Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 73 references

Spectroscopy and excited-state $g$~factors in weakly collective ${^{111}}$Cd: confronting collective and microscopic models

T0 review · 2 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 The paper argues that the reported 3/2+ 755-keV state in 111Cd is a misidentification of the 5/2+ 753-keV state, and that shell-model calculations best describe the low-excitation structure.

desk verdict A careful experimental study that likely removes a phantom 755-keV level in 111Cd and adds a new g-factor point, though the non-observation claim would be airtight only with a quantitative upper limit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02485 v1 pith:CU5Q23I3 submitted 2019-08-07 nucl-ex nucl-th

B. J. Coombes , A. E. Stuchbery , A. Blazhev , H. Grawe , M. W. Reed , A. Akber , J. T. H. Dowie , M. S. M. Gerathy
show 4 more authors
T. J. Gray T. Kibédi A. J. Mitchell T. Palazzo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 21.10.Ky21.10.Tg25.70.De27.60.+j
keywords nucleargfactorsCoulombexcitationcadmium-111particle-vibrationmodelparticle-rotorshell-modelcalculationsDoppler-broadenedlineshapelevelmisidentification
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 reports new spectroscopy of the weakly collective nucleus 111Cd using Coulomb-excitation angular correlations, transient-field g-factor measurements, and Doppler-broadened line-shape lifetimes. It argues that the previously listed 3/2+ state at 755 keV does not exist; the single 753-keV transition belongs to a 5/2+ state with g = +0.5(2) and mean lifetime about 4.0 ps. The authors show that the particle-vibration model, the traditional framework for cadmium isotopes, cannot reproduce the measured g factors or the absence of a second low-lying collective 3/2+ state. A particle-rotor picture does better on magnetic properties but not on the energy spectrum. Large-scale shell-model calculations with the SR88MHJM Hamiltonian reproduce the signs and rough magnitudes of the measured g factors and much of the low-excitation structure, pointing to a microscopic rather than vibrational origin for the collectivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing apparatus is a set of coincident measurements on Coulomb-excited 111Cd recoils: particle-γ angular correlations distinguish E2 from M1 multipolarity and confirm the spin of the 753-keV state; the transient-field technique measures the Larmor precession and yields the g factor; and Doppler-broadened line-shape fits, benchmarked on known even-cadmium lifetimes, give the state lifetime. On the theory side, the comparison turns on the particle-vibration coupling strength $\xi = 2.2$, a deformed single-particle (Nilsson-type) description at small deformation, and the SR88MHJM shell-model Hamiltonian, an 88Sr-core interaction with orbits up to Z = 50 and N = 82. These tools work together to show that the three models make different predictions for the sign of $g(5/2^+_3)$, the location of the second 3/2+ state, and the E2 strengths, so the measurements can discriminate among them.

What would settle it

Look for a resolved 755-keV gamma ray in 111Cd with high statistics and high resolution, for example in beta-decay or (n,γ) data free of Coulomb-excitation population assumptions; a distinct 755-keV ground-state transition whose intensity is comparable to the 753-keV transition would overturn the misidentification claim. A Coulomb-excitation run with much higher statistics that still shows only one peak near 755 keV would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental discovery is that the previously reported pair of states near 755 keV in 111Cd is actually a single level: the 753-keV 5/2+ state. The angular correlation of its ground-state transition is E2, confirming the 5/2+ assignment, and no 755-keV gamma ray appears in the present data, in natural-cadmium Coulomb-excitation data, or in a decay measurement. The new g factor of this state is +0.5(2), and its mean lifetime from Doppler-broadened line-shape analysis is 4.0(1.0 stat, 1.2 syst) ps, corresponding to a B(E2) of 11.2 W.u. The paper argues that the absence of the 3/2+ state, the positive g factor of the 5/2+3 state, and the strong ground-state E2 strengths are not explained by the particle-vibration model, are qualitatively accommodated by a particle-rotor picture with small deformation, and are best matched by shell-model calculations, which reproduce the signs of all measured g factors and the overall low-lying level pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is an absence of evidence: the 755-keV transition was not seen in any of three datasets, so the argument assumes a real 3/2+ 755-keV level would have been populated strongly enough by Coulomb excitation and would have decayed with a visible ground-state branch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 755-keV 3/2+ level should be removed from 111Cd level schemes; only the 5/2+ 753-keV state remains near that energy.
  • The 753-keV 5/2+ state has g = +0.5(2) and a mean lifetime of 4.0(1.0 stat, 1.2 syst) ps, corresponding to a moderately collective B(E2) of about 11 W.u.
  • The particle-vibration model fails on the sign of $g(5/2^+_3)$ and predicts a second low-lying collective 3/2+ state that is not observed, disfavoring the vibrational interpretation for 111Cd.
  • A particle-rotor picture with small quadrupole deformation accounts qualitatively for the magnetic moments but cannot reproduce the full energy spectrum.
  • Shell-model calculations reproduce the signs and approximate magnitudes of measured g factors and key E2 strengths, making the microscopic approach the most promising route for understanding collectivity in this nucleus.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the removal of the 755-keV level is confirmed, the absence of a 3/2+ analogue to the 113Cd 681-keV state suggests that the particle-core coupling changes sharply between neighbouring odd cadmium isotopes.
  • The two-standard-deviation gap between the shell-model and measured g factor of the 5/2+3 state may be a sensitive benchmark for interactions that include proton-intruder configurations, which the present model space excludes.
  • A direct test of the rotational-band interpretation would be to measure the g factor and B(E2) of the tentatively assigned 7/2+ 1047-keV state; a rotational assignment predicts a specific small positive g and a strong E2 transition within the band.
  • The same experimental combination could be applied to 113Cd to test whether its 681-keV 3/2+ state is the true analogue and to resolve the reported discrepancy between its lifetime and its B(E2) strength.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Coulomb-excitation study of 111Cd using particle-gamma coincidence, angular correlations, transient-field g-factor measurements, and Doppler-broadened line shape lifetime measurements. The main experimental claims are: (i) the 752.8-keV 5/2+ state is the only strongly excited level near 755 keV, with an E2 angular correlation confirming its spin; (ii) the reported 3/2+ state at 754.9 keV is a misidentification of this state; and (iii) g(5/2+_3) = +0.5(2) and tau = 4.0(1.0 stat, 1.2 syst) ps. The paper then compares these results with particle-vibration, particle-rotor, and large-scale shell-model calculations. It concludes that the particle-vibration model cannot explain the level structure or g factors, the particle-rotor model has partial success, and the SR88MHJM shell-model reproduces much of the low-excitation structure and g factors.

Significance. The experimental result, if correct, removes a low-lying 3/2+ state from the 111Cd level scheme and thereby removes one of the apparent correspondences between 111Cd and 113Cd; this directly bears on the interpretation of Cd as vibrational. The new g factor and lifetime for the 753-keV state add data at a point where the particle-vibration model fails. The shell-model calculations are cross-checked with previous work, use standard effective charges and g_s quenching rather than fitted observables, and use a published Hamiltonian; the energy RMS deviation of 69 keV is a genuine success. However, the central negative claim (non-existence of the 755-keV level) currently lacks a quantitative detection limit, so the paper needs one more analysis step before the conclusion is fully load-bearing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Figs. 2 and 3] The conclusion that the 754.9-keV 3/2+ state is a misidentification of the 752.8-keV 5/2+ state rests on the non-observation of a 754.9-keV line, but no detection limit or two-peak fit is reported anywhere in the paper. With the 752.8-keV peak being strong and the separation only 2.1 keV, a weak 754.9-keV component could hide under the side of the 752.8-keV peak and survive a single-peak fit. Please report an upper limit on the 754.9-keV intensity from a two-peak fit in at least one of the spectra (or state quantitatively what population and ground-state branch are excluded), and soften the claim accordingly if no limit can be derived.
  2. [Sec. IIID and Sec. IV.B.4, Tables V, IX, X] The paper reports tau = 4.0(1.0 stat, 1.2 syst) ps for the 753-keV state and uses this lifetime to derive B(E2) values referenced in Tables IX and X, but Sec. IV.B.4 states that the lifetime is at the limit of the DBLS technique and therefore cannot be determined reliably. This inconsistency needs to be resolved: either the lifetime is an adopted result with well-defined validity conditions, or the B(E2) values based on it should carry the same caveat and should not be presented as firm experimental constraints on the models.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table V] Table V reports the 753-keV lifetime as 4.0(16) ps, while the text reports 4.0(±1.0 statistical ±1.2 systematic) ps; the table should give both components or clearly state the combined uncertainty convention.
  2. [Table IV] In Table IV, the row for the 752.8-keV state lists only the present measurement and an 'Adopted' value that is identical to it; 'Adopted' is misleading when there is no previous measurement to average with the present result.
  3. [Fig. 2 inset] The inset caption states that 'no peak at 754.9 keV' is seen; it would be more accurate to say that no statistically significant peak is observed at that energy, pending the upper-limit analysis requested above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental observables are measured independently, and model parameters are fitted to energies before electromagnetic observables are compared as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental: the 753-keV state's E2 angular correlation and 5/2+ assignment, the g factor g=+0.5(2), the DBLS lifetime, and the non-observation of the reported 755-keV transition. These rest on measured spectra, angular correlations, transient-field precession ratios, and line-shape fits, and they do not assume the conclusions they are used to support. The g-factor extraction uses the standard transient-field formalism with a calibration anchored to g(2+1;106Pd), while the precession effect and the logarithmic slope S are separately measured quantities. The DBLS lifetime is benchmarked against even-Cd literature values. Model comparisons are also not circular: the particle-vibration parameters are explicitly fitted to the energy spectrum first, with the paper stating 'the energy spectrum below ~1 MeV excitation in the nucleus of interest was reproduced first and then the electromagnetic observables were examined.' The g factors and B(E2) values are then compared as genuine predictions; they are not used to set xi or the single-particle energies. The shell-model Hamiltonian was adjusted to tin energies in prior work, and the effective charges and spin quenching are adopted rather than tuned to 111Cd: 'no attempt has been made to tune the effective charges to better describe experiment.' Several cited results come from the same group (e.g., Refs. [23,27,29]), but these are experimental datasets, measured calibrations, or published models that are externally falsifiable, not unverified self-citations or fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The absence-of-detection-limit critique of the 755-keV non-observation is a scientific robustness concern, not a circularity: the conclusion could be challenged empirically if a hidden 755-keV component exists, but that is the disputed empirical question rather than an input assumed by the derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: measurements are independent of the model claims, and the model comparisons follow a fit-then-test structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claims rest on the transient-field calibration, stopping powers, and Coulomb-excitation population assumptions. The model-comparison claims additionally depend on the validity of the SR88MHJM interaction and on particle-vibration parameters that are fitted to the energy spectrum. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Particle-vibration coupling strength xi = 2.2
    Chosen to give a best fit to the observed level energies below about 1 MeV (Sec. IV A 1, Table VI). The g factors and B(E2) values are then compared at this single value, so the model comparison is not parameter-free.
  • Particle-vibration core phonon energy hbar-omega = 440 keV
    Varied along with xi and single-particle energies to reproduce the experimental spectrum (Sec. IV A 1), starting from 610 keV midway between 110Cd and 112Cd.
  • Particle-vibration single-particle energies = Es1/2 = 0, Ed5/2 = 330, Ef7/2 = 367, Ed3/2 = 1100 keV
    Set initially from 111Cd excitation energies and then allowed to vary to fit the levels (Sec. IV A 1, Table VI).
  • Core gyromagnetic ratio g_R = 0.432
    Listed as a model parameter in Table VI; it directly affects the predicted g factors in the particle-vibration calculation.
  • Surface stiffness C_Stiff = 55.9 MeV
    Set from the even-core B(E2) using eta^2 = B(E2; 2 -> 0) (Sec. IV A 1), so it is derived from core data rather than fitted to 111Cd observables, but it enters the B(E2) predictions.
  • Shell-model effective charges = e_nu = 1e, e_pi = 1.7e
    Adopted from prior work for transition rates; the paper states no attempt was made to tune them to 111Cd (Sec. IV C 1).
  • Spin g-factor quenching = 0.7 times the bare g_s
    Applied to both transition rates and g factors (Sec. IV C 1); an input chosen from prior systematics, not fitted to the new data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transient-field strength for Cd in Fe is described by the Stuchbery parametrization calibrated to g(2+1; 106Pd) = +0.393(23) with about 6% uncertainty.
    Invoked in Sec. III C to convert measured precession angles into g factors; an error in this calibration would shift all reported g factors.
  • domain assumption Ziegler stopping powers describe ion energy loss through the multilayer target within about 10 to 30 percent.
    Used in Sec. III D for reaction kinematics and DBLS line-shape simulations; the paper assigns a 30% systematic uncertainty to extracted lifetimes.
  • domain assumption The SR88MHJM shell-model interaction, based on a CD-Bonn G-matrix with two-body matrix elements modified to fit tin isotope energies, is valid for 111Cd, and the frozen 88Sr core plus exclusion of proton-intruder excitations is acceptable.
    Adopted in Sec. IV C 1; the paper acknowledges intruder configurations could affect the 5/2+3 g factor, so this assumption is load-bearing for the shell-model comparison.
  • domain assumption Coulomb excitation with a 90-MeV 32S beam populates low-lying states in 111Cd strongly enough that a missing 755-keV transition is meaningful evidence against the state's existence.
    Underpins the misidentification claim in Sec. III B and the comparison with the natural-Cd data in Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption In the particle-vibration model, a basis of up to two core phonons and the fitted coupling parameters provide a valid description of the core.
    Sec. IV A 1; the conclusion that the model fails for the g factors is conditional on this truncated basis and on the fitted parameters being representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopy and excited-state $g$~factors in weakly collective ${^{111}}$Cd: confronting collective and microscopic models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CU5Q23I3

@misc{pith2026190802485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopy and excited-state $g$~factors in weakly collective $^111$Cd: confronting collective and microscopic models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CU5Q23I3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02485}
}
abstract

The even cadmium isotopes near the neutron midshell have long been considered good examples of vibrational nuclei. However, the vibrational nature of these nuclei has been questioned based on E2 transition rates that are not consistent with vibrational excitations. In the neighbouring odd-mass nuclei, the g factors of the low-excitation collective states have been shown to be more consistent with a deformed rotational core than a vibrational core. Beyond the comparison of vibrational versus rotational models, recent advances in computational power have made shell-model calculations feasible for Cd isotopes, which may give insights into the emergence and nature of collectivity in the Cd isotopes. Collective excitations in the A ~ 100 region were studied through magnetic moments and electromagnetic transitions in 111Cd. The spectroscopy of 111Cd has been studied following Coulomb excitation. Angular correlation measurements, transient-field g-factor measurements and lifetime measurements by the Doppler-broadened line shape method were performed. The structure of the nucleus was explored in relation to particle-vibration versus particle-rotor interpretations. Large-scale shell-model calculations were performed with the SR88MHJM Hamiltonian. Excited-state g factors have been measured, spin assignments examined and lifetimes determined. Attention was given to the reported $5/2^{+}$ 753-keV and $3/2^{+}$ 755-keV states. The $3/2^{+}$ 755-keV level was not observed; evidence is presented that the reported $3/2^+$ state was a misidentification of the $5/2^{+}$ 753-keV state. It is shown that the g factors and level structure of 111Cd are not readily explained by the particle-vibration model. A particle-rotor approach has both successes and limitations. The shell-model approach successfully reproduces much of the known low-excitation structure in 111Cd.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Observed level scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The transitions in 111Cd are listed in Table II along with observed relative intensities and multipolar￾ity assignments from the literature [24]. Other peaks ob￾served correspond to transitions in the neighboring even Cd isotopes and 113Cd present in the target (see Table I). Particle-γ angular correlations were measured for the 342-, 620- and 753-keV transitions. The counts in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Gamma-ray spectrum measured at +65 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Particle- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Doppler-broadened line shape fit to the 725-keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Doppler-broadened line shape fit to the 753-keV tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A comparison between the experimental and theoret [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Arrangement of the observed low-excitation en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The basis states for these calculations are taken to be coupled eigenstates of the collective and quasiparticle Hamiltonians

    Calculations The particle-vibration model allows calculation of the energy and electromagnetic properties of states and tran- sitions in odd-A vibrational nuclei [44]. The basis states for these calculations are taken to be coupled eigenstates of the collective and quasiparticle Hamiltonians. Interac- tions between the quasiparticle and collective states ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Particle-vibration model parameters

    Results and discussion The dominant wavefunction components of the low- lying excited states are given in Table VII for the calcu- TABLE VI. Particle-vibration model parameters. ξ ¯hω E s1/2 Ed5/2 Ef7/2 Ed3/2 gR CStiff (keV) (keV) (keV) (keV) (keV) (MeV) 2.2 440 0 330 367 1100 0.432 55.9 TABLE VII. Dominant wavefunction components in particle- vibration ca...

    work page

  3. [3]

    As coupling strength increases, however, the sec- ond 3/2+ state undergoes strong configuration mixing, gaining stronger g7/2⊗ 2+ and s1/2⊗ 2+ components. The resulting 3 /2+ state appears in the calculations around∼ 720 keV, however, the second excited 3 /2+ state observed experimentally in the current work occurs higher in energy (867 keV). The non-obser...

    work page

  4. [4]

    g factors It has previously been shown that the g factors of the ground state and low-lying excited states in 111Cd can be interpreted through mixing induced by a small 9 1/2+ 5/2+ 3/2+ 7/2+ 5/2+ 5/2+ 3/2+ (7/2+) 0 245 342 417 620 753 867 1047 1/2+ 3/2+ 5/2+ (7/2+) 0 342 620 1047 1/2+ 3/2+ 867 5/2+ 753 7/2+ 417 5/2+ 245 Observed levels 1/2+[411] 5/2+[402]...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Ground-state band In the particle-rotor description, the ground-state band is built on the 1/2+[411] Nilsson orbit. At small deforma- tion the strong mixing between the s1/2 and d3/2 orbits acts both to lower the energy of the 1 /2+[411] Nilsson orbit of s1/2 parentage and increase the g factor of the ground state toward the observed value [23]. The band ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    for the transition from the 245-keV state to the ground state [24] is suggestive that this is a single-particle state

    The 245-keV 5 2 + and 417-keV 7 2 + states The B(E2) value of 0.22 W.u. for the transition from the 245-keV state to the ground state [24] is suggestive that this is a single-particle state. The negative g factor then identifies the state as having a large d5/2 compo- nent, consistent with the observation of an avoided cross- ing between the 5/2+[402] and ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Naively, one would ex- pect a single-particle state of this spin and parity to ex- ist corresponding to the 5 /2+[413] Nilsson orbit

    The 753-keV 5 2 + state With the confirmation that only one strongly Coulomb excited state appears around ∼750 keV excitation en- ergy and that the spin-parity is 5 /2+, the structure of this state must be identified. Naively, one would ex- pect a single-particle state of this spin and parity to ex- ist corresponding to the 5 /2+[413] Nilsson orbit. The two...

    work page

  8. [8]

    and is consistent with a single-particle state and so it has been identified with the 3/2+[411] Nilsson orbit

    The 867-keV 3 2 + state The previous measurement of the B(E2; 3/2+ 2 → 1/2+ g.s.) value for the 867-keV tran- sition [24] is 2.5(5) W.u. and is consistent with a single-particle state and so it has been identified with the 3/2+[411] Nilsson orbit

    work page

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    In particular, it is difficult to reproduce the energy spectrum of 111Cd accurately

    Limitations of the particle-rotor model More detailed calculations away from the rigid-rotor model begin to show flaws in the particle-rotor descrip- tion. In particular, it is difficult to reproduce the energy spectrum of 111Cd accurately. This is possibly due to the nucleus bei...

  2. [10]

    The SR88MHJM Hamiltonian [21, 54–56] employed for these calculations assumes an inert 88Sr core and includes or- bits up to Z = 50 and N = 82

    Model space and interactions Large-scale shell-model calculations were performed using the M-scheme code KSHELL [53]. The SR88MHJM Hamiltonian [21, 54–56] employed for these calculations assumes an inert 88Sr core and includes or- bits up to Z = 50 and N = 82. Specifically, the...

  3. [11]

    The RMS-deviation between the theoretical and experimental energies is 69 keV, an excellent level of agreement between theory and experiment

    Results and discussion The excitation energies and g factors are compared with experiment in Table VIII. The RMS-deviation between the theoretical and experimental energies is 69 keV, an excellent level of agreement between theory and experiment. Overall, the shell-model g fac...

  4. [12]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure Vol II (W. A. Benjamin, Inc., London, 1975)

    1975

  5. [13]

    M. T. Esat, D. C. Kean, R. H. Spear, and A. M. Baxter, Nucl. Phys. A 274, 237 (1976)

    1976

  6. [14]

    W. A. Gillespie, M. W. S. Macauley, A. Johnston, E. W. Lees, and R. P. Singhal, J. Phys. G 3, L169 (1977)

    1977

  7. [15]

    Maynard, D

    M. Maynard, D. C. Palmer, J. R. Cresswell, P. D. Forsyth, I. Hall, and D. G. E. Martin, J. Phys. G 3, 1735 (1977)

    1977

  8. [16]

    D. R. B` es and G. G. Dussel, Nucl. Phys. A135, 1 (1969)

    1969

  9. [17]

    Kotila, J

    J. Kotila, J. Suhonen, and D. S. Delion, Phys. Rev. C 68, 014307 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Heyde, P

    K. Heyde, P. Van Isacker, M. Waroquier, G. Wenes, and M. Sambataro, Phys. Rev. C 25, 3160 (1982)

    1982

  11. [19]

    Jolie and K

    J. Jolie and K. Heyde, Phys. Rev. C 42, 2034 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    D´ el` eze, S

    M. D´ el` eze, S. Drissi, J. Kern, P. A. Tercier, J. P. Vor- let, J. Rikovska, T. Otsuka, S. Judge, and A. Williams, Nuclear Physics A 551, 269 (1993)

    1993

  13. [21]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    D. Bandyopadhyay, S. R. Lesher, C. Fransen, N. Boukharouba, P. E. Garrett, K. L. Green, M. T. McEllistrem, and S. W. Yates, Phys. Rev. C 76, 054308 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    P. E. Garrett, K. L. Green, H. Lehmann, J. Jolie, C. A. McGrath, M. Yeh, and S. W. Yates, Phys. Rev. C 75, 054310 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    P. E. Garrett, K. L. Green, and J. L. Wood, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044307 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    J. C. Batchelder, J. L. Wood, P. E. Garrett, K. L. Green, K. P. Rykaczewski, J. C. Bilheux, C. R. Bing- ham, H. K. Carter, D. Fong, R. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamil- ton, D. J. Hartley, J. K. Hwang, W. Krolas, W. D. Kulp, Y. Larochelle, A. Piechaczek, A. V. Ramayya, E. H. Spe- jewski,...

    2009

  17. [25]

    P. E. Garrett, J. Bangay, A. Diaz Varela, G. C. Ball, D. S. Cross, G. A. Demand, P. Finlay, A. B. Garnsworthy, K. L. Green, G. Hackman, C. D. Hannant, B. Jigmed- dorj, J. Jolie, W. D. Kulp, K. G. Leach, J. N. Orce, A. A. Phillips, A. J. Radich, E. T. Rand, M. A. Schu- maker, C...

    2012

  18. [26]

    J. C. Batchelder, N. T. Brewer, R. E. Goans, R. Grzywacz, B. O. Griffith, C. Jost, A. Korgul, S. H. Liu, S. V. Paulauskas, E. H. Spejewski, and D. W. Stracener, Phys. Rev. C 86, 064311 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    P. E. Garrett and J. L. Wood, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 37, 064028 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    J. L. Wood, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 403, 012011 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Aprahamian, D

    A. Aprahamian, D. S. Brenner, R. F. Casten, R. L. Gill, and A. Piotrowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 535 (1987)

    1987

  22. [30]

    E. A. Coello P´ erez and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C92, 064309 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Schmidt, K

    T. Schmidt, K. L. G. Heyde, A. Blazhev, and J. Jolie, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014302 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    D. T. Yordanov, D. L. Balabanski, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, A. Blazhev, I. Budinˇ cevi´ c, N. Fr¨ ommgen, C. Geppert, H. Grawe, M. Hammen, K. Kreim, R. Neu- gart, G. Neyens, and W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, Phys. Rev. C 98, 011303(R) (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    R. F. Casten, Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspec- tive (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    A. E. Stuchbery, S. K. Chamoli, and T. Kib´ edi, Phys. Rev. C 93, 031302(R) (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Blachot, Nucl

    J. Blachot, Nucl. Data Sheets 110, 1239 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Krane, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 105, 278 (2015)

    K. Krane, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 105, 278 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    A. E. Stuchbery, A. B. Harding, D. C. Weisser, and N. R. Lobanov, (Unpublished)

  30. [38]

    S. K. Chamoli, A. E. Stuchbery, S. Frauendorf, J. Sun, Y. Gu, R. F. Leslie, P. T. Moore, A. Wakhle, M. C. East, T. Kib´ edi, and A. N. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054318 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    McDonald and D

    J. McDonald and D. Porter, Nucl. Phys. A 109, 529 (1968)

    1968

  32. [40]

    A. E. Stuchbery, C. G. Ryan, H. H. Bolotin, and S. H. Sie, Phys. Rev. C 23, 1618 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    J. F. Ziegler, Handbook of Stopping Cross-Sections for Energetic Ions in All Elements (Pergamon Press Incor- porated, Elmsford, NY)

  34. [42]

    Benczer-Koller, G

    N. Benczer-Koller, G. Lenner, R. Tanczyn, A. Pakou, G. Kumbartzki, A. Piqu´ e, D. Barker, D. Berdichevsky, and L. Zamick, Phys. Rev. C 40, 77 (1989)

    1989

  35. [43]

    A. Z. Schwarzschild and E. K. Warburton, Annual Re- view of Nuclear Science 18, 265 (1968)

    1968

  36. [44]

    D. B. Fossan and E. K. Warburton, in Nuclear Spec- troscopy and Reactions, Part C, edited by J. Cerny (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1974) p. 307

    1974

  37. [45]

    T. K. Alexander and J. S. Forster, Advances in Nuclear Physics 10, 197 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    Inamura, F

    T. Inamura, F. Kearns, and J. C. Lisle, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods 123, 529 (1975)

    1975

  39. [47]

    J. C. Wells and N. R. Johnson, LINESHAPE: A Com- puter Program for Doppler Broadened Lineshape Analy- sis, Tech. Rep. (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    B. J. Coombes, A. E. Stuchbery, and T. Gao, (Unpub- lished)

  41. [49]

    Blachot, Nucl

    J. Blachot, Nucl. Data Sheets 113, 515 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Blachot, Nucl

    J. Blachot, Nucl. Data Sheets 111, 1471 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    D. S. Andreev, A. P. Grinberg, K. I. Erokhina, V. S. Zvonov, and I. K. Lemberg, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 36, 2172 (1972)

    1972

  44. [52]

    F. K. McGowan and P. H. Stelson, Phys. Rev. 109, 901 (1958)

    1958

  45. [53]

    Raghavan, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 42, 189 (1989)

    P. Raghavan, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 42, 189 (1989)

    1989

  46. [54]

    A. E. Stuchbery, A. Nakamura, A. N. Wilson, P. M. Davidson, H. Watanabe, and A. I. Levon, Phys. Rev. C 76, 034306 (2007). 14

    2007

  47. [55]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 27 (1953)

    1953

  48. [56]

    D. C. Choudhury, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 28 (1954)

    1954

  49. [57]

    N. Wang, F. A. Rickey, G. S. Samudra, P. C. Simms, and S. Zeghib, Phys. Rev. C 37, 613 (1988)

    1988

  50. [58]

    D. C. Choudhury and J. T. Clemens, Nucl. Phys. A 125, 140 (1969)

    1969

  51. [59]

    Heyde and P

    K. Heyde and P. J. Brussaard, Nucl. Phys. A 104, 81 (1967)

    1967

  52. [60]

    E. A. Coello P´ erez and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C94, 054316 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Zeghib, Physica Scripta 76, 336 (2007)

    S. Zeghib, Physica Scripta 76, 336 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    R. D. Lawson, Theory of the Nuclear Shell Model (Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1980)

    1980

  55. [63]

    K. P. Singh, D. C. Tayal, G. Singh, and H. S. Hans, Phys. Rev. C 31, 79 (1985)

    1985

  56. [64]

    Nuclear shell-model code for massive paral- lel computation, “KSHELL

    N. Shimizu, “Nuclear shell-model code for massive paral- lel computation, “KSHELL”,” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Kavatsyuk, C

    O. Kavatsyuk, C. Mazzocchi, Z. Janas, A. Banu, L. Batist, F. Becker, A. Blazhev, W. Br¨ uchle, J. D¨ oring, T. Faestermann, M. G´ orska, H. Grawe, A. Jungclaus, M. Karny, M. Kavatsyuk, O. Klepper, R. Kirchner, M. La Commara, K. Miernik, I. Mukha, C. Plettner, A. P lochocki, E....

    2007

  58. [66]

    Faestermann, M

    T. Faestermann, M. G´ orska, and H. Grawe, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 69, 85 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    J. Park, R. Kr¨ ucken, D. Lubos, R. Gernh¨ auser, M. Le- witowicz, S. Nishimura, D. S. Ahn, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Blazhev, P. Boutachkov, F. Browne, I. ˇCelikovi´ c, G. de France, P. Doornenbal, T. Faestermann, Y. Fang, N. Fukuda, J. Giovinazzo, N. Goel, M. G´ orska, H. Grawe,...

    2017

  60. [68]

    Machleidt, F

    R. Machleidt, F. Sammarruca, and Y. Song, Phys. Rev. C 53, R1483 (1996)

    1996

  61. [69]

    Hjorth-Jensen, T

    M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. T. Kuo, and E. Osnes, Physics Reports 261, 125 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    Hjorth-Jensen, (private communication)

    M. Hjorth-Jensen, (private communication)

  63. [71]

    Grawe, (Unpublished)

    H. Grawe, (Unpublished)

  64. [72]

    T. W. Burrows, National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory (1984)

    1984

  65. [73]

    D. S. Andreev, G. M. Gusinsky, K. I. Erokhina, V. S. Zvonov, and I. K. Lemberg, in Proc. 25th Ann. Conf. Nucl. Spectrosc. Struct. At. Nuclei, Leningrad (1975)

    1975

Pith tools

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