Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 53 references

The union of rotational and vibrational modes in generator-coordinate-type calculations, with application to neutrinoless double-beta decay

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A generator-coordinate method driven by low-lying quasiparticle vibrational modes brings neutrinoless double-beta decay matrix elements closer to shell-model values.

desk verdict A promising GCM variant that moves 0νββ NMEs toward shell-model values, but the heuristic λ=1 and 15-mode truncation need sensitivity tests before the improvement can be called systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01873 v2 pith:RKGWDBW2 submitted 2019-08-05 nucl-th

Changfeng Jiao , Calvin W. Johnson This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.Jz23.40.Hc27.60.+j
keywords generatorcoordinatemethodquasiparticleTamm-DancoffapproximationThoulesstheoremneutrinolessdouble-betadecayangularmomentumprojectionparticlenumbershell-modelbenchmarkHartree-Fock-Bogoliubov
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 proposes a new way to build generator-coordinate bases for nuclear many-body calculations: instead of hand-picking external constraint fields, solve the quasiparticle Tamm-Dancoff (QTDA) equations on a Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov ground state and use the low-lying vibrational modes as generator coordinates via Thouless' theorem. The reference states are then projected onto good angular momentum and particle number and mixed through the Hill-Wheeler equation. For six nuclei in neutrinoless double-beta decay candidate chains, benchmarked against full shell-model diagonalization with the same interaction, the method lowers 4+ excitation energies that standard constrained HFB-GCM overestimates and brings the 0νββ matrix elements of 124Sn, 130Te, and 136Xe closer to the shell-model values. If the pattern holds, this offers a systematic route to the correlations needed for reliable 0νββ matrix elements without relying on intuition about which collective coordinates matter.

What carries the argument

The engine is the QTDA phonon, a collective superposition of two-quasiparticle excitations obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in the two-quasiparticle space built on the HFB vacuum, interpreted as a small-amplitude vibrational mode of the energy landscape. Thouless' theorem, exp(λ Z_r)|Φ0>, turns such a one-body operator into a new non-orthogonal quasiparticle vacuum, with a Cholesky step restoring the fermion anticommutation relations. Fifteen low-lying QTDA phonons plus the HFB vacuum, after projection to good angular momentum and particle number and solution of the Hill-Wheeler equation, form the GCM basis. The fixed amplitude λ=1 appears in Eq. (8) and is the one tuning parameter used in lieu of sampling the amplitude.

What would settle it

Run the same calculation with several λ values (say 0.5, 1, and 2) and with 5, 15, and 30 QTDA modes and compare against the shell-model results for 124Sn, 130Te, and 136Xe; if the 4+ energies or 0νββ matrix elements move by more than the CHFB-to-shell-model gap across those choices, the reported improvement is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the correlations missing from a standard constrained Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov generator-coordinate calculation—vibrational motion and broken-pair excitations—can be supplied by taking the lowest quasiparticle Tamm-Dancoff modes as generator coordinates. Exponentiating each QTDA operator on the HFB vacuum produces a new non-orthogonal vacuum; after angular-momentum and particle-number projection, the Hill-Wheeler diagonalization mixes these states. Using 15 low-lying QTDA modes at a single amplitude λ=1, the authors find that for the weakly deformed nuclei 124Sn, 124Te, 130Te, 130Xe, 136Xe, and 136Ba the 4+ states come down toward the shell model, and for the three 0νββ emitters the total matrix element shrinks from CHFB-GCM values of 2.76, 2.52, and 2.35 to 2.53, 2.39, and 1.96, against shell-model values of 2.15, 1.94, and 1.76. The improvement shows up mainly in the Gamow-Teller part, while ground-state energies stay 50 to 350 keV above the CHFB-GCM values.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 15 lowest QTDA modes, each evolved by the same fixed amplitude λ=1, span the correlations missing from the CHFB-GCM basis; if that subspace is too small or the amplitude is mis-scaled, the agreement with the shell model could be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-spherical and weakly deformed nuclei get lower 4+ excitation energies than CHFB-GCM provides, so the method captures the vibrational and broken-pair correlations that push those states down.
  • The 0νββ matrix elements of 124Sn, 130Te, and 136Xe are reduced relative to CHFB-GCM and move toward full shell-model values, mainly through the Gamow-Teller contribution, which is the part a neutrino experiment's interpretation depends on.
  • 2+ energies and B(E2; 0+→2+) strengths stay close to shell-model and adopted experimental values, so adding QTDA reference states does not spoil the quadrupole collectivity the standard GCM already describes.
  • Because the QTDA modes are generated from the Hamiltonian itself, the method gives a systematic way to include non-collective and pairing correlations in GCM without guessing constraint fields.
  • Ground-state energies are slightly worse than CHFB-GCM, so combining QTDA-generated states with the usual constrained HFB states is a natural next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed amplitude λ=1 and the 15-mode cutoff are the two tuning dials; a convergence scan over λ and mode number would show whether the shell-model agreement is systematic or accidental.
  • The pattern in Table III—Gamow-Teller moves toward the shell model while the small Fermi component moves slightly away—suggests the method is capturing spin-isospin-like correlations, not all missing physics; a QTDA-plus-CHFB combined basis could target both.
  • For candidates with triaxial or strongly deformed minima, QTDA modes with K≠0 will mix angular momentum projections, so the method's full 3D projection machinery becomes essential; 76Ge is a natural test case.
  • The same basis-generation idea could be carried from QTDA to QRPA operators, which would put two-particle-two-hole correlations into the reference states and might cure the remaining ground-state-energy deficit; the paper notes this as future work.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new variant of the generator-coordinate method (GCM) called QTDA-driven GCM. Starting from a Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov vacuum, the authors solve the quasiparticle Tamm-Dancoff approximation (QTDA) to obtain low-lying two-quasiparticle vibrational modes, then use Thouless' theorem with a fixed amplitude lambda=1 to generate non-orthogonal reference states. These states are projected onto good angular momentum and particle number and mixed via the Hill-Wheeler equation. The method is benchmarked against standard constrained HFB (CHFB) GCM and full shell-model (SM) diagonalization for the 0nubb candidate nuclei 124Sn/Te, 130Te/Xe, and 136Xe/Ba, all using the same SVD Hamiltonian. The authors report that QTDA-driven GCM lowers the excitation energies of 4+ states relative to CHFB-GCM and brings the 0nubb Gamow-Teller and total matrix elements closer to the SM values, although ground-state energies and Fermi matrix elements are not improved.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the method is significant: it offers a deterministic, Hamiltonian-driven way to incorporate vibrational and broken-pair correlations into GCM without hand-selected constraint fields, addressing a known limitation of standard GCM for spherical and weakly deformed nuclei. The benchmarking is honest and well controlled: the same SVD Hamiltonian is used for CHFB-GCM, QTDA-GCM, and exact SM, and the comparison against numerically exact SM results provides a strong test bed. The paper also clearly identifies the new ingredient relative to prior two-quasiparticle GCM work (collective QTDA superpositions rather than individual two-quasiparticle excitations). However, the central quantitative improvement is not yet shown to be systematic: the key choices of lambda=1 and 15 QTDA modes are heuristic, no sensitivity study is provided, and the residual discrepancies with the SM are comparable to the claimed improvements. The method is promising but the evidence presented is preliminary.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8) and surrounding text] The choice lambda=1 for every QTDA mode is not justified by any physical criterion. Because the QTDA eigenvectors obtained from Eq. (7) determine only a ray and carry no intrinsic scale, lambda=1 is a hand-set displacement in the Thouless evolution. The paper states only that 'a single value of lambda = 1 worked sufficiently well.' No lambda-sensitivity study is shown, so the claimed improvements over CHFB-GCM in Tables I and III could be an artifact of this tuning. A sweep over lambda and a demonstration that the projected observables are stable (or converge) is needed before the improvement can be attributed to the method rather than to the particular amplitude.
  2. [Section on reference-state selection] The truncation to the 15 lowest-energy QTDA phonons is described only as 'a computationally tractable choice.' No test is given of convergence with respect to the number of QTDA modes. In Table III the remaining QTDA-GCM-to-SM gap in M0nu is 0.38 (124Sn), 0.45 (130Te), and 0.20 (136Xe), while the claimed improvement over CHFB-GCM is 0.23, 0.13, and 0.39; the residual error is comparable to or larger than the effect being claimed. Without a mode-number growth test, the improved NMEs and 4+ energies could be coincidental features of a small, heuristically chosen subspace rather than a systematic property of the method.
  3. [Table III] The Fermi contribution M_F moves away from the SM value for all three nuclei under QTDA-GCM: for 124Sn, CHFB-GCM gives -0.51, QTDA-GCM -0.73, and SM -0.47; for 130Te, -0.47, -0.69, -0.44; for 136Xe, -0.32, -0.50, -0.40. Thus the improvement in the total M0nu is entirely due to the Gamow-Teller component, and the Fermi part is made worse. The abstract's claim of 'significant improvement in 0νββ nuclear matrix elements' should be qualified to specify that the improvement is not uniform across the GT, Fermi, and tensor components.
  4. [Table I] The QTDA-GCM ground-state energies are 49-441 keV above the CHFB-GCM values and up to 1.8 MeV above the SM values (e.g., 124Te: QTDA-GCM -22.641 MeV, CHFB-GCM -23.082 MeV, SM -24.446 MeV). Since the Hill-Wheeler diagonalization of Eq. (17) is variational with respect to the chosen reference space, this indicates that the 15 QTDA-generated states miss some correlations that are captured by the CHFB basis. The paper acknowledges this and suggests that combining the two bases 'may be a useful or even necessary strategy,' but this undercuts the present claim that QTDA-driven GCM is competitive with or superior to CHFB-GCM for ground-state properties and reinforces the need for a systematic study of the reference space.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The text contains several typographical errors: 'Tamm-Damcoff' should be 'Tamm-Dancoff'; 'we need to file new quasiparticle states' should be 'fill'; 'as these nuclides have axially symmetric HFB minimua' should be 'minima'; and 'the jj55-shell configuration space that compromises' should be 'comprises.'
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption lists comparisons only with CHFB-GCM and SM, but the text states that the results are also in 'reasonable agreement with ... experimental spectra.' If experimental levels are shown or intended, they should be identified in the caption; otherwise the sentence should be revised.
  3. [Table II and text] The sentence 'While the underestimation, also mentioned in Ref. [44], suggests the effective charges should be adjusted' is slightly unclear: it would be useful to state explicitly that the comparisons in this paper are intended as method benchmarks, not as fits to experiment, so the effective-charge issue does not affect the conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QTDA-generated GCM basis is Hamiltonian-derived and benchmarked against independent shell-model results, with no target observable entering the construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The reference states are built by solving the QTDA matrix A (Eq. 6) from the same Hamiltonian and HFB vacuum, taking low-lying eigenvectors Z^r (Eq. 7), and evolving the HFB state with exp(lambda Z^r) via Thouless' theorem (Eq. 8). The only free parameter, lambda = 1, is a fixed displacement amplitude chosen by the authors ('we found in our current work that a single value of lambda = 1 worked sufficiently well'); it is not tuned to the 0vbb matrix elements or to the shell-model energies used as benchmarks. The method then projects onto good angular momentum and particle number (Eq. 16) and solves the discretized Hill-Wheeler equation (Eq. 17), a standard variational diagonalization in a Hamiltonian-generated non-orthogonal basis. The quantities compared with experiment/shell model - excitation spectra, B(E2), and 0vbb NMEs - are computed after this diagonalization, so none of them is an input to the construction. Self-citations, such as the CHFB-GCM baseline of Ref. 35, are used only as comparison calculations, not to justify the novel step, and no uniqueness theorem or prior claim is invoked to force the choice of QTDA modes. The absence of a lambda sweep and mode-number convergence study is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of a truncated QTDA-generated basis at a fixed λ=1, on standard Thouless/projection machinery, and on external inputs (SVD Hamiltonian, closure approximation, CD-Bonn SRC, g_A). No new particles or forces are invented. The free parameters are all truncation or amplitude choices, none fitted to the benchmark data.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (Thouless amplitude) = 1 (chosen by hand)
    Read 'we found in our current work that a single value of λ = 1 worked sufficiently well' after Eq. (8); no sensitivity study is provided.
  • Number of QTDA modes = 15
    Read 'we choose the 15 lowest-energy QTDA phonons, which is a computationally tractable choice'; convergence not checked.
  • β2 constraints for spherical minima = 0, +0.1, -0.1
    For 124Sn and 136Xe, the base HFB states are constrained to axial quadrupole deformation β2 = 0 and ±0.1; these three values are not derived.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Thouless' theorem: the exponential of any one-body operator acting on a quasiparticle vacuum gives another quasiparticle vacuum.
    Invoked at Eq. (3) and (8) to generate reference states; standard result from Ref. [8].
  • domain assumption Low-lying QTDA eigenmodes are a valid approximation to the vibrational and broken-pair correlations needed in the basis.
    The whole method assumes these modes capture the correlations causing the 30% GCM overestimate of 0νββ NMEs; the paper offers benchmarks but no proof of completeness.
  • domain assumption The SVD Hamiltonian in the jj55 model space accurately describes the spectroscopy and beta decay of these nuclei.
    Taken from Refs. [44-46]; not re-derived here; benchmark comparisons rely on it.
  • domain assumption The closure approximation with CD-Bonn Jastrow SRC and g_A=1.254 are the correct operator conventions for 0νββ.
    Used in Eq. (19) and Table III; standard in the field but an external modeling choice.
  • standard math The natural-state truncation of the norm kernel and the Hill-Wheeler diagonalization give a faithful variational solution.
    Standard GCM machinery, references [22,23].
  • ad hoc to paper For spherical minima, constraining the base HFB to β2=0, ±0.1 is sufficient to probe deformation.
    Used for 124Sn and 136Xe to generate deformed starting points; three fixed values chosen without justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The union of rotational and vibrational modes in generator-coordinate-type calculations, with application to neutrinoless double-beta decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKGWDBW2

@misc{pith2026190801873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The union of rotational and vibrational modes in generator-coordinate-type calculations, with application to neutrinoless double-beta decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKGWDBW2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01873}
}
abstract

Good many-body methods for medium and heavy nuclei are important. Here we combine ideas from standard generator-coordinate methods (GCM) and the so-called Monte Carlo shell model, and set forth a novel approach: starting from a mean-field solution (Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov), we create a set of non-orthogonal basis states, by using low-lying vibrational quasiparticleTamm-Dancoff modes, and then project onto states of good angular momentum and particle number. The results we benchmark against full shell model calculations. Even with just a few such modes we find improvement over standard GCM calculations in excitation spectra. We also find significant improvement in $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The calculated low-lying energy levels for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    natural states

    and the quasiparticle trans- formation ( 4) is found in the literature [ 8, 42]. We solve ∑ ββ ′ Aαα ′,ββ ′Z r ββ ′ = EQTDA r Z r αα ′ . (7) 3 finding excitation energies EQTDA r . We approximate the QTDA states by applying Thouless’ theorem: |Φ r⟩ = exp ( λ ˆZr ) |Φ 0⟩ ≈ |Φ 0⟩ + λ ˆZr|Φ 0⟩ = exp { λ 1 2 ∑ αα ′ Z r αα ′ ˆc† α (0)ˆc† α ′ (0) } |Φ 0⟩. (8) Wh...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    This is important as our reference states will be a set of non-orthogonal vacua

    albeit only with constraints on proton and neutron numbers, is a vacuum to quasiparticles ˆ cα (0): ˆcα (0) = ∑ β ˆaβ U ∗ βα (0) + ˆa† β V ∗ βα (0), (4) where the argument ‘0’ indicates that |Φ 0⟩ is the vacuum relative to these quasiparticles, so that ˆ cα (0)|Φ 0⟩ = 0. This is important as our reference states will be a set of non-orthogonal vacua. Low-...

    work page

  3. [3]

    F. T. Avignone, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Men´ endez, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 45, 014003 (2017)

    J. Men´ endez, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 45, 014003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 046301 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Engel, S

    J. Engel, S. Pittel, and P. Vogel, International Journal of Modern Physics E 1, 1 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    R. J. Gaitskell, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 315 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. C 89, 065501 (2014)

    2014

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Brussard and P

    P. Brussard and P. Glaudemans, Shell-model applications in nuclear spectroscopy (North-Holland Publishing Com- pany, Amsterdam, 1977)

    1977

  2. [10]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    S. C. Pieper, Nuclear Physics A 751, 516 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, and M. Hjorth- Jensen, Physical Review C 82, 034330 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. Bogner, T. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Physics Reports 621, 165 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 38, 29 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Navr´ atil, J

    P. Navr´ atil, J. Vary, and B. Barrett, Physical Review C 62, 054311 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´ atil, and J. P. Vary, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Bender, P.-H

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

    2003

  11. [19]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3315 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    Otsuka, M

    T. Otsuka, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, N. Shimizu, and Y. Utsuno, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 47, 319 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, J

    R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, J. L. Egido, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 65, 024304 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 74, 064309 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Bender and P.-H

    M. Bender and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024309 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044311 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez and J. L. Egido, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064323 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    C. F. Jiao, J. Engel, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054310 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Bonche, S

    P. Bonche, S. J. Krieger, M. S. Weiss, J. Dobaczewski, H. Flocard, and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 876 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    J. M. Yao, E. F. Zhou, and Z. P. Li, Phys. Rev. C 92, 041304 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Heenen, A

    P.-H. Heenen, A. Valor, M. Bender, P. Bonche, and H. Flocard, Eur. Phys. J. A 11, 393 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    N. L. Vaquero, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, and J. L. Egido, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 142501 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Vogel and M

    P. Vogel and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 3148 (1986)

    1986

  24. [32]

    Engel, P

    J. Engel, P. Vogel, and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. C 37, 731 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    ˇSimkovic, A

    F. ˇSimkovic, A. Faessler, V. Rodin, P. Vogel, and J. En- gel, Phys. Rev. C 77, 045503 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    M. T. Mustonen and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C 87, 064302 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Hinohara and J

    N. Hinohara and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C 90, 031301(R) (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Men´ endez, N

    J. Men´ endez, N. Hinohara, J. Engel, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez,Phys. Rev. C 93, 014305 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    C. F. Jiao, M. Horoi, and A. Neacsu, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064324 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Jancovici and D

    B. Jancovici and D. Schiff, Nuclear Physics 58, 678 (1964)

    1964

  31. [39]

    G. H. Lang, C. W. Johnson, S. E. Koonin, and W. E. Ormand, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1518 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    S. E. Koonin, D. J. Dean, and K. Langanke, Physics reports 278, 1 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Puddu, P

    G. Puddu, P. F. Bortignon, and R. A. Broglia, Phys. Rev. C 42, R1830 (1990)

    1990

  34. [42]

    Gao and M

    Z.-C. Gao and M. Horoi, Phys. Rev. C 79, 014311 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Chen and J

    F.-Q. Chen and J. L. Egido, Phys. Rev. C 95, 024307 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Suhonen, From nucleons to nucleus: concepts of micro- scopic nuclear theory (Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2007)

    J. Suhonen, From nucleons to nucleus: concepts of micro- scopic nuclear theory (Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Egido, J

    J. Egido, J. Lessing, V. Martin, and L. Robledo, Nuclear Physics A 594, 70 (1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    Neacsu and M

    A. Neacsu and M. Horoi, Phys. Rev. C 91, 024309 (2015) . 7

    2015

  39. [47]

    Horoi and A

    M. Horoi and A. Neacsu, Phys. Rev. C 93, 024308 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Qi and Z

    C. Qi and Z. X. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044323 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    C. W. Johnson and K. D. O’Mara, Phys. Rev. C 96, 064304 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    C. W. Johnson and C. Jiao, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 015101 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    J. M. Yao, J. Engel, L. J. Wang, C. F. Jiao, and H. Herg- ert, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054311 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 107, 1 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    ˇSimkovic, A

    F. ˇSimkovic, A. Faessler, H. M¨ uther, V. Rodin, and M. Stauf, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055501 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.