Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 132 references

Robust correlation between binding energies and charge radii of mirror nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that the product of the reduced Coulomb displacement energy and the charge radius of mirror nuclei is a robust observable, enabling predictions of binding energies and charge radii of proton-rich nuclei.

desk verdict A plausible but in-sample mirror correlation whose central isospin-asymmetry term has a sign inconsistency that needs fixing before the predictive claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16214 v1 pith:OXYPN3BK submitted 2024-11-25 nucl-th nucl-ex

Y. Lei , N. A. Alam , Z. Z. Qin , M. Bao , K. Y. Zhang , C. Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex PACS 21.10.Dr21.10.Ft
keywords mirrornucleibindingenergychargeradiusCoulombdisplacementtwo-parameterFermimodelproton-richnuclearmasspredictionisospinsymmetry
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

Mirror nuclei—pairs in which proton and neutron numbers are swapped—have binding energies and charge radii set by the same Coulomb physics. This paper proposes that the product of the reduced Coulomb displacement energy and the root-mean-square charge radius, $\eta = \Delta\varepsilon\,R_c$, is a robust observable: it barely changes with mass number or with the details of the charge-density profile. Assuming a two-parameter Fermi charge density and taking direct, exchange, and spin-orbit Coulomb terms together, the paper computes $\eta$ analytically and fits three parameters to experimental mirror pairs. If $\eta$ is as stable as claimed, then one measured binding energy and one measured charge radius of a mirror partner are enough to predict the other partner's binding energy or charge radius. The paper uses this to predict binding energies of 197 proton-rich nuclei and charge radii of 199, and shows the predicted radii near the proton dripline have a different mass dependence than stable nuclei.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the observable $\eta$ defined in Eq.~(3), evaluated through Eq.~(29). With a two-parameter Fermi charge density $\rho(r)=\rho_0/[1+\exp((r-R)/a)]$, the RMS radius and the three Coulomb-energy terms are all functionals of the same density, so their ratio locks into a dimensionless number controlled by $a/R$ and $R$. The paper assumes $R$ follows $R=r_0 A^{1/3}$ and $a/R=(a/R)_0 A^{-1/3}$ for the $N\simeq Z$ nucleus midway between the mirrors, adds a small isospin-asymmetry term $\theta(N-Z)/A$ to $R_c$, and fits $r_0$, $(a/R)_0$, and $\theta$ to experimental $\eta$ values. This converts a pair of mirror observables into a single stable reference value that can be transported across the nuclear chart.

What would settle it

Take a mirror pair with both binding energies and both charge radii measured and with no known shell, pairing, or halo anomaly; compute $\eta = \Delta\varepsilon\,R_c$ and compare with the fitted Eq. (29) band for that mass region. If the measured $\eta$ deviates by more than the regional modeling uncertainty $\sigma_\eta$, the claimed robustness of the correlation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a mirror pair $(Z,N)$ and $(N,Z)$, let $\varepsilon$ denote binding energy per nucleon and $R_c$ the RMS charge radius. The paper's central claim is that $\eta = [\varepsilon(Z,N)-\varepsilon(N,Z)]/(N-Z) \times R_c$ is nearly constant across the nuclear chart, so its value can be computed once from a model charge density rather than measured for each pair. The model density is the two-parameter Fermi form; the computation separates the Coulomb energy into direct, exchange, and spin-orbit pieces, and uses $R = r_0 A^{1/3}$, $a/R = (a/R)_0 A^{-1/3}$, plus an isospin-asymmetry correction $\theta(N-Z)/A$. Fitting $r_0$, $(a/R)_0$, and $\theta$ to experimental $\eta$ values reproduces the data to an RMS deviation of about $0.05\,\eta_0$. This yields Eq.~(32) for predicting the binding energy per nucleon of the proton-rich mirror from the neutron-rich partner's measured $\varepsilon$ and $R_c$, and Eq.~(36) for predicting $R_c$ from the two measured $\varepsilon$ values. The paper reports predictions for 197 binding energies and 199 charge radii with per-region uncertainties, and treats the few outliers as indicators of charge-density asymmetry between mirror partners.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on assuming that the two mirror nuclei share the same charge-density shape—same radius parameter $R$ and same surface-thickness ratio $a/R$—and that the nucleus with $N\simeq Z$ sitting between them follows smooth $R\propto A^{1/3}$ and $a/R\propto A^{-1/3}$ laws obtained from neutron-rich nuclei.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any mirror pair with one measured binding energy per nucleon and one measured charge radius, the partner's binding energy per nucleon follows from $\varepsilon^{\mathrm{pre}} = \varepsilon^{\mathrm{exp}} - \tilde{\eta}(N-Z)/R_c^{\mathrm{exp}}$, with uncertainty from experimental errors plus the per-region modeling error.
  • For any mirror pair with both binding energies known, the partner's charge radius follows from $R_c = \tilde{\eta}(N-Z)/(\varepsilon(Z,N)-\varepsilon(N,Z))$.
  • The correlation reaches across large proton-neutron differences, so it can be applied from the stability valley to the proton dripline, where global models are least constrained.
  • Outliers from the $\eta$ band flag mirror pairs with asymmetric charge densities—shown here to correlate with shell closure and with unbound proton-rich partners—so the correlation doubles as a probe for local structural anomalies.
  • Predicted charge radii near the proton dripline have a different $A$-dependence than the $R_c\propto A^{1/3}$ regularity along the $\beta$-stability line, a checkable signature of the prediction method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because $\eta$ is built from Coulomb physics only, it can serve as an independent cross-check for other mass relations—any relation that predicts a mirror mass difference can be tested against $\eta$ times the measured radius.
  • Editorial inference: the same construction could be extended to isobaric multiplets ($T=1/2$ and $T=1$ analog states), where Coulomb-energy differences would be available in multiple pairs; deviations would then map isospin-symmetry-breaking terms instead of just flagging asymmetry.
  • Editorial inference: direct measurements of charge radii for the few anomalous pairs discussed here (for example $^{32}$Ca) would either confirm the predicted shell-induced asymmetry or reveal that the shared-density assumption breaks down, sharpening the method's domain of validity.
  • Editorial inference: the per-region uncertainty can be used as a screening statistic—a measured mirror pair whose $\eta$ lies more than about two regional $\sigma_\eta$ away from the fitted curve, with no known shell effect, is a concrete candidate for a proton-halo follow-up.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new correlation between binding energies and charge radii of mirror nuclei, defined through the observable η = Δε × R_c, where Δε is the reduced Coulomb displacement energy. The authors evaluate η using a two-parameter Fermi charge density, decomposing the Coulomb energy into direct, exchange, and spin-orbit terms. They fit the model parameters r0, (a/R)0, and θ to experimental η values, introduce mass-region-dependent shifts μ, and then use the resulting η̃ to predict binding energies and charge radii of proton-rich mirror partners. Predictions are compared with experimental data and with other theoretical models, with the main discrepancies attributed to charge-density asymmetry in mirror pairs.

Significance. If the central correlation is correct and the fitting procedure were genuinely predictive, the paper would offer a simple analytical tool for estimating masses and radii of proton-rich nuclei, a region where experimental data are scarce. The analytic derivation from the Fermi model is transparent, and the authors provide extensive tables of predictions in the Supplemental Materials, which is useful for the community. The independent confirmation that fitted r0 and (a/R)0 are close to electron-scattering systematics is a positive feature. However, the current manuscript contains a sign inconsistency in the isospin-asymmetry term, and the validation is in-sample because the model parameters are fitted to the same experimental η values that are later used to 'predict' binding energies and radii. These issues must be resolved before the claims of robustness and predictive power can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (13) and Sec. III B, Fig. 3] The sign of the θ(N−Z)/A term in Eq. (13) is inconsistent with the empirical trend stated in Sec. III B and Fig. 3. The authors note that Z > N nuclei have systematically larger charge radii than their N > Z mirrors, yet Eq. (13) with the fitted θ = +1.047 fm gives Rc(Z,N) smaller for Z > N because N−Z is negative. The same sign enters Eq. (29) for η, so the model predicts a smaller η for the proton-rich member while the experimental η, computed with the actual larger Rc, is larger. For light mirror pairs the correction is of order 10% of η0, so this is not a minor typo; the printed equations cannot reproduce the agreement shown in Fig. 2 or the reported χ² values unless the implemented sign convention differs from the text. The authors should correct the sign (likely θ should be negative, or the term should be θ(Z−N)/A) and redo the fit and all resulting predictions and comparisons.
  2. [Sec. III A and Sec. IV A/B] The verification of the method is in-sample. The parameters r0, (a/R)0, and θ are fitted to the experimental η values of the same mirror pairs that are later used to 'predict' binding energies (Eq. (32)) and charge radii (Eq. (36)) and to compare with experiment in Figs. 4 and 7. In addition, the regional shifts μ in Eq. (30) are also determined from the same data set, so the agreement in Figs. 4 and 7 and the reduced χ² values near unity reflect consistency of the fit rather than independent predictive power. To support the claim of prediction, the authors should provide an out-of-sample test, for example by fitting on a subset of mirror pairs and validating on the complementary subset, or by demonstrating that the fitted parameters are stable when individual pairs are removed.
  3. [Sec. IV C and Fig. 3] The paper's own analysis shows that the load-bearing assumption of equal charge-density parameters a and R for mirror pairs fails for the cases where the method is least reliable: 11Li/O, 11Be/N, 12Be/O, 32Mg/Ca, and 70Ge/Sr. While the authors are candid about these failures, the claim of a 'robust' correlation is weakened because these are precisely the proton-rich nuclei of greatest interest. The text should quantify how many of the 197 (or 199) predictions fall outside the quoted uncertainties and discuss whether the method is useful for nuclei that are not near the valley of β-stability, rather than presenting the exceptions only as a probe of structural anomalies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] There is an inconsistency in the counts: the abstract states '197 predicted binding energies and 199 charge radii', while Sec. V states 'predict the binding energies per nucleon of 199 nuclei and the charge radii of 197 nuclei'. Please correct the numbers.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'nontrival', 'energis', 'rad ii' in the title, 'experiential' in the caption of Fig. 2, and 'perdition' in Sec. IV A. A careful proofreading is needed.
  3. [Eq. (35) and Eq. (39)] The notation M^i_pre and M^i_c pre is inconsistent with the rest of the text, where the predicted quantity is denoted εpre or R^pre_c. Please use a unified notation.
  4. [Sec. III B, Eq. (30)] The definition of the weights w_i in the iterative maximum-likelihood procedure is implicit; the equation should explicitly state w_i = 1/((σ^i_exp)^2 + σ^2_η) before the iteration, and clarify that the solution is obtained by iterating the two equations.
  5. [Sec. II D, Eq. (25)] The factor (gπ − gν − 1) and the constant 0.6 in the spin-orbit term are taken from Ref. [107] without derivation; a brief explanation of the approximation and its range of validity would help the reader assess this contribution.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'predictions' are in-sample: the parameters of η_the and the regional shift µ are fitted to the same experimental η values that Eqs. (32) and (36) then 'predict', so the validation reduces to the residuals of that fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (fit of Eq. 29); Sec. IV A (Eq. 32) and Sec. IV B (Eq. 36)]
    "we assume that R ∝ A^{1/3} and a/R ∝ A^{−1/3} laws hold for N ≃ Z nuclei as well. Thus, we express R as R = r0A^{1/3} and a/R as a/R = (a/R)0A^{−1/3} in Eq. (29), and fit this equation to experimental η values using simplex method, treating r0, (a/R)0 and θ as fitting parameters. The fit yields r0 = 1.088 fm, (a/R)0 = 0.584, and θ = 1.047 fm. ... To verify our prediction method for binding energy per nucleon ε, we use data from AME20, Rc13 and Rc21 to 'predict' εpre values for nuclei, whose εexp values are also available in AME20."

    The experimental η values used for the fit are computed by Eq. (3), ηexp = Δε_exp × Rc_exp, from the very binding-energy and charge-radius data that Sec. IV then 'predicts'. For a mirror pair in the validation set, Eq. (32) gives εpre(N,Z) = εexp(Z,N) − ηtilde(N−Z)/Rc_exp(Z,N), while the target's experimental value satisfies the same relation with ηexp; the difference is exactly (ηtilde − ηexp)(N−Z)/Rc_exp. Because r0, (a/R)0 and θ were chosen by simplex fitting to minimize the residuals of this same ηexp, the agreement in Fig. 4, Fig. 7, and the χ2 ≈ 1 values measures in-sample fit quality, not independent predictive power.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eqs. (30)-(31)]
    "µ represents the systematic deviation of our ηthe estimation from experimental values. To account for this deviation, we adopt η˜ = ηthe + µ, as our final and optimal estimation of η."

    The offset µ is obtained from Eq. (30) as a weighted mean of ηi_exp − ηi_the over the same mirror pairs in each mass region that are later used for verification. Adding µ to ηthe therefore removes the regional bias by construction. Consequently, when Eq. (32) or (36) is applied to a nucleus in that region, the 'prediction' is a smoothed reconstruction of the input ηexp; any independent test would have to reserve some of these pairs for validation instead of using them to determine µ.

full rationale

The central circularity is that the paper's validation is in-sample. The three global parameters r0, (a/R)0, and θ are fitted to experimental η values in Sec. III A, and four regional offsets µ are fitted to the residuals of the same data in Sec. III B. The resulting ηtilde is then inserted into Eqs. (32) and (36), which are algebraic rearrangements of the defining relation η = Δε Rc. For every nucleus in the verification set, the prediction error is just the residual of the η fit, so the reported RMSDs and χ2 ≈ 1 values are consistency checks of that fit rather than independent demonstrations of predictive power. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction circularity, but it is partial rather than total: Eq. (29) does impose a Fermi-model functional form, and predictions for nuclei whose mirror-pair η could not be measured are not literally forced by a single input. Self-citations to DRHBc and earlier mirror-mass relations by the same group appear mainly as benchmarks and anomaly indicators, and are not the dominant circularity. Score 6 reflects that the central validation of the prediction method reduces to the in-sample fit, while the underlying formula retains some independent model content.

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

The central claim rests on three fitted parameters (r0, (a/R)0, theta) and four regional shifts mu, plus assumptions that mirror nuclei have identical Fermi charge-density parameters and that N approx Z regularities can be extrapolated from Z < N data. The only external anchor is the similarity of fitted r0 and (a/R)0 to independent electron-scattering fits in Ref. [109]. No new physical entity is proposed.

free parameters (7)
  • r0 = 1.088 fm
    Fitted to experimental eta values via Eq. (29) using simplex method (Sec. III A). Sets nuclear geometry radius R = r0 A^(1/3) for N near Z nuclei.
  • (a/R)0 = 0.584
    Fitted to experimental eta values via Eq. (29). Sets surface thickness ratio a/R = (a/R)0 A^(-1/3).
  • theta = 1.047 fm
    Fitted to experimental eta values via Eq. (29). Coefficent of the isospin-asymmetry term in the Rc relation, Eq. (13).
  • mu for 10 < A <= 24 = -0.009
    Systematic shift applied to eta_the in this mass region, determined iteratively from experimental eta values using Eq. (30) (Table I).
  • mu for 24 < A <= 31 = 0.009
    Systematic shift applied to eta_the in this mass region, determined iteratively from experimental eta values using Eq. (30) (Table I).
  • mu for 31 < A <= 41 = 0.001
    Systematic shift applied to eta_the in this mass region, determined iteratively from experimental eta values using Eq. (30) (Table I).
  • mu for 41 < A = 0.003
    Systematic shift applied to eta_the in this mass region, determined iteratively from experimental eta values using Eq. (30) (Table I).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nuclear charge density is well described by an isotropic two-parameter Fermi distribution, Eq. (8).
    Introduced at start of Sec. II and used for all integrals for Rc, direct, exchange and spin-orbit Coulomb energies.
  • domain assumption Mirror nuclei share the same charge-density parameters a and R.
    Stated in Sec. II E: 'we assume that the mirror nuclei share a and R parameters.' This is central to deriving a single eta for the pair.
  • domain assumption For N approx Z nuclei, R follows R = r0 A^(1/3) and a/R follows a/R = (a/R)0 A^(-1/3), using regularities extrapolated from Z < N data.
    Sec. III A: 'we assume that R proportional to A^(1/3) and a/R proportional to A^(-1/3) laws hold for N approx Z nuclei as well.' This extrapolation is not directly verified.
  • domain assumption The spin-orbit coupling sum S = sum of l dot sigma is on average proportional to the nucleon number with slope 0.6.
    Sec. II D, citing Fig. 6 of Ref. [107]. This is needed for the spin-orbit contribution to the Coulomb displacement energy.
  • standard math The differential mean value theorem is applied to approximate (N^(4/3) - Z^(4/3))/(N - Z) by 4/3 ((N+Z)/2)^(1/3).
    Used in Sec. II C to simplify the exchange term, Eq. (24).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust correlation between binding energies and charge radii of mirror nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXYPN3BK

@misc{pith2026241116214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust correlation between binding energies and charge radii of mirror nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXYPN3BK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16214}
}
abstract

Using the charge density from the two-parameter Fermi model, a robust and nontrival correlation between binding energis and charge radii of mirror nuclei is newly proposed. This correlation enables simple yet reliable predictions of the nuclear mass and charge radius of proton-rich nuclei. The validity of these predictions is demonstrated by comparing the predicted binding energies and charge radii with experimental data and predictions from other models. All 197 predicted binding energies and 199 charge radii involved in the comparisons are tabulated in the Supplemental Materials of this paper. The noticeable discrepancies are attributed to the large asymmetry in charge densities of mirror nuclei, suggesting that the proposed correlation could be a sensitive probe for local structural anomaly, such as shell closure and proton halo. The difference in mass dependence of charge radii near the proton dripline compared to those along the $\beta$-stability line supports the validity of our prediction method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Difference between “predicted” binding energy per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Difference between the predicted bind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Difference between the “predicted” charge radii usin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Difference between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1(a), R appears to be a monotonically increas- ing function of A

    In Fig. 1(a), R appears to be a monotonically increas- ing function of A. A linear fit between R and A1/ 3 is carried out, suggesting R = 1 .076(2)A1/ 3 fm. This in- dicates that the R parameter well follows the commonly accepted A1/ 3 law of nuclear size, further confirming the nature of R as the nuclear geometry radius. In Fig. 1(b), the a parameter varie...

  2. [2]

    ( 29), compared to the experi- mental error

    Therefore, fluctuations in the a/R ratio may still in- troduce significant modeling uncertainty to our following predictions based on Eq. ( 29), compared to the experi- mental error. To make predictions, η must be calculated using Eq. (29) independently of experimental data. This requires explicit relations between mass number A and the R pa- rameter, as we...

  3. [3]

    predict” some Rc values available in Rc13/21, and compare them to experimental values from Rc13/21, by showing the difference between our “predictions

    into Rc(Z, N) = ˜η(Z, N)(N − Z) ε(Z, N) − ε(N, Z) . (36) The corresponding prediction uncertainty due to experi- mental input errors is given by δRc(Z,N ) = Rc(Z, N) √ δ2 ε(Z,N ) + δ2 ε(N,Z ) |ε(Z, N) − ε(N, Z)| , (37) while the modeling uncertainty due to the imperfection of our η estimation is σRc(Z,N ) = Rc(Z, N) ˜η(Z, N) σ˜η (Z,N ). (38) The total unc...

  4. [4]

    The red curves represent the results of the fitting

    531(4)A− 1/ 3. The red curves represent the results of the fitting. clear systematics observed. However, we note that in Eq. ( 29), the a parameter affects η evaluation only through the a/R ratio. Thus, only the a/R ratio matters. We plot a/R ratio in Fig. 1(c), and fit it to a proportional relation of a/R ∝ A−1/ 3. Most a/R ratios are found close to a/R = 0...

  5. [5]

    S. Gales, Spiral2 at ganil: Next generation of isol facil - ity for intense secondary radioactive ion beams, Nuclear Physics A 834, 717c (2010) , the 10th International Con- ference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Thoennessen, Plans for the facility for rare isotope beams, Nuclear Physics A 834, 688c (2010) , the 10th International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    M. Thoennessen, Plans for the facility for rare isotope beams, Nuclear Physics A 834, 688c (2010) , the 10th International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    2010

  7. [7]

    is a functional of ρ(⃗ r), making η a functional of ρ(⃗ r), given that Rc is also a functional of ρ(⃗ r) according to Eq. ( 5). By assuming a reasonable charge density ρ, one can calculate the η value independently of experiments, which may serve the prediction of unknown masses and charge radii. In this work, we consider the charge density from the two-p...

  8. [8]

    predicted

    The agreement between experimental and calculated values is evident within an RMS deviation (RMSD) of ∼ 0.05η0. Therefore, we trust the validity of our fitting results and use them for further uncertainty analysis and predictions. B. Uncertainty The uncertainty of the η estimation is crucial for mak- ing reliable predictions on binding energies and charge ...

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    Our predicted binding energies for 11N and 11, 12O obvi- ously differ from experimental values, exceeding the 1 σ confidence interval

    In most cases, the differences fall within prediction uncertainty, except for 11N and 11, 12O. Our predicted binding energies for 11N and 11, 12O obvi- ously differ from experimental values, exceeding the 1 σ confidence interval. The RMSD of the mass excesses is 193 keV, and excl...

  2. [10]

    Our predictions mostly agree with experiments within the 1 σ confidence inter- val, except for 11Be, which is the mirror nucleus of 11N, showing a clear inconsistency in the binding energy pre- diction in Fig

  3. [11]

    [ 34, 35, 96], but is noticeably larger that that in Ref

    The RMSD for all available data is 0.054 fm, and excluding 11Be it is 0.047 fm, which is of the same order of RMSDs in Refs. [ 34, 35, 96], but is noticeably larger that that in Ref. [ 95]. The accuracy of the predicted charge radii is not optimal, which is un- derstandable. O...

  4. [12]

    to Rc(Z, N) = √ 3 5 Rf (a R ) + θ N − Z A , (13) where θ is a coefficient to be determined, and a and R parameters are from the nuclei with N ≃ Z ≃ A/2. B. Direct term To obtain ∆ εdir, one can first calculate the electrical field strength at given r spherical shell. According to ...

  5. [13]

    Therefore, we believe that every failure in our prediction may corre- spond to an off-systematics behavior in the Rc diagram of mirror nuclei as seen in Fig. 3. We also use Eq. ( 36) to predict unknown Rc (Rpre c ) using AME20, and compare these predicted values with those from...

  6. [14]

    predicted

    Such differences are calculated by sub- tracting our Rpre c values from the corresponding Rpre c val- ues in other works. We observe reasonable agreement be- tween our predictions and those from other works within /s50/s48 /s52/s48 /s54/s48 /s56/s48 /s45/s48/s46/s52 /s45/s48/s4...

  7. [15]

    Due to insufficient data, we present only the two-proton separation energy of 70Sr

    All data are based on the binding energies from AME20, except for 32/Mg/Ca and 70Ge/Sr, where the rel- evant binding energies are taken from DRHBc24 [ 35] and DRHBc calculations. Due to insufficient data, we present only the two-proton separation energy of 70Sr. Z < N S p Z > N ...

  8. [16]

    Each off-systematics data point involves a Z > N nucleus with a significantly larger charge radius than its Z < N mirror, which could feature a possible proton halo structure †, if this Z > N nucleus is weakly bound. Therefore, we are highly motivated to investigate every incons...

  9. [17]

    A proportional fit is applied, demonstrating the gen- eral regularity of Rc ∝ A1/ 3 for the predicted charge 12 /s48 /s49 /s48 /s50 /s48 /s51 /s48 /s52 /s48 /s53 /s48 /s48 /s49 /s48 /s50 /s48 /s51 /s48 /s52 /s48 /s53 /s48 /s90 /s78 /s48/s46/s48/s48 /s48/s46/s51/s50 /s98 /s45/s1...

  10. [18]

    W. Zhan, H. Xu, G. Xiao, J. Xia, H. Zhao, and Y. Yuan, Progress in hirfl-csr, Nuclear Physics A 834, 694c (2010), the 10th International Conference on Nucleus- Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Motobayashi, Riken ri beam factory - recent results and perspectives, Nuclear Physics A 834, 707c (2010) , the 10th International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    T. Motobayashi, Riken ri beam factory - recent results and perspectives, Nuclear Physics A 834, 707c (2010) , the 10th International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Tshoo, Y

    K. Tshoo, Y. Kim, Y. Kwon, H. Woo, G. Kim, Y. Kim, B. Kang, S. Park, Y.-H. Park, J. Yoon, J. Kim, J. Lee, C. Seo, W. Hwang, C. Yun, D. Jeon, and S. Kim, Ex- perimental systems overview of the rare isotope science project in korea, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Res...

    2013

  13. [21]

    Sturm, B

    C. Sturm, B. Sharkov, and H. St¨ ocker, 1, 2, 3 ... fair!, Nuclear Physics A 834, 682c (2010) , the 10th International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (NN2009)

    2010

  14. [22]

    M. Liu, N. Wang, Y. Deng, and X. Wu, Further im- provements on a global nuclear mass model, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014333 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Baumann, A

    T. Baumann, A. Spyrou, and M. Thoennessen, Nuclear structure experiments along the neutron drip line, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 75, 036301 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Aprahamian, K

    A. Aprahamian, K. Langanke, and M. Wiescher, Nu- clear structure aspects in nuclear astrophysics, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 54, 535 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Schatz, Nuclear masses in astrophysics, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 349-350, 181 (2013) , 100 years of Mass Spectrometry

    H. Schatz, Nuclear masses in astrophysics, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 349-350, 181 (2013) , 100 years of Mass Spectrometry

    2013

  18. [26]

    Sun, BaoHua and Zhao, PengWei and Meng, Jie , Mass prediction of proton-rich nuclides with the coulomb displacement energies in the relativistic point-coupling model, Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astron- omy 54, 210 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Schatz, A

    H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, J. G¨ orres, M. Wiescher, T. Rauscher, J. Rembges, F.-K. Thielemann, B. Pfeif- fer, P. M¨ oller, K.-L. Kratz, H. Herndl, B. Brown, and H. Rebel, rp-process nucleosynthesis at extreme temper- ature and density conditions, Physics Reports 294, 167 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Lunney, J

    D. Lunney, J. M. Pearson, and C. Thibault, Recent trends in the determination of nuclear masses, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1021 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    with numerical integration algorithms, we can observe the general tendency of η as a function 6 /s50/s48 /s52/s48 /s54/s48 /s56/s48 /s48/s46/s56/s48 /s48/s46/s56/s53 /s48/s46/s57/s48 /s48/s46/s57/s53 /s49/s46/s48/s48 /s49/s46/s48/s53 /s49/s46/s49/s48 /s48/s46/s48/s48 /s48/s46/...

  22. [30]

    Gamow, Mass defect curve and nuclear constitu- tion, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    G. Gamow, Mass defect curve and nuclear constitu- tion, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 126, 632 (1930), [Online; accessed 2024-06- 28]

    1930

  23. [31]

    C. F. v. Weizs¨ acker, Zur theorie der kernmassen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik96, 431 (1935)

    1935

  24. [32]

    H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher, Nuclear physics a. sta- tionary states of nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 82 (1936)

    1936

  25. [33]

    M¨ oller, W

    P. M¨ oller, W. Myers, W. Swiatecki, and J. Treiner, Nu- clear mass formula with a finite-range droplet model and a folded-yukawa single-particle potential, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 39, 225 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Moller, J

    P. Moller, J. Nix, W. Myers, and W. Swiatecki, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 59, 185 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: Frdm(2012), Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016)

    2012

  28. [36]

    P. E. Haustein, An overview of the 1986-1987 atomic mass predictions, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 39, 185 (1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    N. Wang, M. Liu, and X. Wu, Modification of nuclear mass formula by considering isospin effects, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044322 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    N. Wang, Z. Liang, M. Liu, and X. Wu, Mirror nuclei constraint in nuclear mass formula, Phys. Rev. C 82, 044304 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Wang and M

    N. Wang and M. Liu, Nuclear mass predictions with a radial basis function approach, Phys. Rev. C 84, 051303(R) (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu, and J. Meng, Surface diffuse- ness correction in global mass formula, Physics Letters 14 B 734, 215 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Zhao, X.-J

    T.-L. Zhao, X.-J. Bao, and H.-F. Zhang, Improved macroscopic microscopic mass formula, Chinese Physics C 45, 074108 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Duflo and A

    J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, Microscopic mass formulas, Phys. Rev. C 52, R23 (1995)

    1995

  35. [43]

    Lalazissis, S

    G. Lalazissis, S. Raman, and P. Ring, Ground-state properties of even-even nuclei in the relativistic mean- field theory, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 71, 1 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Skyrme- hartree-fock-bogoliubov nuclear mass formulas: Cross- ing the 0.6 mev accuracy threshold with microscopically deduced pairing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 152503 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Further ex- plorations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass for- mulas. xvi. inclusion of self-energy effects in pairing, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034337 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliubov description of the neutron halo in 11li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996)

    1996

  39. [47]

    X. Xia, Y. Lim, P. Zhao, H. Liang, X. Qu, Y. Chen, H. Liu, L. Zhang, S. Zhang, Y. Kim, and J. Meng, The limits of the nuclear landscape explored by the relativis- tic continuum hartree-bogoliubov theory, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 121-122, 1 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring, and E.-G. Zhao, Neutron halo in deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301(R) (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring, E.-G. Zhao, and S.-G. Zhou, Deformed relativistic hartree-bogoliubov theory in con- tinuum, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024312 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Zhang, M.-K

    K. Zhang, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.-B. Choi, P. S. Chong, J. Dong, Z. Dong, X. Du, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, C. Heo, M. C. Ho, E. J. In, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.- H. Lee, J. Lee, H. Li, Z. Li, T. Luo, J. Meng, M.-H. Mun, Z. Niu, C. Pan, P. Papakonstantinou, X. Shang, C. Shen, G. Shen, W. Sun...

    2022

  43. [51]

    P. Guo, X. Cao, K. Chen, Z. Chen, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.- B. Choi, P. C. Lam, W. Deng, J. Dong, P. Du, X. Du, K. Duan, X. Fan, W. Gao, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, J. Hu, J. Huang, K. Huang, Y. Huang, Z. Huang, K. D. Hyung, H. Y. Chan, X. Jiang, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.-H. Lee, J. Lee, J. Li...

    2024

  44. [52]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references*, Chinese Physics C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    G. T. Garvey and I. Kelson, New nuclidic mass relation- ship, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 197 (1966)

    1966

  46. [54]

    G. T. GAR VEY, W. J. GERACE, R. L. JAFFE, I. TALMI, and I. KELSON, Set of nuclear-mass rela- tions and a resultant mass table, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, S1 (1969)

    1969

  47. [55]

    G. J. Fu, H. Jiang, Y. M. Zhao, S. Pittel, and A. Arima, Nuclear binding energies and empirical proton-neutron interactions, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034304 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Jiang, G

    H. Jiang, G. J. Fu, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Nuclear mass relations based on systematics of proton-neutron interactions, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054317 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    G. J. Fu, Y. Lei, H. Jiang, Y. M. Zhao, B. Sun, and A. Arima, Description and evaluation of nuclear masses based on residual proton-neutron interactions, Phys. Rev. C 84, 034311 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Jiang, G

    H. Jiang, G. J. Fu, B. Sun, M. Liu, N. Wang, M. Wang, Y. G. Ma, C. J. Lin, Y. M. Zhao, Y. H. Zhang, Z. Ren, and A. Arima, Predictions of unknown masses and their applications, Phys. Rev. C 85, 054303 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Weinberg and S

    S. Weinberg and S. B. Treiman, Electromagnetic cor- rections to isotopic spin conservation, Phys. Rev. 116, 465 (1959)

    1959

  52. [60]

    G. T. Garvey, Nuclear mass relations, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 19, 433 (1969)

    1969

  53. [61]

    Benenson and E

    W. Benenson and E. Kashy, Isobaric quartets in nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 527 (1979)

    1979

  54. [62]

    Britz, A

    J. Britz, A. Pape, and M. Antony, Coefficients of the isobaric mass equation and their correlations with vari- ous nuclear parameters, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 69, 125 (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    Kelson and G

    I. Kelson and G. Garvey, Masses of nuclei with z > n , Physics Letters 23, 689 (1966)

    1966

  56. [64]

    J¨ anecke, Neutron-proton interaction in mirror nuclei, Phys

    J. J¨ anecke, Neutron-proton interaction in mirror nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 6, 467 (1972)

    1972

  57. [65]

    J. Tian, N. Wang, C. Li, and J. Li, Improved kelson- garvey mass relations for proton-rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014313 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Y. Y. Zong, M. Q. Lin, M. Bao, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Mass relations of corresponding mirror nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054315 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Y. Y. Zong, C. Ma, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Mass relations of mirror nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024302 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    C. Ma, Y. Y. Zong, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Mass relations of mirror nuclei with local correlations, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024330 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    M. Bao, Y. Lu, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Simple re- lations between masses of mirror nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044323 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Y. Y. Zong, C. Ma, M. Q. Lin, and Y. M. Zhao, Mass relations of mirror nuclei for both bound and unbound systems, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034321 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    S. T. Guo, Y. X. Yu, Z. Wang, G. J. Fu, and Z. Z. Ren, Atomic mass relations of mirror nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014304 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Xu and M

    C. Xu and M. Bao, Improved mass relations of mirror nuclei, Nucl. Sci. Tech. (accepted) (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Table of experimental nu- clear ground state charge radii: An update, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013) . 15

    2013

  66. [74]

    Wang and T

    N. Wang and T. Li, Shell and isospin effects in nuclear charge radii, Phys. Rev. C 88, 011301(R) (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Correlations of nuclear charge radii with other nuclear observables, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 42, 055108 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    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, Surprising charge-radius kink in the sc isotopes at n = 20, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 102501 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, A. Ekstrom, N. Frommgen, G. Hagen, M. Hammen, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, W. Nazarewicz, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Norter- shauser, T. Papenbrock, J. Papuga, A. Schwenk, J. Si- monis, K. A. Wendt, and...

    2016

  70. [78]

    A. J. Miller, K. Minamisono, A. Klose, D. Garand, C. Kujawa, J. D. Lantis, Y. Liu, B. Maab, P. F. Mantica, W. Nazarewicz, W. Nortershauser, S. V. Pineda, P.-G. Reinhard, D. M. Rossi, F. Sommer, C. Sumithrarachchi, A. Teigelhofer, and J. Watkins, Proton superfluidity and charge ...

    2019

  71. [79]

    Kortelainen, Z

    M. Kortelainen, Z. Sun, G. Hagen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, and P.-G. Reinhard, Universal trend of charge radii of even-even ca–zn nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 105, L021303 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Gorges, L

    C. Gorges, L. V. Rodr ´ ıguez, D. L. Balabanski, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, G. Georgiev, W. Gins, H. Heylen, A. Kanellakopou- los, S. Kaufmann, M. Kowalska, V. Lagaki, S. Lech- ner, B. Maaß, S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, W. Nazarewicz, R. Neugart, G. Neyen...

    2019

  73. [81]

    Sommer, K

    F. Sommer, K. K¨ onig, D. M. Rossi, N. Everett, D. Garand, R. P. de Groote, J. D. Holt, P. Imgram, A. Incorvati, C. Kalman, A. Klose, J. Lantis, Y. Liu, A. J. Miller, K. Minamisono, T. Miyagi, W. Nazarewicz, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, S. V. Pineda, R. Powel, P.-G. Reinhard, L. Rent...

    2022

  74. [82]

    D. M. Rossi, K. Minamisono, H. B. Asberry, G. Bollen, B. A. Brown, K. Cooper, B. Isherwood, P. F. Man- tica, A. Miller, D. J. Morrissey, R. Ringle, J. A. Ro- driguez, C. A. Ryder, A. Smith, R. Strum, and C. Sum- ithrarachchi, Charge radii of neutron-deficient 36K and 37K, Phys....

    2015

  75. [83]

    Minamisono, D

    K. Minamisono, D. M. Rossi, R. Beerwerth, S. Fritzsche, D. Garand, A. Klose, Y. Liu, B. Maaß, P. F. Mantica, A. J. Miller, P. M¨ uller, W. Nazarewicz, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, E. Olsen, M. R. Pearson, P.-G. Rein- hard, E. E. Saperstein, C. Sumithrarachchi, and S. V. Tolokonnikov,...

    2016

  76. [84]

    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...

    2021

  77. [85]

    Julin, T

    R. Julin, T. Grahn, J. Pakarinen, and P. Rahkila, In- beam spectroscopic studies of shape coexistence and col- lectivity in the neutron-deficient z ≈ 82 nuclei, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 024004 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    M. J. G. Borge and K. Blaum, Focus on exotic beams at isolde: A laboratory portrait, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 45, 010301 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    B. H. Sun, C. Y. Liu, and H. X. Wang, Correlating double-difference of charge radii with quadrupole defor- mation and b(e2) in atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014307 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Sun, B. H. and Liu, C. Y., Probes of shape transitions from mass and charge radii of nuclear ground states, EPJ Web Conf. 123, 01005 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    B. A. Marsh, T. Day Goodacre, S. Sels, Y. Tsun- oda, B. Andel, A. N. Andreyev, N. A. Althubiti, D. Atanasov, A. E. Barzakh, J. Billowes, K. Blaum, T. E. Cocolios, J. G. Cubiss, J. Dobaczewski, G. J. Farooq-Smith, D. V. Fedorov, V. N. Fedosseev, K. T. Flanagan, L. P. Gaffney, L....

    2018

  82. [90]

    B. H. Sun, Y. Lu, J. P. Peng, C. Y. Liu, and Y. M. Zhao, New charge radius relations for atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054318 (2014)

    2014

  83. [91]

    Wrzosek-Lipska and L

    K. Wrzosek-Lipska and L. P. Gaffney, Unique and com- plementary information on shape coexistence in the neutron-deficient pb region derived from coulomb ex- citation, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 024012 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Geithner, T

    W. Geithner, T. Neff, G. Audi, K. Blaum, P. Dela- haye, H. Feldmeier, S. George, C. Gu´ enaut, F. Her- furth, A. Herlert, S. Kappertz, M. Keim, A. Keller- bauer, H.-J. Kluge, M. Kowalska, P. Lievens, D. Lunney, K. Marinova, R. Neugart, L. Schweikhard, S. Wilbert, and C. Yazidji...

    2008

  85. [93]

    N¨ ortersh¨ auser, D

    W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, D. Tiedemann, M.ˇZ´ akov´ a, Z. And- jelkovic, K. Blaum, M. L. Bissell, R. Cazan, G. W. F. Drake, C. Geppert, M. Kowalska, J. Kr¨ amer, A. Krieger, R. Neugart, R. S´ anchez, F. Schmidt-Kaler, Z.-C. Yan, D. T. Yordanov, and C. Zimmermann, Nu- 16 clear char...

    2009

  86. [94]

    D. T. Yordanov, D. L. Balabanski, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, I. Budinˇ cevi´ c, B. Cheal, K. Flanagan, N. Fr¨ ommgen, G. Georgiev, C. Geppert, M. Hammen, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, A. Krieger, J. Meng, R. Neu- gart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, M. M. Rajabali, J. Papuga, S. Schm...

    2016

  87. [95]

    Krieger, K

    A. Krieger, K. Blaum, M. L. Bissell, N. Fr¨ ommgen, C. Geppert, M. Hammen, K. Kreim, M. Kowal- ska, J. Kr¨ amer, T. Neff, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, C. Novotny, R. S´ anchez, and D. T. Yordanov, Nuclear charge radius of 12Be, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 142501 (2012)

    2012

  88. [96]

    D. T. Yordanov, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, M. De Rydt, C. Geppert, M. Kowalska, J. Kr¨ amer, K. Kreim, A. Krieger, P. Lievens, T. Neff, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, R. S´ anchez, and P. Vingerhoets, Nu- clear charge radii of 21− 32Mg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 042504 (2012)

    2012

  89. [97]

    J. Z. Han, C. Pan, K. Y. Zhang, X. F. Yang, S. Q. Zhang, J. C. Berengut, S. Goriely, H. Wang, Y. M. Yu, J. Meng, J. W. Zhang, and L. J. Wang, Isotope shift factors for the cd + 5s2s1/ 2 → 5p2p3/ 2 transition and de- termination of cd nuclear charge radii, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 03...

    2022

  90. [98]

    Campbell, I

    P. Campbell, I. Moore, and M. Pearson, Laser spec- troscopy for nuclear structure physics, Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics 86, 127 (2016)

    2016

  91. [99]

    Neugart, J

    R. Neugart, J. Billowes, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, K. T. Flanagan, G. Neyens, W. Nortershauser, and D. T. Yordanov, Collinear laser spectroscopy at isolde: new methods and highlights, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 064002 (2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

    T. Li, Y. Luo, and N. Wang, Compilation of recent nu- clear ground state charge radius measurements and tests for models, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 140, 101440 (2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    Goriely, M

    S. Goriely, M. Samyn, M. Bender, and J. M. Pearson, Further explorations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass formulas. ii. role of the effective mass, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054325 (2003)

    2003

  94. [102]

    Goriely, M

    S. Goriely, M. Samyn, and J. M. Pearson, Further explo- rations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass formu- las. vii. simultaneous fits to masses and fission barriers, Phys. Rev. C 75, 064312 (2007)

    2007

  95. [103]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Further ex- plorations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass for- mulas. xii. stiffness and stability of neutron-star matter, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035804 (2010)

    2010

  96. [104]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Further ex- plorations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass for- mulas. xiii. the 2012 atomic mass evaluation and the symmetry coefficient, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024308 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    Duflo, Phenomenological calculation for nuclear masses and charge radii, Nuclear Physics A 576, 29 (1994)

    J. Duflo, Phenomenological calculation for nuclear masses and charge radii, Nuclear Physics A 576, 29 (1994)

    1994

  98. [106]

    A. E. L. Dieperink and P. Van Isacker, Shell corrections to a liquid-drop description of nuclear masses and radii, The European Physical Journal A 42, 269 (2009)

    2009

  99. [107]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, New parametrization for the nuclear covariant energy density functional with a point-coupling interaction, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054319 (2010)

    2010

  100. [108]

    Iimura and F

    H. Iimura and F. Buchinger, Charge radii in macroscopic-microscopic mass models of reflection asymmetry, Phys. Rev. C 78, 067301 (2008)

    2008

  101. [109]

    Piekarewicz, M

    J. Piekarewicz, M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, and X. Vi˜ nas, Garvey-kelson relations for nuclear charge radii, The European Physical Journal A 46, 379 (2010)

    2010

  102. [110]

    M. Bao, Y. Lu, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Predictions of nuclear charge radii, Phys. Rev. C 94, 064315 (2016)

    2016

  103. [111]

    M. Bao, Y. Y. Zong, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Lo- cal relations of nuclear charge radii, Phys. Rev. C 102, 014306 (2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    C. Ma, Y. Y. Zong, Y. M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Eval- uation of nuclear charge radii based on nuclear radii changes, Phys. Rev. C 104, 014303 (2021)

    2021

  105. [113]

    G.-S. Li, C. Xu, and M. Bao, Predictions of nuclear charge radii*, Chinese Physics C 47, 084104 (2023)

    2023

  106. [114]

    B. A. Brown, Mirror charge radii and the neutron equa- tion of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 122502 (2017)

    2017

  107. [115]

    Yang and J

    J. Yang and J. Piekarewicz, Difference in proton radii of mirror nuclei as a possible surrogate for the neutron skin, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014314 (2018)

    2018

  108. [116]

    Gaidarov, I

    M. Gaidarov, I. Moumene, A. Antonov, D. Kadrev, P. Sarriguren, and E. Moya de Guerra, Proton and neu- tron skins and symmetry energy of mirror nuclei, Nu- clear Physics A 1004, 122061 (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    B. A. Brown, K. Minamisono, J. Piekarewicz, H. Herg- ert, D. Garand, A. Klose, K. K¨ onig, J. D. Lantis, Y. Liu, B. Maaß, A. J. Miller, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, S. V. Pineda, R. C. Powel, D. M. Rossi, F. Sommer, C. Sum- ithrarachchi, A. Teigelh¨ ofer, J. Watkins, and R. Wirth, Im...

    2020

  110. [118]

    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, Charge ra- dius of neutron-deficient 54Ni and symmetry energy con- straints using the difference in mirror pair charge rad...

    2021

  111. [119]

    H. A. Bethe, Coulomb energy of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. 54, 436 (1938)

    1938

  112. [120]

    Kofoed-Hansen, Mirror nuclei determinations of nu - clear size, Rev

    O. Kofoed-Hansen, Mirror nuclei determinations of nu - clear size, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 449 (1958)

    1958

  113. [121]

    Yang, X.-H

    Z.-X. Yang, X.-H. Fan, Z.-P. Li, and H. Liang, Data- driven density functional model for atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064312 (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    Huang, M

    W. Huang, M. Wang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (i). evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures*, Chinese Physics C 45, 030002 (2021)

    2021

  115. [123]

    J¨ anecke, Coulomb energies of spherical nuclei, Nu- clear Physics A 181, 49 (1972)

    J. J¨ anecke, Coulomb energies of spherical nuclei, Nu- clear Physics A 181, 49 (1972)

    1972

  116. [124]

    S. J. Novario, D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, and G. Hagen, Trends of neutron skins and radii of mirror nuclei from first principles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 032501 (2023)

    2023

  117. [125]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Nu- clear charge-density-distribution parameters from elas- tic electron scattering, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  118. [126]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, A simplex method for func- tion minimization, Comput. J. 7, 308 (1965)

    1965

  119. [127]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted- by- 17 publisher for 197 predicted binding energies per nucleon and 199 charge radii

  120. [128]

    Korolev, A

    G. Korolev, A. Dobrovolsky, A. Inglessi, G. Alkha- zov, P. Egelhof, A. Estrad´ e, I. Dillmann, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, S. Ilieva, Y. Ke, A. Khanzadeev, O. Kise- lev, J. Kurcewicz, X. Le, Y. Litvinov, G. Petrov, A. Prochazka, C. Scheidenberger, L. Sergeev, H. Simon, M. Takechi,...

    2018

  121. [129]

    C. Lehr, F. Wamers, F. Aksouh, Y. Aksyutina, H. ´Alvarez-Pol, L. Atar, T. Aumann, S. Beceiro- Novo, C. Bertulani, K. Boretzky, M. Borge, C. Caesar, M. Chartier, A. Chatillon, L. Chulkov, D. Cortina-Gil, P. D ´ ıaz Fern´ andez, H. Emling, O. Ershova, L. Fraile, H. Fynbo, D. Gal...

    2022

  122. [130]

    J. Lee, X. X. Xu, K. Kaneko, Y. Sun, C. J. Lin, L. J. Sun, P. F. Liang, Z. H. Li, J. Li, H. Y. Wu, D. Q. Fang, J. S. Wang, Y. Y. Yang, C. X. Yuan, Y. H. Lam, Y. T. Wang, K. Wang, J. G. Wang, J. B. Ma, J. J. Liu, P. J. Li, Q. Q. Zhao, L. Yang, N. R. Ma, D. X. Wang, F. P. Zhong,...

    2020

  123. [131]

    S. E. Campbell, G. Bollen, B. A. Brown, A. Dockery, C. M. Ireland, K. Minamisono, D. Puentes, B. J. Rickey, R. Ringle, I. T. Yandow, K. Fossez, A. Ortiz-Cortes, S. Schwarz, C. S. Sumithrarachchi, and A. C. C. Villari, Precision mass measurement of the proton dripline halo cand...

    2024

  124. [132]

    K. Y. Zhang, C. Pan, and S. Wang, Examination of the evidence for a proton halo in 22Al, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014320 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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