On variational trial functions in the extended Thomas-Fermi method

A. I. Chugunov; A. Y. Potekhin; N. Chamel; N. N. Shchechilin

On variational trial functions in the extended Thomas-Fermi method

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kinks—discontinuities in the first derivative of a parametrized nucleon density—make the fourth-order extended Thomas-Fermi gradient correction diverge in cylindrical and slab geometries, so restricted variational trial functions must…

desk verdict A clean, self-contained proof that fourth-order ETF calculations need trial densities with continuous first derivatives, with the pasta-phase impact honestly bounded; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11021 v1 pith:RHOJ3NNQ submitted 2024-11-17 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

A. Y. Potekhin , A. I. Chugunov , N. N. Shchechilin , N. Chamel This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE PACS 26.60.-c26.60.Gj31.15.bt64.10.+h

keywords extendedThomas-FermimethodgradientcorrectionsnuclearpastaWigner-Seitzcelltrialdensityparametrizationsmoothnessconditionneutronstarcrustfunctionaltheory

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

Many calculations of nuclear pasta in neutron-star crusts use the extended Thomas-Fermi method, an approximation that adds gradient corrections to the statistical Thomas-Fermi model of nucleons, with parametrized density profiles inside Wigner-Seitz cells. This paper shows that if such a trial profile has a kink—a jump in its first derivative—at the center of a cylindrical or slab-shaped Wigner-Seitz cell, or across any smooth surface such as a cell boundary, the fourth-order gradient correction to the kinetic energy diverges. A kink at the center of a spherical cell is harmless because the divergence is integrable. The practical conclusion is that restricted variational trial functions must have continuous first derivatives everywhere, and that discrete-mesh calculations that smooth kinks implicitly face a fundamental accuracy limit. If correct, this identifies and resolves a subtle failure mode in a widely used approximation for dense-matter equations of state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the volume part of the fourth-order kinetic-energy correction, $\tau^{(4)}_{q,v}$ from Eq. (11), and specifically its first term $\tau^{(4a)}_q \propto n_q^{1/3}(\nabla^2 n_q/n_q)^2$. This term is singular precisely where the density slope changes discontinuously: the Laplacian of a kinked profile contains a delta-like contribution in the normal direction, and the square of that contribution is not integrable unless the slope jump is zero. The argument also uses the Ostrogradsky-Gauss reduction that replaces the original fourth-order expression (Eq. 7) by Eq. (11) plus a surface term, and the elementary inequality $\langle x^2\rangle \ge \langle x\rangle^2$ to convert the divergence into a lower bound on the energy of any locally smoothed kink (Eq. 36).

What would settle it

Take a slab-symmetric trial density $n(z)=n_0+n_1|z|$ in a small interval $|z|<\varepsilon$, matched continuously to an outer profile, and evaluate the fourth-order ETF kinetic energy (Eqs. 5-11) as $\varepsilon\to 0$ with the outer profile fixed. If the energy does not grow at least as $1/\varepsilon$—or if, on a uniform mesh, the computed energy does not increase without bound as the mesh spacing goes to zero—the claimed divergence is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fourth-order extended Thomas-Fermi kinetic-energy functional is finite only for trial nucleon densities whose gradient is continuous everywhere. In cylindrical (spaghetti) geometry the Laplacian of a profile with nonzero central slope behaves like $n'_{q0}/r$ near the axis, and the term proportional to $(\nabla^2 n/n)^2$ makes the integral $\int dr/r$ diverge. In plane-parallel (lasagna) geometry the kink produces a Dirac delta in $\nabla^2 n$, and the integral of the squared delta function is not defined; for a kink on any smooth surface, the tangent-plane argument gives the same nonintegrable squared delta. The only escape is to require the normal derivative of $n_q$ to be continuous at every smooth surface and, because of symmetry, zero at the center of cylindrical and slab cells. A kink at the center of a spherical cell does not diverge, because the volume element $r^2 dr$ tames the singularity.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the fourth-order gradient-expanded kinetic-energy density, with the surface term dropped and coefficients set by Eqs. (5)-(11), being the correct energy functional for nuclear pasta; if that semiclassical expansion is not accurate in the pasta regime, the kink divergence is an artifact of the approximation rather than a property of the physical energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Woods-Saxon and modified-Fermi parametrizations, which have a nonzero slope at the cell center, are not admissible for fourth-order ETF calculations in cylindrical and slab pasta phases unless the kink is treated as a distribution; in spherical geometry they remain integrable.
For cylindrical and slab cells the trial density must satisfy $d n_q/d\xi \to 0$ at the cell center, and at any smooth interior surface or true polyhedral cell boundary the normal derivative must be continuous.
Enforcing the lasagna/anti-lasagna inversion symmetry of Eq. (21) automatically gives a zero gradient at the slab center and removes a source of spurious numerical minima.
Discrete-mesh codes that implicitly smooth kinks over a length $\varepsilon$ cannot refine the mesh arbitrarily: the smoothed-kink contribution grows at least as $\varepsilon^{-1}$ for slabs, so mesh refinement near a kink drives the energy upward without bound.
For the BSk24 calculations examined in the paper, this accuracy limit lies below 0.1 keV per nucleon for $\varepsilon \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ fm, so the previously reported pasta-phase energies are not invalidated.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial: The proof only uses the algebraic structure of the fourth-order gradient term, so the same $C^1$ requirement should apply to any density functional containing $n^{1/3}(\nabla^2 n/n)^2$; a generic coefficient could be substituted in the $\varepsilon\to 0$ estimate to test this.
Editorial: The geometry dependence suggests a simple dimensional diagnostic: a kink at an isolated point is integrable in three dimensions but not in one or two, because the volume element near the singularity is $r^{D-1}dr$; this could guide the design of trial profiles for other cell shapes.
Editorial: One practical extension is to add an explicit $C^1$ core (for instance a quadratic dependence on $\xi$ near the center) to existing parametrizations and compare the minimized energies; agreement would confirm that the smoothness condition is not restrictive in practice, while disagreement would call for revisiting earlier restricted-variational results.
Editorial: The lower bound of Eq. (37) can be repurposed as a mesh-selection criterion: before trusting an energy difference between pasta phases, check that the smoothed-kink bound is below the target precision of the calculation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful new thing here is the explicit geometry-dependent divergence analysis. A kink in the trial density at the center of a cylindrical or plane-parallel WS cell makes the fourth-order ETF gradient correction diverge (logarithmically for cylinders, via a squared delta function for slabs), while the same kink in a spherical cell is integrable. The authors also give a lower-bound estimate, Eq. (37), showing that smoothing a kink over a mesh scale ε injects at least ~1/ε of kinetic energy per nucleon. That is a concrete, reproducible criterion for practitioners: if your parametrization has a central cusp and you use a fine mesh, you are not converging to a finite ETF energy. That is the main point, and it is proved cleanly. The stress-test note is right that the derivation is internally sound; I checked the cylindrical log divergence and the slab delta-squared argument against Eqs. (24)–(29) and found no gap. The Sec. 5 bound is a legitimate addition, not just a restatement of the divergence — it tells you how badly a smoothed kink hurts as ε shrinks.

The paper is also honest about its own limits. The numerical example uses the BSk24 functional and M* = M, so the 10^-3 fm estimate is order-of-magnitude only. More importantly, the authors state up front that previous phase-diagram results are not invalidated because the divergence sits below their actual accuracy. That is the right scope: this is a methodological caution for future calculations, not a revision of existing pasta phase boundaries.

Soft spots: the divergence is a property of the fourth-order gradient expansion, not of the physical system. If the semiclassical expansion itself is suspect in the pasta regime, the practical force of the warning weakens. The authors do not engage with that possibility beyond noting they use a concrete functional. That is a mild limitation, not a flaw — they never claim physical relevance beyond the ETF framework. The lasagna/anti-lasagna symmetry discussion (Eqs. (20)–(22)) is useful but somewhat orthogonal to the divergence proof; it reads as a secondary point. Also, the paper leans on the boundary condition (12) to drop the surface term; they argue correctly that the volume divergence cannot be cancelled by a finite surface term, so that is not a real weakness.

This is a solid, narrow methods paper. It earns its acceptance. The target audience is anyone doing restricted variational ETF calculations of neutron star crust or pasta — they should read this before choosing a parametrization. I would cite it if I worked in that area. Send it to a referee with nuclear structure or ETF expertise; it will survive scrutiny and may prompt a useful discussion of whether the fourth-order functional itself is adequate in pasta. Serious referee: yes. Reading group: worth a slot if anyone in the group does ETF or pasta work.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper examines smoothness conditions for parametrized trial nucleon density distributions used in restricted variational calculations with the fourth-order extended Thomas-Fermi (ETF) functional, with emphasis on Wigner-Seitz cells of spherical, cylindrical, and slab symmetry in neutron-star pasta phases. The central result is that a kink (discontinuous first derivative) of the trial density at the center of a cylindrical or plane-parallel cell, or across any smooth interior surface, makes the fourth-order gradient correction divergent: the term (∇²n)²/n^(5/3) in τ^(4)_q,v is logarithmically divergent in the cylindrical case and non-integrable (delta-squared) in the slab case. A kink at the center of a spherical cell is shown to give only an integrable contribution. The paper also derives a lower bound for the contribution of a locally smoothed kink on a numerical mesh, showing that the bound grows at least as 1/ε in the slab case, and it applies this estimate to the BSk24 damped-Fermi parametrization to argue that previously reported pasta-phase results are not invalidated.

Significance. If accepted, the result is practically important for ETF calculations of neutron-star crust and pasta: it establishes a rigorous, easy-to-check smoothness constraint on trial functions and explains why certain widely used parametrizations (e.g., simple Fermi or modified Fermi forms) can give divergent fourth-order corrections, while damped-Fermi forms with vanishing gradient at the cell center are safe. The derivation is transparent and self-contained: the spherical, cylindrical, and plane-parallel cases are treated explicitly, and the Sec. 5 lower bound provides an independent regularized confirmation of the divergence. The numerical estimates are carefully hedged: the authors state that the example is specific to the BSk24 functional and that the M*=M approximation makes the numbers order-of-magnitude only. The paper does not overclaim physical relevance beyond the approximate ETF functional it analyzes.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 6] The sentence stating that the minimal contribution of the smoothed-out central kink 'does not exceed 0.1 keV' is logically inconsistent with Eq. (37), which is a lower bound: a lower bound cannot establish an upper bound on the actual contribution. Please rephrase to say that the lower-bound estimate remains below 0.1 keV for ε ≳ 10^-3 fm, and, if desired, add an explicit estimate of the actual smoothed contribution for the mesh used in Ref. [74].
[Title page and Introduction] There are several typographical errors, including 'Saint Peter sburg' in the affiliation and 'diverge s' and 't o add' in the Introduction; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Sec. 2, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The surface integrand τ^(4)_q,s is not written explicitly. Since the later argument that surface terms are finite and cannot cancel the volume divergence depends on this quantity, an explicit expression or a precise reference for it would make the proof easier to verify.
[Sec. 5, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The symbol rendered as '/greaterorsimilar' should be typeset as '≳' and its meaning ('greater than or approximately equal to, up to a factor 1+O(ε)') should be stated in the text.
[Sec. 4.2, Eq. (29)] The use of the squared Dirac delta function δ(z)^2 is formal; a parenthetical note that the argument is made rigorous by the regularized smoothing construction in Sec. 5 would improve mathematical clarity.
[Sec. 3] When discussing the simple and modified Fermi parametrizations, the paper notes that they do not satisfy condition (12); it would also be useful to state explicitly that these same parametrizations have a kink at the cell center, which is the relevant issue for cylindrical and plane-parallel cells.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kink-divergence result is derived from the literature ETF functional by direct asymptotic analysis, not from a fitted input or a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that a kink in a trial density at the center of a cylindrical or plane-parallel Wigner-Seitz cell or on any smooth surface makes the fourth-order ETF gradient correction divergent, is obtained by direct asymptotic analysis of Eq. (11), specifically the term (∇²n)²/n^{5/3}. The cylindrical divergence follows from the 1/r⊥ behavior of ∇²n and is exhibited in Eq. (27); the plane-parallel divergence follows from a squared delta function in Eq. (29); the general surface-kink case is handled in Eqs. (31)-(33). These are internal mathematical steps, not reductions of a prediction to its input. The surface-term argument in Sec. 4.2 is also independent, since the divergence is isolated in a volume integral while the corresponding surface integral is finite. The numerical illustration in Sec. 5 uses parameters from the authors' prior papers (Pearson et al. 2020 and Shchechilin et al. 2024), but those values are only illustrative and order-of-magnitude estimates; the conclusion that n′_{q0}=0 is required is not fitted to them. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation: the ETF functional itself is standard and externally sourced. Therefore the derivation is self-contained for the claim it makes, and the paper honestly notes the approximation M*_q=M_q and the dependence on the chosen functional. Score 0.

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

The central derivation rests on the form of the ETF functional from the semiclassical literature and on the local expansion of trial densities. No parameters are fitted in this paper; the numerical example uses parameter values from the authors' earlier Pearson 2020 and Shchechilin 2024 papers for illustration only.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The ETF kinetic energy density is given by Eqs. (5)-(7), and after integration by parts and dropping the surface term, by the volume term tau^(4)_{q,v} in Eq. (11).
This is the functional whose minimization defines the method. The paper takes it from Hodges (1973), Brack et al. (1985), and Onsi et al. (1997) in Sec. 2.
domain assumption The gradient expansion is asymptotic and only terms up to fourth order are kept; higher-order terms are excluded as diverging for localized densities.
The paper discusses this in Secs. 1 and 2, citing Brack et al. (1985) and Brack (1984).
domain assumption The surface contribution T^(4)_{q,s} can be dropped when the normal density gradient on the WS cell surface vanishes (Eq. 12).
The zero-gradient condition is argued from symmetry and periodicity in Sec. 2; it is used to replace tau^(4) with tau^(4)_{q,v}.
domain assumption Trial densities in the pasta phases have the local form n_q(r) = n_{q0} + n'_q0 xi + O(xi^2) near the cell center and are symmetric with respect to the cell rotations or reflections.
This covers the Fermi, modified Fermi, and damped Fermi parametrizations discussed in Sec. 3; a kink corresponds to n'_q0 not equal to 0.
standard math Standard distribution identities (Dirac delta squared) and the inequality average(x^2) >= average(x)^2 are valid for the smoothing estimates.
Used in Secs. 4 and 5 to show the divergence and to bound the smoothed contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On variational trial functions in the extended Thomas-Fermi method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHOJ3NNQ

@misc{pith2026241111021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On variational trial functions in the extended Thomas-Fermi method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHOJ3NNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11021}
}

read the original abstract

Parametrized nucleon density distributions are widely employed for the calculation of the properties of atomic nuclei and dense inhomogeneous matter in compact stars within the Thomas-Fermi method and its extensions. We show that the use of insufficiently smooth parametrizations may deteriorate the accuracy of this method. We discuss and clarify the smoothness condition using the example of the so-called "nuclear pasta" in the neutron star mantle.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

[1]

Thomas L H Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23 542 (1927)

work page 1927
[2]

Fermi E Rend. Accad. Naz. Lincei 6 602 (1927)

work page 1927
[3]

Kirzhnits D A, Lozovik Y E, Shpatakovskaya G V, Sov. Phys. Usp. 18 649 (1975)

work page 1975
[4]

Ring P, Schuck P The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1980), chap. 13

work page 1980
[5]

Brack M, Bhaduri R K Semiclassical Physics (Read- ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1997), chap. 4

work page 1997
[6]

Shpatakovskaya G V Phys. Usp. 55 429 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

von Weizsäcker C F Z. Phys. 96 431 (1935)

work page 1935
[8]

Kompaneets A S, Pavlovskii E S Sov. Phys. JETP 4 328 (1957)

work page 1957

Show all 75 references

[9]

Kirzhnits D A Sov. Phys. JETP 5 64 (1957)

1957
[10]

Hodges C H Canadian J. Phys. 51 1428 (1973)

1973
[11]

Grammaticos B, Voros A Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 123 359 (1979)

1979
[12]

Brack M, Guet C, Håkansson H B Phys. Rep. 123 275 (1985)

1985
[13]

Bengtsson R, Schuck P Phys. Lett. B 89 321 (1980)

1980
[14]

Brack M Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 119 (1984)

1984
[15]

Pudliner B S, Pandharipande V R, Carlson J, Wiringa R B Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 4396 (1995) [arXiv:nucl-th/9705009]

1995 arXiv
[16]

Arriaga A, Pandharipande V R, Wiringa R B Phys. Rev. C 52 2362 (1995) [arXiv:nucl-th/9506036]

1995 arXiv
[17]

Wang P Y, Li J G, Zhang S, Yuan Q, Xie M R, Zuo W Phys. Rev. C 109 064316 (2024) [arXiv:2406.07956]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Bender M, Heenen P-H, Reinhard P-G Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 121 (2003)

2003
[19]

Skyrme T H R Nucl. Phys. 9 615 (1959)

1959
[20]

Chamel N, Goriely S, Pearson J M, Phys. Rev. C 80 065804 (2009) [arXiv:0911.3346]

2009 arXiv
[21]

Vautherin D, Brink D M, Phys. Rev. C 5 626 (1972)

1972
[22]

Onsi M, Dutta A K, Chatri H, Goriely S, Chamel N, Pearson J M Phys. Rev. C 77 065805 (2008) [arXiv:0806.0296]

2008 arXiv
[23]

Pearson J M, Chamel N, Goriely S, Ducoin C Phys. Rev. C 85 065803 (2012) [arXiv:1206.0205]

2012 arXiv
[24]

Pearson J M, Chamel N, Pastore A, Goriely S Phys. Rev. C 91 018801 (2015)

2015
[25]

Chamel N, Pearson J M, Shchechilin N N Phys. Rev. C 110 045808 (2024) [arXiv:2410.01997]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Shelley M, Pastore A Universe 6 206 (2020) [arXiv:2011.10511]

2020 arXiv
[27]

Bethe H A Phys. Rev. 167 879 (1968)

1968
[28]

Brack M, Jennings B K, Chu Y H Phys. Lett. B 65 1 (1976)

1976
[29]

Strutinsky V M Nucl. Phys. A 95 420 (1967)

1967
[30]

Jennings B K Nucl. Phys. A 207 538 (1973)

1973
[31]

Aboussir Y, Pearson J M, Dutta A K, Tondeur F Nucl. Phys. A 549 155 (1992)

1992
[32]

Ravenhall D G, Pethick C J, Wilson J R Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 2066 (1983)

1983
[33]

Lorenz C P, Ravenhall D G, Pethick C J Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 379 (1993)

1993
[34]

Pethick C J, Ravenhall D G Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 45 429 (1995)

1995
[35]

Haensel P, Potekhin A Y, Yakovlev D G Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure (New York: Springer, 2007)

2007
[36]

Chamel N, Haensel P Living Reviews in Relativity 11 10 (2008) [arXiv:0812.3955]

2008 arXiv
[37]

Schneider A S, Horowitz C J, Hughto J, Berry D K Phys. Rev. C 88 065807 (2013) [arXiv:1307.1678]

2013 arXiv
[38]

Pethick C J, Potekhin A Y Phys. Lett. B 427 7 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9803154]

1998 arXiv
[39]

Pethick C J, Zhang Z-W, Kobyakov D N Phys. Rev. C 101 055802 (2020) [arXiv:2003.13430]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Xia C-J, Maruyama T, Yasutake N, Tatsumi T, Zhang Y-X, Phys. Lett. B 839 137769 (2023) [arXiv:2209.13310]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Zemlyakov N A, Chugunov A I Universe 9 220 (2023) [arXiv:2305.03603]

2023 arXiv
[42]

As- trophys

Haensel P, Kutschera M, Prószyński M Astron. As- trophys. 102 299 (1981)

1981
[43]

Sakuragi Y Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 6 06A106 (2016) [arXiv:1604.07632]

2016 arXiv
[44]

Tondeur F, Berdichevsky D, Farine M Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 325 405 (1986)

1986
[45]

Horowitz C J, Piekarewicz J, Reed B Phys. Rev. C 102 044321 (2020) [arXiv:2007.07117]

2020 arXiv
[46]

Wigner E, Seitz F Phys. Rev. 43 804 (1933)

1933
[47]

Salpeter E E Astrophys. J. 134 669 (1961)

1961
[48]

Chamel N, Naimi S, Khan E, Margueron J Phys. Rev. C 75 055806 (2007) [arXiv:astro-ph/0701851]

2007 arXiv
[49]

Onsi M, Przysiezniak H, Pearson J M Phys. Rev. C 55 3139 (1997)

1997
[50]

Barkat Z, Buchler J-R, Ingber L Astrophys. J. 176 723 (1972)

1972
[51]

Suraud E, Vautherin D Phys. Lett. B 138 325 (1984)

1984
[52]

Suraud E Nucl. Phys. A 462 109 (1987)

1987
[53]

Centelles M, Pi M, Viñas X, Garcias F, Barranco M Nucl. Phys. A 510 397 (1990)

1990
[54]

Astrophys

Suraud E Astron. Astrophys. 143 108 (1985)

1985
[55]

Centelles M, Del Estal M, Viñas X Nucl. Phys. A 635 193 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9712002]

1998 arXiv
[56]

Davies K T R, Flocard H, Krieger S, Weiss M S Nucl. Phys. A 342 111 (1980) ON V ARIATIONAL TRIAL FUNCTIONS IN THE EXTENDED THOMAS-FERM I METHOD 9

1980
[57]

Bartel J, Brack M, Durand, M Nucl. Phys. A 445 263 (1985)

1985
[58]

Pearson J M, Chamel N, Potekhin A Y, Fantina A F, Ducoin C, Dutta A K, Goriely S Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 481 2994 (2018) [arXiv:1903.04981]

2018 arXiv
[59]

Oyamatsu K Nucl. Phys. A 561 431 (1993)

1993
[60]

Arponen J Nucl. Phys. A 191 257 (1972)

1972
[61]

Gögelein P, Müther H Phys. Rev. C 76 024312 (2007) [arXiv:0704.1984]

2007 arXiv
[62]

Lim Y, Holt J W Phys. Rev. C 95 065805 (2017)

2017
[63]

Oyamatsu K, Iida K Phys. Rev. C 75 015801 (2007) [arXiv:nucl-th/0609040]

2007 arXiv
[64]

Oyamatsu K, Iida K Phys. Rev. C 81 054302 (2010) [arXiv:1002.4325]

2010 arXiv
[65]

Dutta A K, Arcoragi J P, Pearson J M, Behrman R, Tondeur F Nucl. Phys. A 458 77 (1986)

1986
[66]

Shelley M, Pastore A Phys. Rev. C 103 035807 (2021) [arXiv:2104.02408]

2021 arXiv
[67]

Barranco M, Buchler J-R Phys. Rev. C 24 1191 (1981)

1981
[68]

Viñas X, Barranco M, Pi M, Polls A, Perez- Canyellas A J. Phys. (Paris) 45 103 (1984)

1984
[69]

Kolehmainen K, Prakash M, Lattimer J M, Treiner J R Nucl. Phys. A 439 535 (1985)

1985
[70]

Astrophys

Pi M, Viñas X, Barranco M, Polls, A, Perez- Canyellas A Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 64 439 (1986)

1986
[71]

Martin N, Urban M Phys. Rev. C 92 015803 (2015) [arXiv:1505.07030]

2015 arXiv
[72]

Chu Y H, Jennings B K, Brack M Phys. Lett. B 68 407 (1977)

1977
[73]

Shchechilin N N, Chamel N, Pearson J M Phys. Rev. C 108 025805 (2023) [arXiv:2309.01591]

2023 arXiv
[74]

Pearson J M, Chamel N, Potekhin A Y Phys. Rev. C 101 015802 (2020) [arXiv:2001.03876]

2020 arXiv
[75]

Shchechilin N N, Chamel N, Pearson J M, Chugunov A I, Potekhin A Y Phys. Rev. C 109 055802 (2024) [arXiv:2404.04020]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Thomas L H Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23 542 (1927)

work page 1927

[2] [2]

Fermi E Rend. Accad. Naz. Lincei 6 602 (1927)

work page 1927

[3] [3]

Kirzhnits D A, Lozovik Y E, Shpatakovskaya G V, Sov. Phys. Usp. 18 649 (1975)

work page 1975

[4] [4]

Ring P, Schuck P The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1980), chap. 13

work page 1980

[5] [5]

Brack M, Bhaduri R K Semiclassical Physics (Read- ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1997), chap. 4

work page 1997

[6] [6]

Shpatakovskaya G V Phys. Usp. 55 429 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

von Weizsäcker C F Z. Phys. 96 431 (1935)

work page 1935

[8] [8]

Kompaneets A S, Pavlovskii E S Sov. Phys. JETP 4 328 (1957)

work page 1957