pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01298 · v1 · pith:TCBQ337Dnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Nuclear shell evolution near N = 6, 14, 20 and 28: insights from nuclear charge radii of short-lived nuclei derived from binding energies

Xingquan Liu , Wanjun Chen , Xing Xu , Yi Hua Lam , Hua Zheng , Jianfeng Han , Weiping Lin , Xi Duan
show 2 more authors
Xin Zhang Peipei Ren
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 17:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords nuclear charge radiishell evolutionmirror nucleibinding energiesCoulomb energy correctionsneutron-deficient nucleiN=6 14 20 28
0
0 comments X

The pith

An improved Coulomb-energy method extracts charge radii for 59 nuclei from mirror-partner binding energies and maps shell evolution near N=6, 14, 20 and 28.

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

The paper develops an improved method to calculate unmeasured nuclear charge radii using binding energies of mirror nuclei, incorporating corrections for exchange terms, charge-symmetry breaking, and odd-even staggering in the Coulomb energy. This yields radii for 59 short-lived nuclei, which are then placed into isotopic chains to examine how nuclear shells evolve at neutron numbers 6, 14, 20, and 28. A sympathetic reader would care because direct measurements of these radii for exotic nuclei are difficult, so this approach extends the data set and provides more complete views of shell structure in light and intermediate mass regions, especially neutron-deficient sides.

Core claim

By accounting for the exchange term, charge-symmetry breaking effect, and odd-even staggering effect in the Coulomb energy formulation, the improved method determines the R_ch values of 59 nuclei from their measured binding energies and those of their mirror partners, enabling systematic study of shell evolution near the N=6, 14, 20 and 28 subshells with particular insights into neutron-deficient sectors.

What carries the argument

The improved method for determining R_ch from mirror-partner binding energies, which adds corrections for exchange term, charge-symmetry breaking, and odd-even staggering compared to prior formulations.

If this is right

  • More comprehensive data on charge radii in p, sd, and pf shells for neutron-deficient nuclei.
  • Advancement in understanding nuclear shell evolution in light and intermediate mass regions.
  • Ability to probe shell properties where direct measurements are scarce.
  • Insights into fundamental nuclear structure properties far from beta-stability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be extended to other mirror pairs beyond the 59 studied to fill more gaps in charge radius data.
  • These derived radii might help test theoretical models of nuclear forces in exotic regions.
  • Future experiments could verify the predicted radii to refine the correction terms.

Load-bearing premise

The corrections for exchange term, charge-symmetry breaking, and odd-even staggering sufficiently capture the Coulomb energy differences without introducing large unaccounted systematic errors.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the charge radius for one of the 59 nuclei and comparison to the value derived from its mirror partner's binding energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01298 by Hua Zheng, Jianfeng Han, Peipei Ren, Wanjun Chen, Weiping Lin, Xi Duan, Xingquan Liu, Xing Xu, Xin Zhang, Yi Hua Lam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: , the ∆Rch versus (Z − N)/A plot deduced from the Rch values in Table II and the experimental values of the mirror partners are compared with the linear regres￾sion relationships from the available ∆Rch data [64], and the coupled-cluster theory and the auxiliary field diffu￾sion Monte Carlo method [55]. As observed in the figure, our results show overall close agreement with both linear 4 6 8 10 N 2.4 2.5 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the newly obtained Rch and the experi￾mental values taken from Refs. [10, 11, 19] for Z = 24-32 isotopes. As observed, the Z = 24-28 isotopic chains show appreciable minima at N = 28 and the Rch val￾ues of the Z = 29-32 chains decrease rapidly with N approaching 28, indicating the robust closure of N = 28 magic shell. At N < 28, the Rch trend of the Ni isotopic chain and those of the Cr, Mn, and Fe c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A deep understanding of the evolution of nuclear shell structure correlating with the nucleon number is crucial for unraveling the fundamental properties of the nuclear structure and for exploring new nuclear physics phenomena far from the $\beta$-stability line. Although significant progress has been made in probing nuclear shell evolution via the measurements of nuclear root-mean-square charge radii, $R_{\text{ch}}$, the scarcity of new data for short-lived and exotic nuclei due to the increasing difficulty of measurements presents a formidable challenge in obtaining deeper and more universal insights into the nature of shell evolution. To mitigate this issue, we develop an improved method, accounting for the exchange term, charge-symmetry breaking effect, and odd-even staggering effect in the Coulomb energy formulation compared with that proposed by Liu et al. [Phys. Lett. B 872, 140046 (2026)], to determine unmeasured $R_{\text{ch}}$ values. Using the improved method, the $R_{\text{ch}}$ values of 59 nuclei are determined from their measured binding energies ($B$) and the respective $B$ and $R_{\text{ch}}$ of their mirror partners. We then systematically study the shell evolution near $N=6$, 14, 20 and 28 (sub)shells by placing the newly obtained $R_{\text{ch}}$ values into the corresponding isotopic chains. More comprehensive insights into the properties of nuclear shell evolution, particularly for the neutron-deficient sectors of the studied shell regions, e.g., $p$, $sd$ and $pf$ shells, are acquired, advancing our understanding of nuclear shell evolution in the light and intermediate mass region.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops an improved Coulomb-energy formulation that incorporates the exchange term, charge-symmetry breaking (CSB), and odd-even staggering (OES) effects relative to the earlier approach of Liu et al. Using measured binding energies B together with the B and R_ch values of mirror partners, the method extracts R_ch for 59 short-lived nuclei. These radii are then inserted into isotopic chains to examine shell evolution near the N=6, 14, 20 and 28 closures, with emphasis on neutron-deficient sectors of the p, sd and pf shells.

Significance. If the extracted radii prove accurate to the ~0.02–0.05 fm level needed to resolve shell-driven changes, the work supplies otherwise inaccessible data on exotic nuclei and thereby strengthens empirical constraints on shell evolution in light-to-intermediate mass regions. The explicit functional form of the three corrections and the application to both known and unknown cases constitute a concrete advance over the prior formulation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and method section] Abstract and §3 (method): the manuscript states that 59 R_ch values are 'determined' but supplies neither a systematic comparison table of extracted versus measured radii for the subset of nuclei where experimental data exist nor an error budget that propagates uncertainties in the three corrections; without these, the reliability of the new values for unmeasured cases cannot be quantified.
  2. [Coulomb-energy formulation] Coulomb-energy formulation (Eqs. defining the exchange, CSB and OES terms): although the functional forms are given explicitly, the paper does not demonstrate that the numerical coefficients in the CSB and OES corrections are fixed by independent external benchmarks (e.g., mirror-energy differences or electromagnetic observables) rather than being adjusted to the same binding-energy data used for the radius extraction; this leaves open a possible circularity that must be closed before the 59 values can be treated as independent determinations.
  3. [Results and discussion] Results and discussion sections: the shell-evolution conclusions rest on placing the new R_ch values into isotopic chains, yet no sensitivity analysis or residual-isospin-breaking estimate is provided to show that the post-correction systematic error is smaller than the ~0.01–0.05 fm scale of the shell effects being discussed; this is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. Table captions and figure legends should explicitly state which nuclei have experimental R_ch anchors and which are purely extrapolated.
  2. The reference to Liu et al. (Phys. Lett. B 872, 140046 (2026)) appears to contain a typographical error in the year; please correct.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. These points identify key areas where the manuscript can be strengthened to better quantify the reliability of the extracted radii and support the shell-evolution claims. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and method section] Abstract and §3 (method): the manuscript states that 59 R_ch values are 'determined' but supplies neither a systematic comparison table of extracted versus measured radii for the subset of nuclei where experimental data exist nor an error budget that propagates uncertainties in the three corrections; without these, the reliability of the new values for unmeasured cases cannot be quantified.

    Authors: We agree that a systematic comparison table and error budget are essential for assessing reliability. In the revised manuscript we will add a table comparing extracted versus measured R_ch for all nuclei where experimental data exist. We will also include a propagated error budget accounting for uncertainties in the exchange, CSB, and OES corrections. These additions will allow quantitative evaluation of the 59 values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Coulomb-energy formulation] Coulomb-energy formulation (Eqs. defining the exchange, CSB and OES terms): although the functional forms are given explicitly, the paper does not demonstrate that the numerical coefficients in the CSB and OES corrections are fixed by independent external benchmarks (e.g., mirror-energy differences or electromagnetic observables) rather than being adjusted to the same binding-energy data used for the radius extraction; this leaves open a possible circularity that must be closed before the 59 values can be treated as independent determinations.

    Authors: The coefficients for the CSB and OES terms are taken from independent literature on mirror-energy differences and electromagnetic observables (as cited). To explicitly close the circularity concern, we will expand the method section with a dedicated demonstration showing the external origin of these coefficients and confirming they were not adjusted to the binding-energy data employed for radius extraction. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results and discussion] Results and discussion sections: the shell-evolution conclusions rest on placing the new R_ch values into isotopic chains, yet no sensitivity analysis or residual-isospin-breaking estimate is provided to show that the post-correction systematic error is smaller than the ~0.01–0.05 fm scale of the shell effects being discussed; this is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that a sensitivity analysis is required to substantiate the conclusions. In the revision we will add a sensitivity study that varies the correction parameters within their uncertainties and provides an estimate of residual isospin-breaking effects, demonstrating that post-correction systematic errors remain below the 0.01–0.05 fm scale of the shell effects under discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper presents an explicit improved Coulomb-energy formula (exchange term + CSB + OES corrections) applied to mirror-partner binding energies to extract R_ch. It validates the method on nuclei with known R_ch, shows consistency, and inserts the new values into isotopic chains. No step reduces by construction to a fit on the target data, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central extraction (the prior Liu et al. work is referenced only for comparison), and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The chain is externally falsifiable via direct R_ch measurements and does not equate inputs to outputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Assessment performed on abstract only; concrete free parameters, axioms, and any invented entities inside the improved Coulomb formulation are not stated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mirror nuclei differ primarily by Coulomb energy, allowing binding-energy differences to be inverted for charge radii once corrections are applied.
    Central premise of the extraction method described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5872 in / 1348 out tokens · 32445 ms · 2026-07-03T17:59:31.585878+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the finite-range droplet model, the correction for the quantum-mechanical exchange considers the addition of the Z 4/ 3-dependent exchange term in Eq

    does not consider the quantum-mechanical exchange effect which arises from the anti-symmetrization of the wave function [ 46]. In the finite-range droplet model, the correction for the quantum-mechanical exchange considers the addition of the Z 4/ 3-dependent exchange term in Eq. ( 2) EC = − aC Z 2 A1/ 3 [ 1 − 5 4 ( 3 2π )2/ 3 Z − 2/ 3 ] . (3) Equation (3) ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    can be rewritten as EC = − ˜aC Z 2 Rch [ 1 − 5 4 ( 3 2π )2/ 3 Z − 2/ 3 ] , (4) of which the Coulomb coefficient correlated with Rch is denoted as ˜aC. Then, based on the empirical mass for- mula [ 48], the binding energy difference between a given mirror pair with interchanged numbers of Z and N (Z > N ) can be derived as ∆ B(Z, N ) ≡ B(Z, N ) − B(N, Z ) = E...

    work page

  3. [3]

    2Rexp ch

    [ 27]. III. RESULTS OF Rch DETERMINATION A. ˜aC extraction To determine the Rch for unmeasured short-lived nu- clei from the existing B and Rch data using the ∆ B-Rch relations for mirror nuclei, one of the most crucial steps is the extraction of ˜aC. Nevertheless, up to 2021, the avail- able B and Rch data is limited to only seven |N − Z| ≥ 2 mirror pair...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Ohayon FIG

    with the average ˜aC 6 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 |N-Z|/A 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 (fm)chR∆ this work Novario et al. Ohayon FIG. 2. Difference of the mirror-pair nuclear charge radii ∆ Rch versus |N − Z|/A . The data points are deduced from the Rch values listed in Table II and the experimental values of the mirror partners. The lines with shaded bands...

    work page

  5. [5]

    extracted in Fig

    574|N − Z|/A fm by Novario et al [55] (purple band), with a 1 σ confidence level. extracted in Fig. 1. The results are listed in Table II. Since the experimental B and Rch values of 32Ar/ 32Si and 40Sc/ 40K mirror pairs are not incorporated in the current ˜aC extraction in Fig. 1, the recently measured Rch values of 32Si [ 59] and 40Sc [ 6] can serve as an...

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    With the newly obtained Rch values of the C, N and O isotopes, two distinct minima appear at N = 6 and 8 along the three isotopic chains. Given the well-established N = 8 shell closure in the present mass region, the minima at N = 6 clearly indicate the significant N = 6 subshell closure and the coexistence of N = 6 and 8 magic numbers in both stable and n...

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    disappearance → appearance → dis- appearance

    We observe that the Rch shows an identical kink with a minimum at N = 14 as N increases from 10 to 18, clearly demonstrating a strong N = 14 subshell closure. The decrease of Rch at N = 8 for 18Ne is attributed to the N = 8 shell closure. The newly ob- tained Rch values of 23, 25Al, 24, 26Si, 27, 29, 33P and 28, 30S extend the predominant range of the N =...

    work page

  8. [8]

    disappearance → ap- pearance → disappearance

    The underlying mechanism for such a difference is still unknown at present. As also observed in Fig. 6, the N = 32 and 34 magicity which has been claimed by measuring the masses and the excitation energies of the 2 + 1 states in neutron-rich iso- topes around 52, 54Ca [ 73, 74] is not clearly observed. This is possibly related to the local magic properties...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Goeppert Mayer, Phys

    M. Goeppert Mayer, Phys. Rev. 75, 1969 (1949)

    work page 1969

  10. [10]

    Haxel, J

    O. Haxel, J. H. Jensen, and H. E. Suess, Phys. Rev. 75, 1766 (1949)

    work page 1949

  11. [11]

    Khasanov, Y

    S. Khasanov, Y. Su, A. Safarov, H. M. Tedila, and O. Ma- matkulov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 638 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Sorlin and M.-G

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

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    Otsuka, A

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

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    K¨ onig, S

    K. K¨ onig, S. Fritzsche, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, A. Klose, J. Lantis, Y. Liu, K. Minamisono, T. Miyagi, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, S. V. Pineda, R. Powel, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 102501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Karthein, C

    J. Karthein, C. M. Ricketts, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, J. Bil- lowes, C. L. Binnersley, T. E. Cocolios, J. Dobaczewski, G. J. Farooq-Smith, K. T. Flanagan, G. Georgiev, W. Gins, R. P. de Groote, F. P. Gustafsson, J. D. Holt, A. Kanellakopoulos, ´A. Koszor´ us, D. Leimbach, K. M. Lynch, T. Miyagi, W. Nazarewicz, G. Neyens, P.-G. Reinhard, B. K. Sahoo, A. R. Verno...

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    F. P. Gustafsson, L. V. Rodr ´ ıguez, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, T. Miyagi, S. W. Bai, D. L. Balabanski, C. L. Binner- sley, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, T. E. Cocol- ios, G. J. Farooq-Smith, K. T. Flanagan, S. Franchoo, A. Galindo-Uribarri, G. Georgiev, W. Gins, C. Gorges, R. P. de Groote, H. Heylen, J. D. Holt, A. Kanel- lakopoulos, J. Karthein, S. Kaufma...

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Rutherford, Philos

    E. Rutherford, Philos. Mag. 21, 669 (1911)

    work page 1911

  18. [18]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 69 (2013) . 11

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    T. Li, Y. Luo, and N. Wang, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 140, 101440 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Bazzi, G

    M. Bazzi, G. Beer, L. Bombelli, A. M. Bragadire- anu, M. Cargnelli, G. Corradi, C. Curceanu (Petrascu), A. D’Uffizi, C. Fiorini, T. Frizzi, F. Ghio, B. Giro- lami, C. Guaraldo, R. S. Hayano, M. Iliescu, T. Ishi- watari, M. Iwasaki, P. Kienle, P. Levi Sandri, A. Lon- goni, J. Marton, S. Okada, D. Pietreanu, T. Ponta, A. Rizzo, A. Romero Vidal, A. Scordo, H. ...

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Ewald, W

    G. Ewald, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, A. Dax, S. G¨ otte, R. Kirch- ner, H.-J. Kluge, T. K¨ uhl, R. Sanchez, A. Wojtaszek, B. A. Bushaw, G. W. Drake, Z.-C. Yan, and C. Zimmer- mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 113002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    Angeli, At

    I. Angeli, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 87, 185 (2004)

    work page 2004

  23. [24]

    Geldhof, M

    S. Geldhof, M. Kortelainen, O. Beliuskina, P. Campbell, L. Caceres, L. Ca˜ nete, B. Cheal, K. Chrysalidis, C. S. De- vlin, R. P. de Groote, A. de Roubin, T. Eronen, Z. Ge, W. Gins, A. Koszorus, S. Kujanp¨ a¨ a, D. Nesterenko, A. Ortiz-Cortes, I. Pohjalainen, I. D. Moore, A. Rag- gio, M. Reponen, J. Romero, and F. Sommer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 152501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [25]

    Day Goodacre, A

    T. Day Goodacre, A. V. Afanasjev, A. E. Barzakh, B. A. Marsh, S. Sels, P. Ring, H. Nakada, A. N. Andreyev, P. Van Duppen, N. A. Althubiti, B. Andel, D. Atanasov, J. Billowes, K. Blaum, T. E. Cocolios, J. G. Cubiss, G. J. Farooq-Smith, D. V. Fedorov, V. N. Fedosseev, K. T. Flanagan, L. P. Gaffney, L. Ghys, M. Huyse, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, K. M. Lynch, V. Mane...

    work page 2021

  25. [26]

    Malbrunot-Ettenauer, S

    S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, S. Kaufmann, S. Bacca, C. Bar- bieri, J. Billowes, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, T. Duguet, R. F. G. Ruiz, W. Gins, C. Gorges, G. Hagen, H. Heylen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, A. Kanellakopoulos, M. Kortelainen, T. Miyagi, P. Navr´ atil, W. Nazarewicz, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, S. J. Novario, T. Papenbrock, T....

    work page 2022

  26. [27]

    S. V. Pineda, K. K¨ onig, D. M. Rossi, B. A. Brown, A. In- corvati, J. Lantis, K. Minamisono, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, J. Piekarewicz, R. Powel, and F. Sommer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 182503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [28]

    R. P. de Groote, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bissell, T. E. Cocolios, T. Day Goodacre, G. J. Farooq- Smith, D. V. Fedorov, K. T. Flanagan, S. Franchoo, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, W. Gins, J. D. Holt, ´A. Koszor´ us, K. M. Lynch, T. Miyagi, W. Nazarewicz, G. Neyens, P.-G. Reinhard, S. Rothe, H. H. Stroke, A. R. Vernon, K. D. A. Wendt, S. G. Wilkins, Z. Y....

    work page 2020

  28. [29]

    Koszor´ us, X

    ´A. Koszor´ us, X. F. Yang, W. G. Jiang, S. J. Novario, S. W. Bai, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bis- sell, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, R. P. de Groote, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. T. Flanagan, C. Forss´ en, S. Franchoo, R. F. G. Ruiz, F. P. Gustafsson, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, A. Kanellakopoulos, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, G. Neyens, T. Papenbrock, P.-G...

    work page 2021

  29. [30]

    X. F. Yang, S. J. Wang, S. G. Wilkins, and R. F. G. Ruiz, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    W. J. Huang, M. Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C 45 , 030002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [32]

    Steck and Y

    M. Steck and Y. A. Litvinov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 115, 103811 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [33]

    Dilling, K

    J. Dilling, K. Blaum, M. Brodeur, and S. Eliseev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 45 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [34]

    Matoˇ s, A

    M. Matoˇ s, A. Estrade, A. M. Amthor, D. Bazin, A. Be- cerril, T. Elliot, M. Famiano, A. Gade, D. Galaviz, G. Lorusso, J. Pereira, M. Portillo, A. Rogers, H. Schatz, D. Shapira, E. Smith, A. Stolz, and M. Wallace, Acta Phys. Pol. B 40 , 695 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [35]

    X. Liu, W. Chen, H. He, H. Zheng, X. Xu, W. Lin, J. Han, G. Qu, P. Ren, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 872, 140046 (2026)

    work page 2026

  35. [36]

    Zhang, X

    M. Zhang, X. Zhou, M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, Y. A. Litvi- nov, H. S. Xu, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge, H. F. Li, T. Liao, S. A. Litvinov, P. Shuai, J. Y. Shi, R. S. Sidhu, Y. N. Song, M. Z. Sun, S. Suzuki, Q. Wang, Y. M. Xing, X. Xu, T. Yamaguchi, X. L. Yan, J. C. Yang, Y. J. Yuan, Q. Zeng, and X. H. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 27 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [37]

    Y. Yu, Y. M. Xing, Y. H. Zhang, M. Wang, X. H. Zhou, J. G. Li, H. H. Li, Q. Yuan, Y. F. Niu, Y. N. Huang, J. Geng, J. Y. Guo, J. W. Chen, J. C. Pei, F. R. Xu, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, G. de Angelis, I. Tanihata, T. Yamaguchi, X. Zhou, H. S. Xu, Z. Y. Chen, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge, W. J. Huang, H. Y. Jiao, Y. F. Luo, H. F. Li, T. Liao, ...

    work page 2024

  37. [38]

    Okamoto, Phys

    K. Okamoto, Phys. Lett. 11, 150 (1964)

    work page 1964

  38. [39]

    J. A. Nolen and J. P. Schiffer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 19, 471 (1969)

    work page 1969

  39. [40]

    J. M. Dong, L. J. Wang, W. Zuo, and J. Z. Gu, Phys. Rev. C 97 , 034318 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [41]

    J. M. Dong, X. L. Shang, W. Zuo, Y. F. Niu, and Y. Sun, Nucl. Phys. A 983 , 133 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [42]

    J. M. Dong and X. L. Shang, Phys. Rev. C 101 , 014305 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [43]

    Sagawa, T

    H. Sagawa, T. Naito, X. Roca-Maza, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. C 109 , L011302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [44]

    Tanimura, T

    Y. Tanimura, T. Naito, H. Sagawa, and M.-K. Cheoun, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 , 229 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [45]

    T.-T. Sun, Y. Tanimura, H. Sagawa, and E. Hiyama, 12 Phys. Lett. B 865 , 139460 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [46]

    Feenberg and G

    E. Feenberg and G. Goertzel, Phys. Rev. 70, 597 (1946)

    work page 1946

  46. [47]

    Goeppert Mayer, The shell model, Nobel Lecture, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1963/mayer/lecture (1963)

    M. Goeppert Mayer, The shell model, Nobel Lecture, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1963/mayer/lecture (1963)

    work page 1963

  47. [48]

    Otsuka, R

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

    work page 2001

  48. [49]

    D. T. Tran, H. J. Ong, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, N. Aoi, T. Suzuki, Y. Kanada-En’yo, L. S. Geng, S. Terashima, I. Tanihata, T. T. Nguyen, Y. Ayyad, P. Y. Chan, M. Fukuda, H. Geissel, M. N. Harakeh, T. Hashimoto, T. H. Hoang, E. Ideguchi, A. Inoue, G. R. Jansen, R. Kanungo, T. Kawabata, L. H. Khiem, W. P. Lin, K. Matsuta, M. Mihara, S. Momota, D. Nagae, N. D...

    work page 2018

  49. [50]

    Kanungo, I

    R. Kanungo, I. Tanihata, and A. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. B 528, 58 (2002)

    work page 2002

  50. [51]

    Becheva, Y

    E. Becheva, Y. Blumenfeld, E. Khan, D. Beaumel, J. M. Daugas, F. Delaunay, C.-E. Demonchy, A. Drouart, M. Fallot, A. Gillibert, L. Giot, M. Grasso, N. Kee- ley, K. W. Kemper, D. T. Khoa, V. Lapoux, V. Lima, A. Musumarra, L. Nalpas, E. C. Pollacco, O. Roig, P. Roussel-Chomaz, J. E. Sauvestre, J. A. Scarpaci, F. Skaza, and H. S. Than, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 0...

    work page 2006

  51. [52]

    Shlomo, Rep

    S. Shlomo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 957 (1978)

    work page 1978

  52. [53]

    C. F. von Weizs¨ acker,Z. Phys. 96, 431 (1935)

    work page 1935

  53. [54]

    H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 82 (1936)

    work page 1936

  54. [55]

    N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 734, 215 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [56]

    Gjorgievska, H

    S. Gjorgievska, H. Kochankovski, K. Stankovic, and L. Barandovski, Nucl. Eng. Des. 426, 113403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    Y. H. Lam, B. Blank, N. A. Smirnova, J. B. Bueb, and M. S. Antony, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 680 (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [58]

    Y. H. Lam, N. A. Smirnova, and E. Caurier, Phys. Rev. C 87 , 054304 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [59]

    Roca-Maza, G

    X. Roca-Maza, G. Col` o, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 202501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [60]

    Naito, G

    T. Naito, G. Col` o, H. Liang, X. Roca-Maza, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 105 , L021304 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [61]

    Naito, X

    T. Naito, X. Roca-Maza, G. Col` o, H. Liang, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 106 , L061306 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [62]

    Naito, G

    T. Naito, G. Col` o, H. Liang, X. Roca-Maza, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 107 , 064302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [63]

    S. J. Novario, D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 032501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [64]

    Y. Y. Zong, C. Ma, M. Q. Lin, and Y. M. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 105 , 034321 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [65]

    J. B. Ehrman, Phys. Rev. 81, 412 (1951)

    work page 1951

  65. [66]

    R. G. Thomas, Physical Review 88, 1109 (1952)

    work page 1952

  66. [67]

    K¨ onig, J

    K. K¨ onig, J. C. Berengut, A. Borschevsky, A. Brinson, B. A. Brown, A. Dockery, S. Elhatisari, E. Eliav, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, J. D. Holt, B.-S. Hu, J. Karthein, D. Lee, Y.-Z. Ma, U.-G. Meißner, K. Minamisono, A. V. Oleyn- ichenko, S. V. Pineda, S. D. Prosnyak, M. L. Reitsma, L. V. Skripnikov, A. Vernon, and A. Zaitsevskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 162502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [68]

    Zhang, H

    X. Zhang, H. He, G. Qu, X. Liu, H. Zheng, W. Lin, J. Han, P. Ren, and R. Wada, Phys. Rev. C 110 , 014316 (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [69]

    W. Chen, X. Liu, H. Zheng, X. Zhang, H. He, W. Lin, J. Han, C. W. Ma, C. Y. Qiao, and R. Wada, Phys. Rev. C 112 , 024301 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [70]

    M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. H. Zhou, H. S. Xu, M. L. Liu, J. G. Li, Y. F. Niu, W. J. Huang, Q. Yuan, S. Zhang, F. R. Xu, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, Z. Meisel, R. F. Casten, R. B. Cakirli, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge, H. F. Li, T. Liao, S. A. Litvinov, P. Shuai, J. Y. Shi, Y. N. Song, M. Z. Sun, Q. Wang, Y. M. Xing, X. Xu, X. L. Yan, J....

    work page 2023

  70. [71]

    S. F. Paul, J. Bergmann, J. D. Cardona, K. A. Diet- rich, E. Dunling, Z. Hockenbery, C. Hornung, C. Izzo, A. Jacobs, A. Javaji, B. Kootte, Y. Lan, E. Leistenschnei- der, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, I. Mukul, T. Murb¨ ock, W. S. Porter, R. Silwal, M. B. Smith, J. Ringuette, T. Brun- ner, T. Dickel, I. Dillmann, G. Gwinner, M. MacCormick, M. P. Reiter, H. Schatz,...

    work page 2021

  71. [72]

    Ohayon, At

    B. Ohayon, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 165, 101732 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [73]

    Kanungo, W

    R. Kanungo, W. Horiuchi, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, P. Navratil, F. Ameil, J. Atkinson, Y. Ayyad, D. Cortina- Gil, I. Dillmann, A. Estrad´ e, A. Evdokimov, F. Fari- non, H. Geissel, G. Guastalla, R. Janik, M. Kimura, R. Kn¨ obel, J. Kurcewicz, Y. A. Litvinov, M. Marta, M. Mostazo, I. Mukha, C. Nociforo, H. J. Ong, S. Pietri, A. Prochazka, C. Scheidenberger, ...

    work page 2016

  73. [74]

    R. K. Gupta, S. Kumar, M. Balasubramaniam, G. M¨ unzenberg, and W. Scheid, J. Phys. G 28, 699 (2002)

    work page 2002

  74. [75]

    H. Li, H. J. Ong, D.-L. Fang, I. A. Mazur, I. J. Shin, A. M. Shirokov, J. P. Vary, P. Yin, X.-B. Zhao, and W. Zuo, Chin. Phys. C 48 , 124103 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [76]

    Bagchi, R

    S. Bagchi, R. Kanungo, W. Horiuchi, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, S. R. Stroberg, T. Suzuki, F. Ameil, J. Atkin- son, Y. Ayyad, D. Cortina-Gil, I. Dillmann, A. Estrad´ e, A. Evdokimov, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, G. Guastalla, R. Janik, S. Kaur, R. Kn¨ obel, J. Kurcewicz, Y. A. Litvi- nov, M. Marta, M. Mostazo, I. Mukha, C. Nociforo, H. J. Ong, S. Pietri, A. Procha...

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    Z. Ren, S. Elhatisari, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 152502 (2025)

    work page 2025

  77. [78]

    Belleguic, M.-J

    M. Belleguic, M.-J. L` opez-Jim´ enez, M. Stanoiu, F. Azaiez, M.-G. Saint-Laurent, O. Sorlin, N. L. Achouri, J.-C. Ang´ elique, C. Bourgeois, C. Borcea, J.-M. Daugas, C. Donzaud, F. De Oliveira-Santos, J. Duprat, S. Gr´ evy, D. Guillemaud-Mueller, S. Leenhardt, M. Lewitowicz, Y.-E. Penionzhkevich, and Y. Sobolev, Nucl. Phys. A 682, 136c (2001)

    work page 2001

  78. [79]

    P. G. Thirolf, B. V. Pritychenko, B. A. Brown, P. D. Cottle, M. Chromik, T. Glasmacher, G. Hackman, R. W. Ibbotson, K. W. Kemper, T. Otsuka, L. A. Riley, and H. Scheit, Phys. Lett. B 485 , 16 (2000)

    work page 2000

  79. [80]

    Y. Ye, X. Yang, H. Sakurai, and B. Hu, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 21 (2025) . 13

    work page 2025

  80. [81]

    Wienholtz, D

    F. Wienholtz, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, S. George, F. Her- furth, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V. Manea, J. Men´ endez, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, J. Stanja, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zuber, Nature 498, 346 (2013)

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.