison of IMSRG(2) calculations with different core references, without any estimate of the associated truncation error.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and discussion] The central claim that the N=34 gap strengthens below Ca and the N=32 gap weakens below Ca is based on comparing VS-IMSRG calculations built on a 40Ca core (Z≥20) with calculations built on a 28O core (Z<20). The IMSRG(2) approximation discards induced three- and higher-body terms, and the magnitude of the discarded terms depends on the normal-ordering reference (40Ca vs. 28O); the quoted result that the N=34 gap in 52Ar is ~0.3 MeV larger than in 54Ca and continues to widen in 50S and 46Si therefore mixes two different approximations with no estimate of the relative error. Please provide a direct check of the monopole matrix elements and ESPEs against a higher-order IMSRG scheme (e.g., IMSRG(3) or a factorized approximation) for at least one representative nucleus on each side of the core change, or explicitly re-label this trend as an IMSRG(2) prediction requiring confirmation.
  2. [Results and discussion] The spin-tensor decomposition leading to the conclusion that the tensor force is decisive for N=32 and central+tensor for N=34 is performed on the IMSRG(2) effective interaction, and Fig. 5 compares these monopole matrix elements with GXPF1Br. Because the effective interaction itself carries the IMSRG(2) truncation error, the attribution of the shell-gap evolution to specific components of the realistic chiral force is contingent on that approximation. The paper does not test the stability of the decomposition (for example, by comparing with the tensor content of an IMSRG(3) Hamiltonian or with the bare chiral interaction), so the interpretive claim is stronger than the evidence. A sensitivity test, or a caveat that the decomposition reflects the IMSRG(2) effective interaction, is needed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'calculated results align well with the available experimental data' is too strong given that the paper later acknowledges IMSRG(2) systematically overestimates E(2+) values; consider rewriting as 'reproduce the overall trends of the experimental data'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states '26≤Z≤20 (upper panel) and 20≤Z≤14 (lower panel)', which is mathematically inconsistent; these should read '20≤Z≤26' and '14≤Z≤20'.
  3. [Results and discussion] The sentence 'The ESPEs exhibit exactly similar patterns at both N=32 and N=34' is unclear because Fig. 3 shows only N=34 isotones; please specify which figure or add the N=32 panel.
  4. [Results and discussion] The phrase 'the k=1 part has a similar complementary effect on the N=34 shell gap' is vague; please state explicitly whether the spin-orbit component increases or decreases the gap and by approximately how much.
  5. [Results and discussion] The drip-line conclusion for Si (N=32) and S (N=34) is based on the minimum of the calculated ground-state binding energy in each chain, but two-neutron separation energies are not shown; presenting S_2n would make the drip-line statement more quantitative.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says all supporting data are within the article, but the ESPE evolution for Z<20 is placed in the Supplemental Material; please mention the Supplemental Material explicitly.
  7. [References] The Supplemental Material link in Ref. [65] contains the malformed DOI '10.1103/423y-znv8' and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N=32/34 shell-gap predictions are computed from a chiral interaction constrained by scattering data, not fitted to the target observables.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The input is the chiral EM1.8/2.0 2N+3N Hamiltonian, whose parameters were fixed by nucleon-nucleon scattering and few-body data, not by the N=32/34 shell gaps or the exotic isotone spectra studied here. The VS-IMSRG evolution and valence-space diagonalization are standard ab initio procedures with no adjustable parameters tuned to the presented observables. Effective single-particle energies are defined by Eq. (4) directly from the monopole matrix elements of the evolved effective Hamiltonian, and the shell-gap discussion from ESPEs is independently cross-checked against the calculated E(2+) systematics. The spin-tensor decomposition (Eq. 5) is a post-hoc interpretive analysis of the same effective interaction, not a fit that reintroduces the conclusions. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors (e.g., Refs. [35, 44]) as background examples of VS-IMSRG applications, but those citations are not load-bearing for the present predictions. The acknowledged IMSRG(2) truncation and possible core-dependence of the normal-ordering reference are legitimate accuracy concerns, but they are not circularity: the approximations are stated, and the predictions remain outputs of an independent Hamiltonian rather than reconstructed inputs.

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

The central results rest on the chiral EM1.8/2.0 interaction with parameters fit to external scattering data, the IMSRG(2) truncation, a specific valence-space choice, and the ESPE approximation for single-particle energies. No additional free parameters were fitted to the N=32/34 observables directly, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The chiral EM1.8/2.0 interaction with two- and three-nucleon forces provides an accurate starting Hamiltonian for medium-mass nuclei.
    The paper relies on the LECs fit to external scattering data in Refs. [47,48], assuming this interaction is valid through the IMSRG evolution.
  • domain assumption The IMSRG(2) truncation, keeping only up to two-body operators during the flow, adequately captures the effective valence-space Hamiltonian.
    The method is standard, but the paper itself notes that E(2+) values are overestimated, which is attributed to this truncation.
  • domain assumption The chosen valence spaces, sd+fp above an 28O core for Z<20 and fp above 40Ca for Z>=20, provide a sufficient decoupling of the Hilbert space.
    The valence-space choice is stated in the Method section and is required for the shell-model diagonalization.
  • domain assumption The effective single-particle energy formula (Eq. 4) based on monopole components and normal filling gives a meaningful measure of shell gaps in open-shell nuclei.
    The paper uses ESPEs to define and interpret the N=32 and N=34 gaps; the limitations of this picture in strongly correlated nuclei are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of shell structure at $\mathbf{N=32}$ and 34: Insights from realistic nuclear forces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOSOZCM5

@misc{pith2026241203265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of shell structure at $\mathbfN=32$ and 34: Insights from realistic nuclear forces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOSOZCM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03265}
}
abstract

We investigated the evolution of shell structure at $N=32$ and 34 in neutron-rich nuclei beyond the stability line using realistic nuclear forces, employing the state-of-the-art valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group method. The shell gaps are discussed from the excitation energies of the first $2^+$ states and the evolution of effective single-particle energies. We addressed different components of the nuclear interaction--central, spin-orbit, and tensor--and their roles in the development of shell gaps far from stability. The calculated results align well with the available experimental data and suggest a strengthening of the $N=34$ subshell gap and a weakening of the $N=32$ subshell gap below Ca. Additionally, the low-energy structures of the exotic $N=32$ isotones below Ca revealed that their ground states exhibit large deformation and coexist with a weakly deformed band at low excitation energy. The present work demonstrates essential components of the nuclear force in shaping magic numbers far from stability and provides deeper insights into the structure of exotic nuclei from the underlying nuclear forces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Calculated (blue) and experimental (black) [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Calculated (colored solid lines) and experimental [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Neutron ESPEs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Central, spin-orbit (S.O.) and tensor contribution to neutron ESPEs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Monopole m.e. of VS-IMSRG (solid bars) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Calculated (blue) and experimental [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sorlin and M.-G

    O. Sorlin and M.-G. Porquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.61, 602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    N= 32isotones.Since theN= 32 subshell effect is weak forZ <20, it is worthwhile to discuss the structural char- acteristics of these isotones adjacent to theN= 34 magic number

    enhances theN= 34 shell gap and reduces theN= 32 shell gap from Ar to Si. N= 32isotones.Since theN= 32 subshell effect is weak forZ <20, it is worthwhile to discuss the structural char- acteristics of these isotones adjacent to theN= 34 magic number. The computed low-energy excitation spectra of theN= 32 isotones are shown in Fig. 6 along with theE2 trans...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hagen, M

    G. Hagen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 032502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C90, 041302(R) (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    The central part remains approximately similar in both cases, while the tensor terms exhibit noticeable dif- ferences. Within the VS-IMSRG framework, the tensor force, particularly between the spin-orbit partnersπf 7/2- νf5/2, which plays a key role in driving theN= 32 and 34 shell gaps, is relatively stronger compared to phenomeno- logical models. Moreov...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Utsuno, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Xuet al., Phys

    X. Xuet al., Phys. Rev. C99, 064303 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Som` a, C

    V. Som` a, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and P. Navr´ atil, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 135 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Steppenbecket al., Nature502, 207 (2013)

    D. Steppenbecket al., Nature502, 207 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Steppenbecket al., Phys

    D. Steppenbecket al., Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 252501 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Leistenschneideret al., Phys

    E. Leistenschneideret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 042501 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Iimuraet al., Phys

    S. Iimuraet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 012501 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    M. L. Cort´ eset al., Phys. Rev. C102, 064320 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Rosenbuschet al., Phys

    M. Rosenbuschet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 202501 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    H. N. Liuet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 072502 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 232502 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    B. D. Linhet al., Phys. Rev. C109, 034312 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Otsuka, R

    T. Otsuka, R. Fujimoto, Y. Utsuno, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 082502 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Eur. Phys. J. A25, 499 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. C65, 061301(R) (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. C69, 034335 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Utsuno, Physics4, 185 (2022)

    Y. Utsuno, Physics4, 185 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, M. Honma, Y. Utsuno, N. Tsun- oda, K. Tsukiyama, and M. H. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 012501 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    B. Bhoy, P. C. Srivastava and K. Kaneko, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.47, 065105 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Dikmen, A

    E. Dikmen, A. F. Lisetskiy, B. R. Barrett, P. Maris, A. M. Shirokov and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C91, 064301 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    N. A. Smirnova, K. Heyde, B. Bally, F. Nowacki, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C86, 034314 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    G. R. Jansen, M. D. Schuster, A. Signoracci, G. Hagen, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C.94, 011301(R) (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    N. A. Smirnova, B. R. Barrett, Y. Kim, I. J. Shin, A. M. Shirokov, E. Dikmen, P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C100, 054329 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    G. R. Jansen, J. Engel, G. Hagen, P. Navr´ atil, and A. Signoracci, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 142502 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C93, 051301(R) (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Hergert, S.K

    H. Hergert, S.K. Bogner, T.D. Morris, A. Schwenk, K. Tsukiyama, Phys. Rep.621, 165 (2016). 7

    2016

  25. [33]

    S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 142501 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Sarma and P

    C. Sarma and P. C. Srivastava, J. Phys. G50, 045105 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, R. Roth and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 032502 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Stumpf, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152503 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    B. S. Hu, Z.H. Sun, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C110, L011302 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Sahoo, P

    S. Sahoo, P. C. Srivastava, and T. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. A 1032, 122618 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. Papen- brock, Phys. Lett. B858, 139010 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Tichai, K

    A. Tichai, K. Kap´ as, T. Miyagi, M.A. Werner,¨O. Legeza, A. Schwenk, and G. Zarand, Phys. Lett. B855, 138841 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg and I. Vernon, Nat. Phys.18, 1196 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt and N. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. C102, 034320 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Q. Yuan, J. G. Li, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C109, L041301 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Yuan and B.S

    Q. Yuan and B.S. Hu, Phys. Lett. B858, 139018 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    J.G. Li, H.H. Li, S. Zhang, Y.M. Xing, and W. Zuo, Phys. Lett. B846, 138197 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Sahoo and P.C

    S. Sahoo and P.C. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. C111, 054308 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Yuan, J.G

    Q. Yuan, J.G. Li, and H.H. Li, Phys. Lett. B848, 138331 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Hebeler, V

    K. Hebeler, V. Durant, J. Hoppe, M. Heinz, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C107, 024310 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C83, 031301(R) (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Simonis, K

    J. Simonis, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C93, 011302(R) (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno and Y. Tsunoda, Comput. Phys. Comm.244, 372 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    T. D. Morris, N. M. Parzuchowski, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C92, 034331 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    S. R. Stroberg, https://github.com/ragnarstroberg/imsrg

  47. [55]

    Nevertheless, the overall systematic trends of the 2 + 1 states are well reproduced within VS- IMSRG calculations

    have led to improved agreement with experimental spectroscopic data. Nevertheless, the overall systematic trends of the 2 + 1 states are well reproduced within VS- IMSRG calculations. In the upper panel of Fig. 2, the relatively highE(2 + 1 ) atN= 32 indicates the presence of ...

  48. [56]

    S. R. Stroberg, T. D. Morris, and B. C. He, Phys. Rev. C110, 044316 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Heinz, T

    M. Heinz, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C111, 034311 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    B. C. He and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C110, 044317 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Data extracted using the National Nuclear Data Center World Wide Web site from the evaluated nuclear struc- ture data file, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/

  52. [60]

    N. A. Smirnova, B. Bally, K. Heyde, F. Nowacki, K. Sieja, Phys. Lett. B686, 109 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Y. Z. Ma, L. Coraggio, L. De Angelis, T. Fukui, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C100, 034324 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Duguet, and G

    T. Duguet, and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. C85, 034330 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    Duguet, H

    T. Duguet, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, and V. Soma, Phys. Rev. C92, 034313 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Som` a and T

    V. Som` a and T. Duguet, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A382, 20230117 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    M. W. Kirson, Phys. Lett. B51, 110 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    Yoro, Nucl

    K. Yoro, Nucl. Phys. A333, 67 (1980)

    1980

  59. [67]

    B. A. Brown, W. A. Richter and B. H. Wildenthalt, J. Phys. G11, 1191 (1985)

    1985

  60. [68]

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/423y-znv8 10.1103/423y-znv8 for the spin-tensor decomposition method and evolution of neutron ESPEs in exotic isotopes with Z<20

    doi

  61. [69]

    Tsunoda, T

    N. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, K. Tsukiyama, M. H. Jensen Phys. Rev. C84, 044322 (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    Tsunoda, T

    N. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, K. Tsukiyama, M. H. Jensen, J. Phys. Conf. Series267, 012020 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Hendersonet al., Phys

    J. Hendersonet al., Phys. Lett. B782, 468 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. Henderson, G. Hackman, P. Ruot- salainen, G. Hagen, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C105, 034333 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Miyagi, Eur

    T. Miyagi, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 150 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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