Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 73 references

Nuclear structure and weak rates of heavy waiting point nuclei under rp-process conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 rp-process waiting-point nucleus $^{80}$Zr has stellar weak rates twice the previous QRPA values, with electron capture competing strongly with positron decay.

desk verdict Useful new pn-QRPA rates for five N=Z waiting-point nuclei, undercut by an internal contradiction over which nucleus shows the factor-two excess and an unresolved calibration circularity. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03502 v1 pith:YUGF6HBO submitted 2025-05-06 nucl-th

Jameel-Un Nabi , Mahmut Boyukata This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 21.10.-k21.60.Jz21.60.Ev21.60.Fw23.40.-s26.30.Jk26.50.+x
keywords nuclearstructureweakratesIBM-1pn-QRPArp-processwaitingpointnucleiN=Zelectroncapture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the weak-interaction rates governing the rp-process through the $N=Z$ waiting-point nuclei $^{80}$Zr, $^{84}$Mo, $^{88}$Ru, $^{92}$Pd, and $^{96}$Cd should be revised for $^{80}$Zr: under rp-process conditions the total stellar weak rate is about twice the rate from a previous Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA calculation, while the other four nuclei agree within the usual tolerance. The same calculation finds that continuum electron capture is not a negligible correction: as density and temperature rise, capture rates grow until they exceed positron decay rates by up to a factor of five. If these results are right, rp-process network calculations for explosive hydrogen burning should include electron capture and use higher weak rates at $^{80}$Zr.

What carries the argument

The engine is the proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation (pn-QRPA), which generates Gamow-Teller strength distributions and the stellar rates from a deformed Nilsson basis; the basis uses quadrupole deformations from a relativistic mean-field calculation, with BCS pairing and a separable Gamow-Teller residual interaction. The particle-hole strength is fixed at $\chi=4.2/A$ to reproduce terrestrial half-lives. The interacting boson model (IBM-1), with Hamiltonian $\epsilon \hat{n}_d + a_2 \hat{Q}\cdot\hat{Q}$, is used only for energy levels and potential energy surfaces that classify each nucleus as spherical or deformed. The pn-QRPA's access to many (up to seven) oscillator shells is what lets the rate sum converge at high temperature.

What would settle it

Measure the Gamow-Teller strength distribution of $^{80}$Zr, for example with high-resolution charge-exchange or total-absorption $\beta$-decay spectroscopy, and compare the total low-lying $B(GT^+)$ with the pn-QRPA prediction; if the measured distribution is closer to the Skyrme-QRPA one, the factor-two rate excess and the electron-capture dominance would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Gamow-Teller strength of the self-conjugate waiting-point nucleus $^{80}$Zr is much more fragmented and larger in the pn-QRPA model than in the Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA model, and this extra low-lying strength doubles the computed stellar weak rate under rp-process conditions. For $^{84}$Mo, $^{88}$Ru, $^{92}$Pd, and $^{96}$Cd the total rates from the two models compare well, although the individual positron-decay and capture contributions differ. A separate result is that continuum electron capture is significant throughout the rp-process parameter range and becomes the dominant weak channel at $\rho=10^7$ g cm$^{-3}$, up to five times the positron-decay rate. The paper takes this as evidence that electron capture belongs in rp-process weak-rate input.

Load-bearing premise

The rates stand on adopting quadrupole deformations from a relativistic mean-field calculation rather than the authors' own IBM-1 values, and on tuning the particle-hole interaction strength to reproduce terrestrial half-lives of these same nuclei; if the true shapes of these $N=Z$ nuclei differ, or if half-life tuning does not carry over to stellar conditions, the factor-two excess for $^{80}$Zr would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $^{80}$Zr rate is indeed twice the Skyrme-QRPA value, rp-process network calculations that use the older rate will underestimate how quickly material clears the $^{80}$Zr waiting point, shifting the abundance flow toward heavier masses.
  • Continuum electron capture should be included in rp-process weak-rate input; at $\rho=10^7$ g cm$^{-3}$ it exceeds positron decay by up to a factor of five, so omitting it changes the effective lifetime and heating of the flow.
  • The predicted electron-capture cross sections rise by roughly two orders of magnitude between $T=0.5$ and $1.0$ MeV because of thermal unblocking of the Gamow-Teller channel, so the temperature dependence of the thermal population matters, not just the ground-state strength.
  • The reported beta-delayed proton energy rates and emission probabilities for these five waiting-point nuclei provide new input that can alter the composition of X-ray burst ashes and, through them, models of neutron-star crusts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factor-two excess for $^{80}$Zr is confirmed by direct strength data, rp-process network simulations would need rerunning; the most testable external consequences are X-ray burst light curves and the ash composition of the neutron-star crust.
  • Because the authors chose relativistic mean-field deformations instead of their own IBM-1 values, which are three to five times larger, one could recompute the same rates with the IBM-1 deformations to isolate how much of the $^{80}$Zr excess is shape-driven.
  • A shell-model diagonalization in the $A=80$--$100$ region would test whether the fragmented strength pattern is a robust physical feature or an artifact of the QRPA treatment; no such comparison is made in the paper.
  • The highest temperatures in the grid (up to 30 GK) go beyond rp-process conditions; those rates may be relevant to other astrophysical sites such as core-collapse supernovae or accretion disks, but the paper does not make that application.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript examines the structure and weak-interaction properties of the five N=Z rp-process waiting-point nuclei 80Zr, 84Mo, 88Ru, 92Pd, and 96Cd. The authors fit the IBM-1 Hamiltonian parameters to experimental level schemes (and to a shell-model calculation for 96Cd), compute potential energy surfaces and shape predictions, and then use a deformed Nilsson-basis pn-QRPA model to calculate GT+ strength distributions, terrestrial half-lives, stellar positron-decay and continuum electron-capture rates, electron-capture cross sections, and energy rates and emission probabilities of beta-delayed protons. The stellar rates are compared with Sarriguren's Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA results; the abstract claims that the total weak rate for 80Zr is twice the Skyrme rate under rp-process conditions and that electron capture competes significantly with positron decay. The paper's headline result is clouded by an internal contradiction: the Abstract and Section 4 attribute the factor-two excess to 80Zr, while Section 5 attributes it to 84Mo; additionally, the particle-hole strength chi and the adopted deformations are calibrated on the same half-lives that are later presented as validation.

Significance. If the results hold, a factor-two change in the total weak rate for one of the heavier N=Z waiting-point nuclei and the finding that continuum electron capture reaches parity with positron decay at relevant densities (Table 3) are the kind of input that could matter for rp-process network calculations in Type I X-ray burst models; the electron-capture cross sections for these nuclei are presented as a new observable. The manuscript is transparent about its model choices, stating chi=4.2/A, kappa=0.1 MeV, the GT quenching factor f_q^2=0.6, and the RMF deformations explicitly, and the rate formalism follows the standard pn-QRPA equations (Eqs. 13-26). These are genuine strengths, as is the systematic comparison with a previous HF+BCS+QRPA calculation. The significance is capped, however, by the unresolved abstract-versus-conclusions contradiction and by the absence of a sensitivity analysis for the calibrated parameters, so the factor-two claim is not yet robustly established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4 (Figs. 15-16); §5] The central claim of the paper is internally inconsistent. The Abstract states that 'the calculated total weak rates are twice the Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA rates for 80Zr,' and the Section 4 discussion of Fig. 15 repeats this for 80Zr, while the same section says that for 84Mo 'the total rates are in overall good agreement with Sarriguren's rates.' Section 5, however, concludes that 'Our total weak rates are a factor two bigger than the Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA calculated rates for 84Mo' and that the remaining nuclei, which would include 80Zr, agree well. The manuscript must state consistently which nucleus or nuclei exhibit the factor-two excess and reconcile the Abstract, Section 4, and Section 5; as written, the abstract-level result cannot be evaluated.
  2. [§3.1; §4, Figs. 7-8] The validation of the rate calculation is partly circular, so the headline factor-two result is not yet secured. Section 3.1 fixes chi=4.2/A as the value that 'best reproduced the experimental half-lives' (Refs. 60, 61) and adopts the RMF deformations of Ref. 59; Section 4 then uses those same experimental half-lives in Fig. 7 as evidence of agreement, and Fig. 8 shows that the calculated half-lives depend strongly on the deformation parameter. Because the factor-two total-rate excess for 80Zr (Fig. 15) and the EC/β+ ratios of Table 3 come from the same calibrated calculation, a concrete sensitivity test is needed: please vary chi over a plausible range (for example 3.5-5)/A and beta within the RMF/IBM uncertainties, and report how the 80Zr excess and the Table 3 ratios change.
  3. [§3.1; Table 1] The deformation input is load-bearing and conflicts with the paper's own structure calculation. Table 1 lists β_IBM=0.87 for 80Zr while the adopted RMF value is 0.437, and β_IBM=0.50 (prolate) for 84Mo while the adopted RMF value is -0.247 (oblate); these RMF values determine the Nilsson basis for all GT-strength and rate results. Since Section 4 (Fig. 8) demonstrates strong half-life sensitivity to beta, and since the GT strength distributions in Figs. 5-6 differ markedly from Sarriguren's, the claimed rate excess depends on this external input. Please either justify the RMF deformations quantitatively for these soft N=Z nuclei, or perform the rate calculation with the IBM-1 deformations (or a range of beta) and discuss the effect of the factor-of-3-5 difference between β_IBM and the geometric-model beta on the final rates.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4, paragraph on Fig. 9] The text attributes the '(Ee − Q + Ei − Ef)^2 factor' to Eq. (14), but this factor appears in Eq. (13), the electron-capture cross-section formula; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Table 3] The caption refers to the 'pn-QRPA(N) model,' but the notation (N) is not defined anywhere in the text; the authors should either define it or remove it.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (9)] The last term of Eq. (9) is missing a closing parenthesis: the printed 'δ(pf_2, p_i_2 < n^f_2c | ... >' should read 'δ(pf_2, p_i_2) < n^f_2c | ... >'; as printed, the equation cannot be parsed unambiguously.
  4. [§4, Figs. 10-19] The shaded 'rp-process' temperature window in Figs. 15-19 is never defined quantitatively in the text or captions; stating the adopted T9 range would allow the reader to reconcile the abstract's claim that electron capture rates 'compete well' with positron-decay rates against Table 3, where the EC/β+ ratio reaches unity only at T9 ≈ 4.5-5.5 at ρ = 10^6 g/cm^3.
  5. [§4, Fig. 7 paragraph] For 84Mo, the calculated half-life deviates by 71% from the measured value, yet the text concludes that the calculated half-lives are 'in good agreement' with experiment; given that Section 5 names 84Mo as the nucleus with the factor-two rate excess, the authors should soften this wording or explain the origin of the 84Mo deviation.
  6. [§3.1] The procedure of replacing theoretical levels with experimental levels when they lie within 0.5 MeV is described, but the manuscript does not state how many levels were replaced for each of the five nuclei; a brief statement would improve the reproducibility of the stellar-rate calculation.
  7. [§3.1; §4] The authors acknowledge that 'Collective states cannot be treated in the current pn-QRPA model,' and they mitigate this by inserting experimental levels within 0.5 MeV. Since Section 4 classifies 84Mo as O(6)-like (γ-unstable) and 88Ru as close to the E(5) critical point, the static-deformation assumption is least reliable precisely for these soft nuclei; a short discussion of how shape fluctuations might affect the central rate comparison would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Half-life calibration of the pn-QRPA interaction strength chi is recycled as validation; the stellar-rate factor-two claim inherits this calibration without a sensitivity study.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 and Section 4, Fig. 7]
    "We could conclude a value of 4 .2/A as the optimum value of χ which best reproduced the experimental half-lives (60; 61) using the deformation parameter from (59) (see (21) for related discussions). ... Our calculated half-lives are in good agreement with experimental values. Our calculated percentage deviation from measured values for 80Zr, 84Mo, 88Ru, 92Pd and 96Cd are 21%, 71%, 17%, 2% and 17%, respectively."

    The interaction strength χ is adjusted until the pn-QRPA half-lives of exactly these five waiting-point nuclei match the measured half-lives; those same measured half-lives are then quoted as independent validation in Fig. 7. The agreement is therefore imposed by the calibration procedure, not demonstrated by an independent test. The stellar weak rates are computed with this same calibrated χ and with a deformation chosen (Fig. 8) partly for its ability to reproduce the same measured half-lives, so the claimed factor-of-two excess for 80Zr under rp-process conditions is not a parameter-free prediction. No χ or β sensitivity study is presented, leaving open whether the rate comparison is robust or a by-product of the calibration.

full rationale

The core stellar-rate predictions are not fitted to Sarriguren's Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA rates; they are compared with that calculation as an external benchmark, so the comparison itself has independent content. The main circularity is confined to the half-life chain: χ is fitted to reproduce the experimental half-lives of the same five nuclei, and that agreement is then presented as validation. Self-citation is not load-bearing here: Ref. [21] is invoked only for 'related discussions', and the χ value itself follows the external calibration of Ref. [40]. The abstract/conclusion inconsistency, which names 80Zr in the Abstract but 84Mo in the Conclusions as the factor-of-two nucleus, is an internal-correctness risk rather than a circularity, but it compounds the difficulty of evaluating the central claim. A score of 5 reflects partial circularity: the half-life 'validation' reduces by construction, while the stellar weak-rate predictions inherit the calibrated parameter but are not themselves derived from the comparison they claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on fitted inputs (IBM-1 parameters calibrated to spectra, chi calibrated to half-lives, kappa fixed, quenching factor (0.6)^2) and on external RMF deformations. No invented entities are introduced. The models themselves, IBM-1 and pn-QRPA, are standard tools taken from the literature, and the paper's quantitative claims inherit the validity of those models and of the external deformation inputs.

free parameters (7)
  • IBM-1 epsilon (d-boson energy) = 314.8, 803.1, 807.7, 871.2, 1029.2 keV (80Zr, 84Mo, 88Ru, 92Pd, 96Cd)
    Fitted to reproduce experimental ground state band energies for four nuclei and the shell model spectrum for 96Cd (Section 4, Table 2).
  • IBM-1 a2 (quadrupole interaction) = -80, -48.5, -41.3, 14.8, 50 keV
    Second Hamiltonian parameter fitted in the same procedure; it determines the deformed or spherical character in the potential energy surface (Section 4, Table 2).
  • IBM-1 chi (quadrupole operator parameter) = -0.25, -0.4, -0.35, -0.35, -0.35
    Third parameter in the fit; sensitivity to this parameter is not analyzed (Section 4, Table 2).
  • pn-QRPA particle-hole strength chi_Q = 4.2/A (e.g., 0.0525 for A=80)
    Set to the value that best reproduces the experimental half-lives of the studied nuclei (Section 3.1); this is a calibration to the validation observable.
  • pn-QRPA particle-particle strength kappa = 0.1 MeV
    Fixed at 0.1 MeV; the paper notes kappa shifts beta-plus strength to lower energies (Section 3).
  • GT quenching factor f_q^2 = (0.6)^2 = 0.36
    Applied to the pn-QRPA GT strength to match previous calculations and experimental data (Section 3.1).
  • RMF deformation parameter beta = 0.437, -0.247, 0.107, 0.112, 0.003
    External inputs taken from Ref. 59 and used in the Nilsson basis of the pn-QRPA; the half-life and rate results are sensitive to these values (Fig. 8).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The IBM-1 Hamiltonian H = epsilon n_d + a2 Q.Q provides an adequate description of the low-lying structure of these N=Z nuclei when its parameters are fitted to data.
    Standard nuclear structure assumption invoked in Section 2; parameters are fitted, so the level agreement is not an independent test.
  • domain assumption The pn-QRPA model with separable GT residual interactions and a BCS-paired Nilsson basis describes the relevant Gamow-Teller strength for these nuclei.
    The model is imported from Ref. 38 and its earlier validation is cited (Section 3); no direct experimental B(GT) data for these nuclei are available.
  • domain assumption All daughter states with excitation energy above the proton separation energy Sp decay by proton emission.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 3.3, Eqs. (25)-(26); affects the beta-delayed proton rates and probabilities.
  • domain assumption Experimental levels replace theoretical levels when they lie within 0.5 MeV, and only up to the energy where compilations have definite spin/parity.
    Data-handling rule described in Section 3.1; it modifies the parent state spectrum used in the rate sums.
  • domain assumption The RMF deformation parameters of Ref. 59 are the correct deformations to use for these nuclei in the pn-QRPA calculation.
    The paper explicitly chooses these over its own IBM-1 beta values because beta_IBM is a factor 3-5 larger (Section 3).
  • standard math The Fermi function prescription of Gove and Martin (Ref. 63) gives an adequate treatment of Coulomb distortion in the phase space integrals.
    Standard formula used in Eq. (13) and cited to Ref. 63.
  • domain assumption The mass compilation of Audi et al. (AME2012) provides accurate ground state masses (Q-values) for these neutron-deficient nuclei.
    Q-values are taken from Refs. 60 and 61 (Section 3.1); mass uncertainties are not propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear structure and weak rates of heavy waiting point nuclei under rp-process conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUGF6HBO

@misc{pith2026250503502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear structure and weak rates of heavy waiting point nuclei under rp-process conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUGF6HBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03502}
}
abstract

The structure and the weak interaction mediated rates of the heavy waiting point (WP) nuclei $^{80}$Zr, $^{84}$Mo, $^{88}$Ru, $^{92}$Pd and $^{96}$Cd along $N = Z$ line were studied within the interacting boson model-1 (\mbox{IBM-1}) and the proton-neutron quasi-particle random phase approximation (\mbox{pn-QRPA}). The energy levels of the $N$ = $Z$ WP nuclei were calculated by fitting the essential parameters of \mbox{IBM-1} Hamiltonian and their geometric shapes were predicted by plotting potential energy surfaces (PESs). Half-lives, continuum electron capture rates, positron decay rates, electron capture cross sections of WP nuclei, energy rates of $\beta$-delayed protons and their emission probabilities were later calculated using the \mbox{pn-QRPA}. The calculated Gamow-Teller strength distributions were compared with previous calculation. We present positron decay $\&$ continuum electron capture rates on these WP nuclei under $rp$-process conditions using the same model. For the $rp$-process conditions, the calculated total weak rates are twice the Skyrme HF+BCS+QRPA rates for $^{80}$Zr. For remaining nuclei the two calculations compare well. The electron capture rates are significant and compete well with the corresponding positron decay rates under $rp$-process conditions. The finding of the present study supports that electron capture rates form an integral part of the weak rates under $rp$-process conditions and has an important role for the nuclear model calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03502 by the authors.

Figure 9
Figure 9. Figs. 10 to 14 depict the pn-QRPA calculated stellar rates of β-delayed proton emission (top panel) and the β-delayed proton emission probabilities (Pp) (middle panel) for the N = Z heavy waiting point nuclei. The rates are shown as a function of core temperature and density. The bottom panel shows the corresponding calculation of phase space for electron capture as given in Eq. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Thielemann, F.-K., Pfeiffer, B., M¨ oller, P

    Schatz, H., Aprahamian, A., G¨ orres, J., Wiescher, M., R auscher, T., Rembges, J. F., Thielemann, F.-K., Pfeiffer, B., M¨ oller, P. , Kratz, K.L., Herndl, H., Brown, B.A., Rebel, H.: Phys. Rep. 294, 167 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Iachello, F., Arima, A.: The Interacting Boson Model, Ca mbridge: Cambridge University Press (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Talmi, I.: Simple Models of Complex Nuclei: The Shell Mod el and The Interacting Boson Model, Contemporary Concepts in Physics, Harwood Academic Publishers (1993)

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    R.: Nuclear Structure, vol

    Bohr, A., Mottelson, B. R.: Nuclear Structure, vol. 2. Nu clear Deformation, World Scientific Publishing (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Arima, A.: Nucl. Phys. A 347, 339 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Iachello, F., Talmi, I.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 339 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    L., Scholten, O., Iachello, F.: Phys

    Dieperink, A, E. L., Scholten, O., Iachello, F.: Phys. Re v. Lett. 44, 1747 (1980)

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    L., Scholten, O.: Nucl

    Dieperink, A, E. L., Scholten, O.: Nucl. Phys. A 346, 125 (1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    N., Kirson, M

    Ginocchio, J. N., Kirson, M. W.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1744 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    N., Kirson, M

    Ginocchio, J. N., Kirson, M. W.: Nucl. Phys. A 350, 31 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    Q.: Phys

    Van Isacker, P., Chen, J. Q.: Phys. Rev. C 24, 684 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    B¨ oy¨ ukata, M., Van Isacker, P., Uluer˙I.: J. Phys. G.: Nucl. Part. Phys 37, 105102 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Nomura, K., Otsuka, T., Shimizu, N., Guo, L.: Phys. Rev. C 83, 041302 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Bentley, I., Frauendorf, S.: Phys. Rev. C 83, 064322 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    I., Abdullah, H

    Sharrad, F. I., Abdullah, H. Y., Al-Dahan, N., Mohamed- Ali, A. A., Okhunov, A. A., Abu Kassim, H.: Rom. J. Phys. 57, 1346 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Gupta, J. B.: Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 10 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    E., Heyde, K.: Phys

    Garc ´ ıa-Ramos, J. E., Heyde, K.: Phys. Rev. C 89, 014306 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    I., Hossain, I., Ahmed, I

    Sharrad, F. I., Hossain, I., Ahmed, I. M., Abdullah, H. Y ., Ahmed, S. T., Ahmed, A. S.: Braz. J. Phys. 45, 340 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    M., Taha, M

    Khalaf, A. M., Taha, M. M.: J. Theo. Appl. Phys. 9, 127 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    M.: Chin

    Sirag, M. M.: Chin. J. Phys. 53, 120303 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Nabi, J.-U., B¨ oy¨ ukata, M.: Nucl. Phys. A947, 182 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC), http://www.nndc .bnl.gov/

  15. [23]

    Coraggio, L., Covello, A., Gargano, A., Itaco, N.: Phys . Rev. C 85, 034335 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    E.: Nucl

    Schatz H., Rehm, K. E.: Nucl. Phys. A 777, 601 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    F., Schatz, H., M¨ oller P., Kratz, K .-L.: Astrophys

    Gupta, S., Brown, E. F., Schatz, H., M¨ oller P., Kratz, K .-L.: Astrophys. J. 662, 1188 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Hirsch, A

    M. Hirsch, A. Staudt, and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 51, 243 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Fescbach, H., Iachello, F.: Phys. Lett. B 45, 1 (1973)

    1973

  20. [28]

    Fescbach, H., Iachello, F.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 84, 211 (1974)

    1974

  21. [29]

    Iachello, F., Arima, A.: Phys. Rev. Lett 53, 4 (1974)

    1974

  22. [30]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett 35, 1069 (1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett 57, 1 (1975)

    1975

  24. [32]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 99, 253 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett 40, 6 (1978)

    1978

  26. [34]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 111, 201 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 115, 325 (1978)

    1978

  28. [36]

    Arima, A., Iachello, F.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 123, 468 (1979)

    1979

  29. [37]

    F., Warner, D.D.: Rev

    Casten, R. F., Warner, D.D.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 389 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    Muto, K., Bender, E., Oda, T., Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V.: Z. Phys. A 341, 407 (1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    Staudt, A., Bender, E., Muto, K., Klapdor-Kleingrotha us, H. V.: At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 44, 79 (1990)

    1990

  32. [40]

    Hirsch, M., Staudt, A., Muto, K., Klapdor-Kleingrotha us, H. V.: At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 53, 165 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    V., Oda, T.: Phys

    Homma, H., Bender, E., Hirsch, M., Muto, K., Klapdor-Kl eingrothaus, H. V., Oda, T.: Phys. Rev. C 54, 2972 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    Nabi, J.-U., Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V.: Eur. Phys. J. A 5, 337 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Nabi, J.-U., Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V.: At. Data Nu cl. Data Tables 71, 149 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Nabi, J.-U., Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V.: At. Data Nu cl. Data Tables 88, 237 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Nabi, J.-U., Rahman, M.-Ur.: Phys. Rev. C 75, 035803 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Nabi, J.-U.: Phys. Rev. C 78, 045801 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Nabi, J.-U.: Phys. Scr. 78, 035201 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Nabi, J.-U., Shehzadi, R., Fayaz, M.: Astro. Spa. Sci. 361, 1 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Nabi, J.-U., C ¸ akmak, N., Iftikhar, Z.: Eur. Phys. J. 52, 1 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Nabi, J.-U., C ¸ akmak, N., Stoica, S., Iftikhar, Z.: Phy s. Scr. 90, (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    C ¸ akmak, S., Nabi, J.-U., Babacan, T., Maras, I.: Adv. S pa. Res. 55, 440 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Rahman, M.-Ur., Nabi, J.-U.: Astro. Spa. Sci. 355, 2142 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    C ¸ akmak, S., Nabi, J.-U., Babacan, T., Selam, C.: Astro . Spa. Sci. 352, 645 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Nabi, J.-U., Tawfik, A.: Phys. Scr. 89, 084005 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Nabi, J.-U.: Eur. Phys. J. 48, 84 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Nabi, J.-U., Sajjad, M.: Phys. Rev. C 77, 055802 (2008) 12

    2008

  49. [57]

    Stetcu, I., Johnson, C.W.: Phys. Rev. C 69, 024311 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    Nomura, K., Shimizu, N., Otsuka, T.: Phys. Rev. C 81, 044307 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    A., Raman, S., Ring, P.: At

    Lalazissiz, G. A., Raman, S., Ring, P.: At. Data Nucl. Da ta Tables 71, 1 (1999)

    1999

  52. [60]

    H., Kondev, F

    Audi, G., Wang, M., Wapstra, A. H., Kondev, F. G., Maccor mick, M., Xu, X., Pfeiffer, B.: Chin. Phys. C 36, 1287 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    H., Kondev, F

    Wang, M., Audi, G., Wapstra, A. H., Kondev, F. G., Maccor mick, M., Xu, X., Pfeiffer, B.: Chin. Phys. C 36, 1603 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    D., Goulding, A

    Goodman, C. D., Goulding, A. C., Greenfield, M. B., Rapap ort, J., Bainum, D. E., Foster, C. C., Love, W. G., Petrovich, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1755 (1980)

    1980

  55. [63]

    B., Martin, M

    Gove, N. B., Martin, M. J.: At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 10, 205 (1971)

    1971

  56. [64]

    Iachello, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3580 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    F., Zamfir, N

    Casten, R. F., Zamfir, N. V.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3584 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    Sarriguren, P.: Phys. Rev. C 83, 025801 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Sarriguren, P.: Phys. Rev. C 79, 044315 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Sarriguren, P.: Phys. Lett. B 680, 438 (2009)

    2009

  61. [69]

    Beiner, M., Flocard, H., Van Giai, N., Quentin, P.: Nucl . Phys. A 238, 29 (1975)

    1975

  62. [70]

    Van Giai, N., Sagawa, H.: Phys. Lett. B 106, 379 (1981)

    1981

  63. [71]

    Sarriguren, P., Alvarez-Rodriguez, R., Moya, D. G. E.: Eur. Phys. J. A 24, 193 (2005)

    2005

  64. [72]

    T., Vogel, P.: Phys

    Biehle, G. T., Vogel, P.: Phys. Rev. C 46, 1555 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    G., Kosmas, T

    Giannaka, P. G., Kosmas, T. S.: Adv. High. Energy. Phys. 2015, 398796 (2015) This manuscript was prepared with the AAS L ATEX macros v5.2. 13 N /RArrow 10 8 6 4 2 40 80Zr40 42 84Mo42 44 88Ru44 46 92Pd46 48 96Cd48 E /LParen1MeV/RParen1 0 /Minus 1 /Minus 2 /Minus 3 /Minus 4 /Min...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.