Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 80 references

Universal Effective Charges in the $sd$ and $fp$ Shells

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One pair of effective charges can be used across the sd and fp shells.

desk verdict Solid new 54Sc B(E2) measurement, but the universal effective charge claim needs cross-interaction tests before it is treated as established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21852 v1 pith:VKCX4BKA submitted 2025-06-27 nucl-ex nucl-th

T. H. Ogunbeku , J. M. Allmond , T. J. Gray , W.-J. Ong , B. A. Brown , A. Gargano , R. Grzywacz , J. D. Holt
show 74 more authors
A. O. Macchiavelli T. Miyagi S. Neupane B. C. Rasco H. Schatz B. M. Sherrill O. B. Tarasov H. Arora A. D. Ayangeakaa H. C. Berg J. M. Berkman D. L. Bleuel K. Bosmpotinis M. P. Carpenter G. Cerizza A. Chester J. M. Christie I. Cox H. L. Crawford B. P. Crider J. Davis A. A. Doetsch J. G. Duarte A. Estrade A. Fija{l}kowska C. Frantzis T. Gaballah E. C. Good K. Haak S. Hanai J. T. Harke A. C. Hartley K. Hermansen D. E. M. Hoff D. Hoskins III J. Huffman P. Van Isacker R. Jain M. Karny T. T. King N. Kitamura K. Kolos A. Laminack S. N. Liddick B. Longfellow R. S. Lubna S. Lyons M. Madurga M. J. Mogannam G. Owens-Fryar J R. Palomino M. M. Rajabali A. L. Richard I.J. Richardson E. K. Ronning G. E. Rose T. J. Ruland K. P. Rykaczewski N. D. Scielzo D. P. Scriven D. Seweryniak K. Siegl M. Singh A. Spyrou M. Stepaniuk A. E. Stuchbery A. Sweet V. Tripathi A. Tsantiri S. Uthayakumaar W. B. Walters S. Watters Z. Xu R. Yokoyama
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 23.20.-g21.60.Cs27.40.+z
keywords nuclearshellmodeleffectivechargesE2transitionstrengthnanosecondisomer54ScN=34subshellgapsdfp
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

Using a new nanosecond-isomer measurement in $^{54}$Sc, this paper extracts the proton and neutron effective charges that a shell-model calculation needs to reproduce electric-quadrupole (E2) transition strengths and quadrupole moments. The extracted values, $e_\pi=1.30(8)e$ and $e_\nu=0.452(7)e$, coincide with the effective charges long used in the $sd$ shell and with a microscopic theoretical derivation. The paper argues that earlier reports of larger $fp$-shell effective charges near $N=Z$ were wrong because those analyses left out proton excitations across $Z=28$, and that one universal pair, $e_\pi\approx1.33e$ and $e_\nu\approx0.45e$, works across both shells. If that is right, E2 calculations for a broad range of nuclei no longer need shell-dependent renormalization of the charges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a linear ratio relation. For every E2 observable, the experimental matrix element $M_p = \sqrt{(2J_i+1)\,B(E2)}$ (or a measured quadrupole moment) is modeled as $M_p = A_\pi e_\pi + A_\nu e_\nu$, where $A_\pi$ and $A_\nu$ are transition amplitudes computed in the full $fp$ shell-model space with the UFP-CA interaction, and $e_\pi$, $e_\nu$ are the effective charges — the adjustable electric charges assigned to valence protons and neutrons to absorb the effects of configurations outside the model space. Plotting $A_\nu/M_p$ against $A_\pi/M_p$ must place all nuclei on a single straight line whose slope is $e_\pi/e_\nu$ and whose intercept is $1/e_\nu$; a large majority of $fp$-shell nuclei have $A_\pi\approx A_\nu$, so they constrain mostly the sum, while $^{54}$Sc and related data constrain the ratio. The new, more precise point shifts the fitted line to the small-$e_\nu$, large-$e_\pi/e_\nu$ values that coincide with the $sd$ shell, and the authors show that the earlier, larger effective charges correspond to the same data when the cross-shell amplitudes are omitted.

What would settle it

Take a high-precision E2 measurement in an $fp$-shell nucleus not used in the fit, compute its predicted $B(E2)$ with the universal charges ($e_\pi=1.33e$, $e_\nu=0.45e$) and the UFP-CA amplitudes, and check whether the measured value lands on the universal amplitude-ratio line; a $B(E2)$ that disagrees by more than the combined uncertainties — or a re-analysis showing the old $N\approx Z$ data require the larger charges once cross-shell amplitudes are included — would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the 247-keV state in $^{54}$Sc is a nanosecond isomer, $T_{1/2}=26.0(22)$ ns, identified as the $1^+$ member of the $\pi f_{7/2}\otimes \nu f_{5/2}$ multiplet, decaying by a pure $E2$ transition to the $3^+$ ground state with $B(E2)=1.93(16)$ W.u. Combining this precise datum with E2 strengths and ground-state quadrupole moments of neutron-rich Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopes, and expressing each measured E2 matrix element as $M_p = A_\pi e_\pi + A_\nu e_\nu$ with amplitudes $A_\pi, A_\nu$ from the UFP-CA shell-model interaction, the authors obtain $e_\pi=1.30(8)e$ and $e_\nu=0.452(7)e$. These values match the $sd$-shell effective charges ($e_\pi=1.36(5)e$, $e_\nu=0.45(5)e$) and the microscopic values $e_\pi=1.31e$, $e_\nu=0.46e$, leading the authors to conclude that the previously reported $fp$-shell charges ($e_\pi\approx1.1\!-\!1.15e$, $e_\nu\approx0.6\!-\!0.8e$) are erroneous and that a universal set, $e_\pi\approx1.33e$, $e_\nu\approx0.45e$, applies across the $sd$ and $fp$ shells.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted charges depend on the UFP-CA interaction and the full $fp$ model space correctly computing the transition amplitudes $A_\pi$ and $A_\nu$ for every nucleus in the fit; if the interaction gets the proton-neutron mixing wrong, especially the mixing that brings in proton excitations across $Z=28$, the extracted charges would absorb the error and the universality claim would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the universality claim holds, shell-model calculations of E2 transitions and quadrupole moments across the $sd$ and $fp$ shells can use a single fixed pair of effective charges rather than shell-dependent values.
  • The previously published effective charges for $fp$-shell nuclei near $N=Z$ would be superseded, with direct consequences for predicted $B(E2)$ values in that region.
  • The ratio $e_\pi/e_\nu = 2.88(18)$, being independent of the oscillator parameter, provides a stable cross-shell benchmark that can be compared against future measurements.
  • The low-lying structure of $^{54}$Sc supports a weak $N=34$ sub-shell gap relative to $N=32$, consistent with recent interactions but not with older ones that predicted a nonexistent or too-strong gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same $A_\nu/M_p$ versus $A_\pi/M_p$ line could be extended to cross-shell $sd$-$fp$ or heavier $fp$-$sdg$ valence spaces; any new point that falls off the line would signal missing physics rather than a change of effective charges.
  • If universal charges hold, a practical consequence is that future shell-model codes could treat $e_\pi$ and $e_\nu$ as fixed inputs, turning any measured deviation into a diagnostic for omitted correlations such as three-body forces.
  • An editorial caution: because the absolute charges scale with the adopted oscillator parameter $\hbar\omega$ while the ratio does not, cross-nucleus comparisons rest on the ratio, and the absolute values on the oscillator choice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a new measurement of the half-life of the 247-keV state in 54Sc, populated in the β decay of 54Ca at FRIB. The state is assigned as the 1+ member of the πf7/2⊗νf5/2 multiplet and decays by a pure E2 transition to the 3+ ground state, with B(E2)=1.93(16) W.u. Combining this new datum with existing E2 strengths and ground-state quadrupole moments for neutron-rich Ca, Sc, and Ti isotopes, the authors fit effective proton and neutron charges e_pi=1.30(8)e and e_nu=0.452(7)e using the UFP-CA interaction in the full fp model space. They argue that these charges, together with sd-shell values, establish a universal set of effective charges across the sd and fp shells, and they conclude that previously reported fp-shell effective charges (e_pi≈1.1–1.15e, e_nu≈0.6–0.8e) are erroneous. The paper also compares level schemes and shell gaps with ab initio and empirical interactions, supporting a weak N=34 subshell gap relative to N=32.

Significance. The new 54Sc B(E2) is a valuable and precise datum in a neutron-rich region where E2 data are extremely scarce, and the fast-timing measurement appears to be of good quality. If the universal-charge claim holds, it would resolve a long-standing inconsistency in effective charges and provide a simple prescription for E2 calculations across the sd–fp shells. The paper is transparent about the fitting procedure: Appendix A tabulates the experimental matrix elements and the proton/neutron amplitudes, so the fit is reproducible. The comparison with the microscopic Dufour–Zuker charges and with sd-shell empirical charges provides independent anchors for the claim. However, the extracted charges inherit the model dependence of the UFP-CA amplitudes, and the external consistency checks constrain only the sum e_pi+e_nu, not the ratio. The central claim therefore needs additional support before it can be accepted at the level of precision claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I / Appendix A / Fig. 4] The extracted effective charges and their quoted uncertainties assume the UFP-CA transition amplitudes are exact. The text itself states that the UFP-CA Hamiltonian 'should only be used for nuclei near Z=20 with N>28', yet the fit includes 54Ti (Z=22) and the conclusion is applied to the entire fp shell. The 54Sc B(E2) is enhanced by a factor of four by mixing with the πp3/2⊗νp1/2 configuration (Fig. 4), so the fitted e_pi is tightly correlated with the Z=28 gap and the unmeasured position of the second 1+ state. A refit of the same seven data points using a different interaction (e.g., GXPF1A or KB3G) should be reported; without such a cross-check, the uncertainties on e_pi and e_nu are model uncertainties rather than purely statistical ones, and the errors 0.08e and 0.007e are likely underestimated. This is the key missing element for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Abstract / 'Effective charges' paragraph / Fig. 5] The assertion in the abstract and summary that previous fp-shell effective charges are 'erroneous' is stronger than the evidence presented. The earlier values were determined from data near N≈Z or along the stable N=28 and Z=28 chains, in some cases with different model spaces and interactions, whereas the present data are confined to a narrow region near N=32,34. The external consistency check in Fig. 5 uses 50Ti and 51Fe/51Mn transitions whose amplitudes satisfy Ap≈An and therefore constrain only e_pi+e_nu, not the ratio e_pi/e_nu; the new ratio 2.88(18) is determined almost entirely by the UFP-CA amplitudes for Ca, Sc, and Ti. The wording should be moderated to 'not required by the present data' or 'inconsistent with a universal set at current precision' unless a proper statistical comparison including the external points is performed.
  3. [Table I, 55Ca row] The 55Ca B(E2)=0.42(18) W.u. alone gives e_nu = M/An = 0.633(135)e, which is 1.3σ above the fitted 0.452(7)e (Appendix A: An=5.10 efm², M=3.23(69) efm²). This tension is not discussed in the paper. Although 1.3σ is not statistically alarming by itself, it is a visible residual given the very small quoted uncertainty on e_nu, and it suggests either an inaccuracy in the UFP-CA amplitude for 55Ca or a genuine variation of e_nu. The authors should present per-point residuals for all seven fitted data points and comment on this one.
  4. [Effective-charge fit / Table I] Because the newly measured 54Sc point is part of the data set used to determine e_pi and e_nu, the improved χ² for that point is by construction. The universality claim would be materially strengthened by a leave-one-out analysis in which e_pi and e_nu are fitted to the other six points and the 54Sc B(E2) is then predicted and compared with 1.93(16) W.u. The paper currently provides no such cross-validation, and the external points in Fig. 5 do not determine the ratio. Adding this prediction (with its uncertainty) would convert the 54Sc measurement from an input to a genuine test of the universal-charge hypothesis.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract contain missing spaces ('thesd and f pshells', '1p − 1h'), which appear to be LaTeX artifacts; these should be corrected.
  2. [Header] The compiled PDF is dated September 4, 2025, while the arXiv submission date is June 27, 2025; the dates should be reconciled.
  3. [Fig. 1] In Fig. 1, the lower panel contains the label '1 (b)', which seems to be a duplicate of the caption's part (b); the in-panel label should be corrected.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Fig. 5 states 'The proton amplitudes are zero for the Ca isotopes so the weighted average was adopted'; this is unclear because a weighted average of what quantity and over which data is not specified.
  5. [Appendix A] In Appendix A, the ground-state quadrupole moments for 49Ca and 51Ca are listed with signs; the sign convention (spectroscopic versus intrinsic, and the relation to B(E2) units) should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Reference [47]] Reference [47] is missing the volume number of the journal; please complete the bibliographic information.
  7. [Summary paragraph] The text says 'No evidence for changes in the effective charges due to an isospin or orbital dependence is found'; given the small sample and confined mass region, this should be softened to 'No evidence was found in the present data'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the effective charges are openly fitted to the E2 data, and the universality claim rests on independent sd-shell values and external fp-shell data points.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is an experimental lifetime for the 247-keV state in 54Sc; the B(E2)=1.93(16) W.u. value follows from that measurement and is not derived from the effective charges. The effective charges are explicitly obtained by a least-squares fit to the E2 data in Table I: 'newly fitted effective charges of eπ = 1.30(8)e, eν = 0.452(7)e.' The resulting improvement in reduced chi-squared from 18.1 to 1.1 is therefore a property of the fit, not a prediction, and the paper does not disguise it as one. The universality claim is not equivalent to this fit: it is checked against the independent sd-shell values of Ref. [71] ('These values are equivalent to the universal effective charges in the sd shell, eπ = 1.36(5)e and eν = 0.45(5)e') and against external fp-shell points that were not used in the fit, namely 50Ti (N=28) and 51Fe/51Mn (N≈Z), as shown in Appendix A with a separate GXPF1A calculation and χ2_norm = 1.5. The paper also transparently notes the limitation that many previous fp-shell points have Ap≈An and therefore constrain mainly the sum, not the ratio: 'a large majority of fp-shell nuclei, including those at N=28, have Ap≈An meaning they are mostly sensitive to the sum of effective charges as opposed to the ratio.' The UFP-CA interaction used for the amplitudes comes from prior work including a co-author, but the paper additionally compares with SM* and VS-IMSRG ab initio calculations for the level structure, so the central argument does not reduce to a self-citation chain. Any model-dependence of the UFP-CA transition amplitudes is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the shell model framework and the validity of the UFP-CA interaction for this region. These are standard but not fully independent of the data used to tune the interaction. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • e_pi = 1.30(8)e
    Proton effective charge fitted to E2 data in Table I and quadrupole moments of 49,51Ca.
  • e_nu = 0.452(7)e
    Neutron effective charge fitted simultaneously with e_pi to the same data set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The full fp model space plus a one-body E2 operator is sufficient, with all core polarization beyond fp absorbed into effective charges.
    Central to the effective charge extraction; if two-body E2 components matter, the derived charges would be biased. Invoked implicitly throughout the fitting section.
  • domain assumption The UFP-CA interaction (empirically adjusted to Ca isotopes) is a valid effective interaction for Sc and Ti nuclei.
    The transition amplitudes Ap and An are computed with UFP-CA; the fit assumes these amplitudes are correct for the nuclei in Table I.
  • domain assumption The low-lying states of 54Sc are dominated by the pi f7/2 ⊗ nu p1/2 and pi f7/2 ⊗ nu f5/2 spin-coupled multiplets.
    The assignment of the 247-keV transition as 1+ -> 3+ between these multiplets is needed to interpret the measured half-life as a pure E2 B(E2).
  • domain assumption The Blomqvist-Molinari oscillator parameter gives the correct radial dependence for E2 matrix elements.
    The extracted effective charges scale with hbar-omega; the choice of parameter affects the fitted values, as noted in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Effective Charges in the $sd$ and $fp$ Shells." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKCX4BKA

@misc{pith2026250621852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Effective Charges in the $sd$ and $fp$ Shells},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKCX4BKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21852}
}
abstract

The 247-keV state in $^{54}$Sc, populated in the $\beta$ decay of $^{54}$Ca, is reported here as a nanosecond isomer with a half-life of 26.0(22) ns. The state is interpreted as the $1^+$ member of the $\pi f_{7/2}\otimes\nu f_{5/2}$ spin-coupled multiplet, which decays to the $3^+,\pi f_{7/2} \otimes \nu p_{1/2}$ ground state. The new half-life corresponds to a pure $E2$ transition with a strength of 1.93(16) W.u., providing the most precise, unambiguous $B(E2)$ value in the neutron-rich $fp$ region to date for a nucleus with valence protons above $Z=20$. Notably, it is roughly four times larger than the $B(E2; 1/2^{-} \rightarrow 5/2^{-})$ value in $^{55}$Ca. The results, as compared to semi-empirical and ab initio shell-model calculations, indicate (1) a weak $N=34$ sub-shell gap relative to $N = 32$, (2) a large $E2$ enhancement in Sc as compared to Ca due to $1p-1h$ proton excitations across $Z=28$, and (3) empirical effective proton and neutron charges, $e_\pi$ = 1.30(8)$e$ and $e_\nu$ = 0.452(7)$e$, respectively, that are in contrast to reports of $e_\pi \approx 1.1-1.15e$ and $e_\nu \approx 0.6-0.8e$ for $fp$-shell nuclei near $N = Z$. We demonstrate that these reports are erroneous and that, in fact, a universal set of effective charges can be used across the $sd$ and $fp$ shells.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21852 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of experimental and theoretical (a) neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. UFP-CA calculations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Neutron versus proton transition amplitudes relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page 1949

  2. [2]

    Haxel, J

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

    1949

  3. [3]

    Warner, Nature430, 517 (2004)

    D. Warner, Nature430, 517 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Dobaczewski, N

    J. Dobaczewski, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Płosza- jczak, and J. Rotureau, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 59, 432 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Satuła, M

    W. Satuła, M. Zalewski, J. Dobaczewski, P. Olbratowski, M. Rafalski, T. R. Werner, and R. A. Wyss, International Journal of Modern Physics E18, 808 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Otsuka, A

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

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 232502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, M. Honma, Y. Utsuno, N. Tsunoda, K. Tsukiyama, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 012501 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Valiente-Dobón, D. Mengoni, A. Gadea, E. Farnea, S. M. Lenzi, S. Lunardi, A. Dewald, T. Pissulla, S. Szil- ner, R. Broda, F. Recchia, A. Algora, L. Angus, D. Baz- zacco, G. Benzoni, P. G. Bizzeti, A. M. Bizzeti-Sona, P. Boutachkov, L. Corradi, F. Crespi, G. de Angelis, E...

    2009

  2. [10]

    Jungclaus, M

    A. Jungclaus, M. Górska, M. Mikołajczuk, J. Acosta, J. Taprogge, S. Nishimura, P. Doornenbal, G. Lorusso, G. S. Simpson, P.-A. Söderström, T. Sumikama, Z. Xu, P. Kumar, G. Martínez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, P. Van Isacker, H. Baba, F. Browne, N. Fukuda, R. Gern- häuser, G.Gey, N.Ina...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornen- bal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, Y. Utsuno, H. Baba, S. Go, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y. Shiga, N. Shimizu, P.-A. Söderström, T. Sumikama, R. Taniuchi, J. J. Valiente-Dob...

    2015

  4. [12]

    A. Huck, G. Klotz, A. Knipper, C. Miehé, C. Richard- Serre, G. Walter, A. Poves, H. L. Ravn, and G. Marguier, Phys. Rev. C31, 2226 (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    A. Gade, R. V. F. Janssens, D. Bazin, R. Broda, B. A. Brown, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Carpenter, J. M. Cook, A. N. Deacon, D.-C. Dinca, B. Fornal, S. J. Freeman, T. Glasmacher, P. G. Hansen, B. P. Kay, P. F. Mantica, W. F. Mueller, J. R. Terry, J. A. Tostevin, and S. Zhu, Phys. R...

    2006

  6. [14]

    R. V. F. Janssens, B. Fornal, P. F. Mantica, B. A. Brown, R. Broda, P. Bhattacharyya, M. P. Carpenter, M. Cinausero, P. J. Daly, A. D. Davies, T. Glasmacher, Z. W. Grabowski, D. E. Groh, M. Honma, F. G. Kon- dev, W. Królas, T. Lauritsen, S. N. Liddick, S. Lunardi, N. Marginean...

    2002

  7. [15]

    S. N. Liddick, P. F. Mantica, R. Broda, B. A. Brown, M. P. Carpenter, A. D. Davies, B. Fornal, T. Glasmacher, D. E. Groh, M. Honma, M. Horoi, R. V. F. Janssens, T. Mizusaki, D. J. Morrissey, A. C. Morton, W. F. Mueller, T. Otsuka, J. Pavan, H. Schatz, A. Stolz, S. L. Tabor, B....

    2004

  8. [16]

    J. I. Prisciandaro, P. F. Mantica, B. A. Brown, D. W. An- thony, M. W. Cooper, A. Garcia, D. E. Groh, A. Komives, W. Kumarasiri, P. A. Lofy, A. M. Oros-Peusquens, S. L. Tabor, and M. Wiedeking, Physics Letters B510, 17 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    P. F. Mantica, A. C. Morton, B. A. Brown, A. D. Davies, T. Glasmacher, D. E. Groh, S. N. Liddick, D. J. Morrissey, W.F.Mueller, H.Schatz, A.Stolz, S.L.Tabor, M.Honma, M. Horoi, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C67, 014311 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Bürger, T

    A. Bürger, T. R. Saito, H. Grawe, H. Hübel, P. Reiter, J. Gerl, M. Górska, H. J. Wollersheim, A. Al-Khatib, A. Banu, T. Beck, F. Becker, P. Bednarczyk, G. Benzoni, 7 A. Bracco, S. Brambilla, P. Bringel, F. Camera, E. Clé- ment, P. Doornenbal, H. Geissel, A. Görgen, J. Grębosz,...

    2005

  11. [19]

    A. T. Gallant, J. C. Bale, T. Brunner, U. Chowdhury, S. Ettenauer, A. Lennarz, D. Robertson, V. V. Simon, A. Chaudhuri, J. D. Holt, A. A. Kwiatkowski, E. Mané, J. Menéndez, B. E. Schultz, M. C. Simon, C. Andreoiu, P. Delheij, M. R. Pearson, H. Savajols, A. Schwenk, and J. Dill...

    2012

  12. [20]

    Wienholtz, D

    F. Wienholtz, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Bre- itenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, S. George, F. Herfurth, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V. Manea, J. Menén- dez, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, J. Stanja, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zu- ...

    2013

  13. [21]

    Rosenbusch, P

    M. Rosenbusch, P. Ascher, D. Atanasov, C. Barbieri, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, A. Cipollone, S. George, F. Herfurth, M. Kowal- ska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V. Manea, P. Navrátil, D. Nei- dherr, L. Schweikhard, V. Somà, J. Stanja, F. Wienholtz,...

    2015

  14. [22]

    X. Xu, M. Wang, Y.-H. Zhang, H.-S. Xu, P. Shuai, X.-L. Tu, Y. A. Litvinov, X.-H. Zhou, B.-H. Sun, Y.-J. Yuan, J.-W. Xia, J.-C. Yang, K. Blaum, R.-J. Chen, X.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Fu, Z. Ge, Z.-G. Hu, W.-J. Huang, D.-W. Liu, Y.-H. Lam, X.-W. Ma, R.-S. Mao, T. Uesaka, G.-Q. Xiao, Y.-M...

    2015

  15. [23]

    X. Xu, M. Wang, K. Blaum, J. D. Holt, Y. A. Litvinov, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, Y. H. Zhang, H. S. Xu, P. Shuai, X. L. Tu, X. H. Zhou, F. R. Xu, G. Audi, R. J. Chen, X. C. Chen, C. Y. Fu, Z. Ge, W. J. Huang, S. Litvinov, D. W. Liu, Y. H. Lam, X. W. Ma, R. S. Mao,...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Leistenschneider, M

    E. Leistenschneider, M. P. Reiter, S. Ayet San Andrés, B. Kootte, J. D. Holt, P. Navrátil, C. Babcock, C. Barbi- eri, B. R. Barquest, J. Bergmann, J. Bollig, T. Brunner, E. Dunling, A. Finlay, H. Geissel, L. Graham, F. Greiner, H. Hergert, C. Hornung, C. Jesch, R. Klawitter, Y...

    2018

  17. [25]

    W. S. Porter, E. Dunling, E. Leistenschneider, J. Bergmann, G. Bollen, T. Dickel, K. A. Dietrich, A. Hamaker, Z. Hockenbery, C. Izzo, A. Jacobs, A. Javaji, B. Kootte, Y. Lan, I. Miskun, I. Mukul, T. Murböck, S. F. Paul, W. R. Plaß, D. Puentes, M. Redshaw, M. P. Reiter, R. Ring...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, H. Baba, N. Fukuda, S. Go, M. Honma, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y. Shiga, P.-A. Söderström, T. Sumikama, H. Suzuki, R. Taniuchi, Y. Utsuno, ...

    2013

  19. [27]

    Michimasa, M

    S. Michimasa, M. Kobayashi, Y. Kiyokawa, S. Ota, D. S. Ahn, H. Baba, G. P. A. Berg, M. Dozono, N. Fukuda, T.Furuno, E.Ideguchi, N.Inabe, T.Kawabata, S.Kawase, K. Kisamori, K. Kobayashi, T. Kubo, Y. Kubota, C. S. Lee, M. Matsushita, H. Miya, A. Mizukami, H. Nagakura, D. Nishimu...

    2018

  20. [28]

    The proton amplitudes are zero for the Ca isotopes so the weighted average was adopted

    and 51Fe/51Mn (N ≈ Z) [68–70] with lines representing previously adopted effective charges. The proton amplitudes are zero for the Ca isotopes so the weighted average was adopted. See Appendix A for more details. 1+ lifetime and resulting effective charge analysis demon- strat...

  21. [29]

    Enciu, H

    M. Enciu, H. N. Liu, A. Obertelli, P. Doornenbal, F. Nowacki, K. Ogata, A. Poves, K. Yoshida, N. L. Achouri, H. Baba, F. Browne, D. Calvet, F. Château, S. Chen, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cortés, A. Delbart, J.- M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, C. Hilaire, T. Isobe, T. Kob...

    2022

  22. [30]

    P. J. Li, J. Lee, P. Doornenbal, S. Chen, S. Wang, A. Obertelli, Y. Chazono, J. D. Holt, B. S. Hu, K. Ogata, Y.Utsuno, K.Yoshida, N.L.Achouri, H.Baba, F.Browne, D. Calvet, F. Château, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cortés, A. Delbart, J. M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, C. Hi-...

    2024

  23. [31]

    H. N. Liu, A. Obertelli, P. Doornenbal, C. A. Bertu- lani, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, R. Stroberg, N. Achouri, H. Baba, F. Browne, D. Calvet, F. Château, S. Chen, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cortés, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gil...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, H. Baba, S. Go, J. D. Holt, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Motobayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y. Shiga, P.-A. Söderström, S. R. Stroberg, T. Sumikama, R. Taniuchi, J. A. Tostevin, Y...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Dinca, R

    D.-C. Dinca, R. V. F. Janssens, A. Gade, D. Bazin, R. Broda, B. A. Brown, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Carpenter, P. Chowdhury, J. M. Cook, A. N. Deacon, B. Fornal, S. J. Freeman, T. Glasmacher, M. Honma, F. G. Kondev, J.-L. Lecouey, S. N. Liddick, P. F. Mantica, W. F. Mueller, H. Ol...

    2005

  26. [34]

    Leistenschneider, E

    E. Leistenschneider, E. Dunling, G. Bollen, B. A. Brown, J. Dilling, A. Hamaker, J. D. Holt, A. Jacobs, A. A. Kwiatkowski, T. Miyagi, W. S. Porter, D. Puentes, M. Redshaw, M. P. Reiter, R. Ringle, R. Sandler, C. S. Sumithrarachchi, A. A. Valverde, and I. T. Yandow (The LEBIT C...

    2021

  27. [35]

    S. Zhu, A. N. Deacon, S. J. Freeman, R. V. F. Janssens, B. Fornal, M. Honma, F. R. Xu, R. Broda, I. R. Calderin, M. P. Carpenter, P. Chowdhury, F. G. Kondev, W. Królas, T. Lauritsen, S. N. Liddick, C. J. Lister, P. F. Mantica, T. Pawłat, D. Seweryniak, J. F. Smith, S. L. Tabor...

    2006

  28. [36]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, A. Ek- ström, N. Frömmgen, G. Hagen, M. Hammen, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, W. Nazarewicz, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Nörtershäuser, T. Papenbrock, J. Papuga, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, K. A. Wendt, and D...

    2016

  29. [37]

    Iimura, M

    S. Iimura, M. Rosenbusch, A. Takamine, Y. Tsunoda, M. Wada, S. Chen, D. S. Hou, W. Xian, H. Ishiyama, S. Yan, P. Schury, H. Crawford, P. Doornenbal, Y. Hi- rayama, Y. Ito, S. Kimura, T. Koiwai, T. M. Kojima, H. Koura, J. Lee, J. Liu, S. Michimasa, H. Miyatake, J. Y. Moon, S. N...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Bonnard, S

    J. Bonnard, S. M. Lenzi, and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 212501 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    L. A. Riley, M. L. Agiorgousis, T. R. Baugher, D. Bazin, M. Bowry, P. D. Cottle, F. G. DeVone, A. Gade, M. T. Glowacki, K. W. Kemper, E. Lunderberg, D. M. McPher- son, S. Noji, F. Recchia, B. V. Sadler, M. Scott, D. Weis- shaar, and R. G. T. Zegers, Phys. Rev. C90, 011305 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    B. A. Brown, Physics4, 525 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    FRIB Decay Station initiator, https://fds.ornl.gov/ initiator/ (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    S. V. Paulauskas, M. Madurga, R. Grzywacz, D. Miller, S. Padgett, and H. Tan, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment737, 22 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    FRIB Decay Station initiator proposal, https: //fds.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ FDSi-Proposal-May2020.pdf (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Wolińska-Cichocka, R

    M.Karny, K.P.Rykaczewski, A.Fijałkowska, B.C.Rasco, M. Wolińska-Cichocka, R. K. Grzywacz, K. C. Goetz, D. Miller, and E. F. Zganjar, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment836, 83 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Karny, A

    M. Karny, A. Fijałkowska, R. K. Grzywacz, B. C. Rasco, K. P. Rykaczewski, and M. Stepaniuk, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms463, 390 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    W. A. Peters, S. Ilyushkin, M. Madurga, C. Matei, S. V. Paulauskas, R. K. Grzywacz, D. W. Bardayan, C. R. Brune, J. Allen, J. M. Allen, Z. Bergstrom, J. Blackmon, N. T. Brewer, J. A. Cizewski, P. Copp, M. E. Howard, R. Ikeyama, R. L. Kozub, B. Manning, T. N. Massey, M. Matos, ...

    2016

  39. [47]

    Singh, R

    M. Singh, R. Yokoyama, R. Grzywacz, A. Keeler, T. King, J. Agramunt, N. Brewer, S. Go, J. Liu, S. Nishimura, P. Parkhurst, V. Phong, M. Rajabali, B. Rasco, K. Rykaczewski, D. Stracener, A. Tolosa- Delgado, K. Vaigneur, and M. Wolińska-Cichocka, Nuclear Instruments and Methods ...

    2025

  40. [48]

    H. L. Crawford, V. Tripathi, J. M. Allmond, B. P. Crider, R. Grzywacz, S. N. Liddick, A. Andalib, E. Argo, C. Benetti, S. Bhattacharya, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Car- penter, J. Chan, A. Chester, J. Christie, B. R. Clark, I. Cox, A. A. Doetsch, J. Dopfer, J. G. Duarte, P. Fallon, ...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Yokoyama, M

    R. Yokoyama, M. Singh, R. Grzywacz, A. Keeler, T. T. King, J. Agramunt, N. T. Brewer, S. Go, J. Heide- man, J. Liu, S. Nishimura, P. Parkhurst, V. H. Phong, M. M. Rajabali, B. C. Rasco, K. P. Rykaczewski, D. W. Stracener, J.L. Tain, A.Tolosa-Delgado, K.Vaigneur,and M. Wolińska...

    2019

  42. [50]

    I. Cox, Z. Y. Xu, R. Grzywacz, W.-J. Ong, B. C. Rasco, N. Kitamura, D. Hoskins, S. Neupane, T. J. Ru- land, J. M. Allmond, T. T. King, R. S. Lubna, K. P. Rykaczewski, H. Schatz, B. M. Sherrill, O. B. Tarasov, A. D. Ayangeakaa, H. C. Berg, D. L. Bleuel, G. Cer- izza, J. Christi...

    2024

  43. [51]

    P. F. Mantica, R. Broda, H. L. Crawford, A. Damaske, B.Fornal, A. A.Hecht, C. Hoffman, M. Horoi, N.Hoteling, R. V. F. Janssens, J. Pereira, J. S. Pinter, J. B. Stoker, S. L. Tabor, T. Sumikama, W. B. Walters, X. Wang, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C77, 014313 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    T. J. Gray, J. M. Allmond, Z. Xu, T. T. King, R. S. Lubna, H. L. Crawford, V. Tripathi, B. P. Crider, R. Grzywacz, S. N. Liddick, A. O. Macchiavelli, T. Miyagi, A. Poves, A. Andalib, E. Argo, C. Benetti, S. Bhat- 9 tacharya, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Carpenter, J. Chan, A. Chester...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Grzywacz, R

    R. Grzywacz, R. Béraud, C. Borcea, A. Emsallem, M. Gl- ogowski, H. Grawe, D. Guillemaud-Mueller, M. Hjorth- Jensen, M. Houry, M. Lewitowicz, A. C. Mueller, A. Nowak, A. Płochocki, M. Pfützner, K. Rykaczewski, M. G. Saint-Laurent, J. E. Sauvestre, M. Schaefer, O. Sor- lin, J. S...

    1998

  46. [54]

    standard

    and GXPF1A [55] interactions, used in previous54Sc studies, are compared with recent UFP-CA (empirically adjusted) [56], SM∗ (perturbative ab initio) [57, 58] and VS-IMSRG 1.8/2.0 EM (ab initio ) [59–61] interactions. The UFP-CA Hamiltonian for theT = 1neutron-neutron interact...

  47. [55]

    H. L. Crawford, R. V. F. Janssens, P. F. Mantica, J. S. Berryman, R. Broda, M. P. Carpenter, N. Cieplicka, B. Fornal, G. F. Grinyer, N. Hoteling, B. P. Kay, T. Lau- ritsen, K. Minamisono, I. Stefanescu, J. B. Stoker, W. B. Walters, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C82, 014311 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Magilligan, B

    A. Magilligan, B. A. Brown, and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C104, L051302 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Poves, J

    A. Poves, J. Sánchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Nuclear Physics A694, 157 (2001)

    2001

  50. [58]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki, Eur. Phys. J. A25, 499 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Physics Reports621, 165 (2016), Memorial Volume in Honor of Gerald E. Brown

    2016

  52. [60]

    Coraggio, G

    L. Coraggio, G. De Gregorio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, T. Fukui, Y. Z. Ma, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C102, 054326 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Coraggio, G

    L. Coraggio, G. De Gregorio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, T. Fukui, Y. Z. Ma, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C104, 054304 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno, and Y. Tsunoda, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 372 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    S. R. Stroberg, https://github.com/ragnarstroberg/imsrg (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    A. F. Lisetskiy, B. A. Brown, M. Horoi, and H. Grawe, Phys. Rev. C70, 044314 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    Koiwai, K

    T. Koiwai, K. Wimmer, P. Doornenbal, A. Obertelli, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, J. D. Holt, T. Miyagi, P. Navrátil, K. Ogata, N. Shimizu, V. Somà, Y. Utsuno, K. Yoshida, N. L. Achouri, H. Baba, F. Browne, D. Calvet, F. Château, S. Chen, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cortés, A. Del- bar...

    2022

  59. [67]

    B. A. Brown, D. B. Fossan, J. M. McDonald, and K. A. Snover, Phys. Rev. C9, 1033 (1974)

    1974

  60. [68]

    du Rietz, J

    R. du Rietz, J. Ekman, D. Rudolph, C. Fahlander, A. De- wald, O. Möller, B. Saha, M. Axiotis, M. A. Bentley, C. Chandler, G. de Angelis, F. Della Vedova, A. Gadea, G. Hammond, S. M. Lenzi, N. Mărginean, D. R. Napoli, M. Nespolo, C. Rusu, and D. Tonev, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 222501 (2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    Blomqvist and A

    J. Blomqvist and A. Molinari, Nuclear Physics A106, 545 (1968)

    1968

  62. [70]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, N. Frömm- gen, M. Hammen, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, J. Menéndez, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Nörtershäuser, F. Nowacki, J. Papuga, A. Poves, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, and D. T. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. C91, 041304 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    W. A. Richter, S. Mkhize, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064302 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    J. M. Allmond, B. A. Brown, A. E. Stuchbery, A. Galindo- Uribarri, E. Padilla-Rodal, D. C. Radford, J. C. Batchelder, M. E. Howard, J. F. Liang, B. Manning, R. L. Varner, and C.-H. Yu, Phys. Rev. C90, 034309 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    T. J. Gray, J. M. Allmond, C. Benetti, C. Wibisono, L. Baby, A. Gargano, T. Miyagi, A. O. Macchiavelli, A. E. Stuchbery, J. L. Wood, S. Ajayi, J. Aragon, B. W. Asher, P. Barber, S. Bhattacharya, R. Boisseau, J. M. Christie, A. L. Conley, P. De Rosa, D. T. Dowling, C. Esparza, ...

    2024

  66. [74]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, and A. Poves, Phys. Rev. C90, 014302 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Dufour and A

    M. Dufour and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. C54, 1641 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    D. D. Dao and F. Nowacki, Phys. Rev. C105, 054314 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Nowacki, A

    F. Nowacki, A. Poves, E. Caurier, and B. Bounthong, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 272501 (2016). 11 Appendix A: Comparison of experimentalE2 strengths of f p-shell nuclei nearN = 32, 34 [9, 33, 63, 67] to theoretical predictions using the UFP-CA interaction with adopted effective charg...

    2016

  70. [78]

    Poves, F

    A. Poves, F. Nowacki, and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. C101, 054307 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    H. L. Crawford, R. M. Clark, P. Fallon, A. O. Macchiavelli, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, C. W. Beausang, J. S. Berryman, 10 D. L. Bleuel, C. M. Campbell, M. Cromaz, G. de Angelis, A. Gade, R. O. Hughes, I. Y. Lee, S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, S. Paschalis, M. Petri, A. Poves, A. Ratkiewi...

    2013

  72. [1245]

    101020842) and JST ERATO Grant No

    This work was in part supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 101020842) and JST ERATO Grant No. JPMJER2304, Japan. For the VS-IMSRG calculations, the NuHamil, IMSRG++ and K...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.