Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Extending the low-$Z$ "border'' of the $A=100$ region of deformation with precision mass spectrometry of $^{96-98}$Kr

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first mass of krypton-98 shows the onset of deformation in the A=100 region is gradual, not sharp.

desk verdict First 98Kr mass, careful systematics, plausible gradual-onset interpretation, but the single indirect N=62 anchor means the conclusion should stay hedged. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05538 v1 pith:IHG42ADO submitted 2025-09-05 nucl-ex

D. Lunney , V. Manea , M. Mougeot , L. Nies , N.A. Althubiti , D. Atanasov , K. Blaum , A. Herlert
show 12 more authors
W.-J. Huang J. Karthein I. Kulikov Yu. A. Litvinov D. Neidherr T.R. Rodríguez M. Rosenbusch L. Schweikhard T. Steinsberger A. Welker F. Wienholtz R.N. Wolf
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords kryptonisotopesmassspectrometrytwo-neutronseparationenergyshapetransitionA=100regionbeyond-mean-fieldnucleardeformationprecisionmeasurement
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 high-precision Penning-trap and multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrometry, the authors measured the masses of neutron-rich krypton isotopes 96–98Kr, obtaining the first experimental mass of 98Kr and a threefold improvement in precision for 97Kr. The central result is the trend of two-neutron separation energies: instead of a sharp discontinuity at neutron number N=60, as seen in strontium and zirconium, the krypton chain shows a slight but definite reduction of the S2n slope at N=62. Comparing this trend with beyond-mean-field calculations, the authors conclude that krypton ground states through 98Kr are driven by an oblate (and later transitional) configuration, not by the sudden prolate ground state that appears in the heavier chains. If correct, this blurs the apparent low-Z boundary of the A=100 deformed region and reframes krypton as a transitional feature rather than a sharp border.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-neutron separation energy S2n = BE(Z,N) − BE(Z,N−2), the energy difference between isotopes two neutrons apart, whose slope as a function of N signals a shape transition. The argument is carried by comparing this experimental trend to total energy surfaces (TES) as a function of the quadrupole deformation parameter β20, from both the UNEDF0 functional and the Gogny D1S interaction, and to Symmetry-Conserving Configuration Mixing (SCCM) collective wavefunctions, which show that the oblate minimum stays more bound than the prolate minimum in krypton through N=62. The new 98Kr mass point extends the S2n trend to N=62 and exposes the slight slope reduction.

What would settle it

Re-measure the mass of 98Kr with a Penning trap, or in a high-resolution spectrum in which the two unknown contaminants are resolved, and compare to the reported −44 249(52) keV; a deviation beyond the combined uncertainty, or a demonstration that the presumed 98Kr peak is a contaminant, would falsify the two-neutron separation energy trend and the claim of gradual onset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the first mass value for 98Kr, with a mass excess of −44 249(52) keV, along with improved masses for 96Kr and 97Kr. From these, the two-neutron separation energy trend shows a gradual change beyond N=60: the slope reduces slightly at N=62 rather than flattening or jumping as it does for strontium and zirconium. Axial calculations with the UNEDF0 functional and triaxial, beyond-mean-field calculations with the Gogny D1S interaction both predict that, unlike the higher-Z chains, the krypton ground state up to A=98 is governed by the evolution of an oblate configuration, with a prolate minimum present but never winning until at least N=62. The authors therefore argue that collectivity persists at Z=36 and the low-Z boundary of the deformed region is blurred.

Load-bearing premise

The 98Kr peak assigned in the multi-reflection time-of-flight spectrum is genuinely 98Kr; the identification is indirect, relying on half-life behavior, buncher-holding-time decay, and yield systematics, while two contaminant peaks in the same spectrum are not identified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Krypton isotopes do not undergo the sharp prolate ground-state transition at N=60 that defines strontium and zirconium; the chain remains oblate-dominated or transitional at least through 98Kr.
  • The low-Z border of the A=100 deformed region is not a clean edge; collectivity persists at Z=36, and krypton should be viewed as a transitional region rather than a boundary.
  • The first 98Kr mass replaces an extrapolated value from the 2020 Atomic Mass Evaluation (uncertainty ~300 keV) with a 52 keV measurement, sharpening the mass surface used for nuclear-structure and astrophysical models.
  • The beyond-mean-field prediction of a transition to mixed oblate–prolate structure at N=64 (100Kr) is now a testable target for future mass, charge-radius, and spectroscopy measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 98Kr assignment is confirmed independently, the result implies that the mechanism driving the N=60 prolate shape jump in zirconium and strontium is not simply governed by proton number; the larger energy cost at Z=36 of promoting protons to the g9/2 intruder orbital suppresses the prolate minimum, a suppression that a future mass measurement of 100Kr could directly test.
  • The fact that two contaminants in the m/q=98 spectrum remain unidentified leaves a residual, hypothesis-dependent risk that the 98Kr peak is misplaced; a Penning-trap measurement with a different reference, or a high-resolution spectrum in which the contaminants are resolved, would settle this cleanly.
  • The discrepancy between Gogny D1S based S2n values and experiment suggests that the quantitative onset point is model-sensitive; a functional with an even larger Z=40 shell gap than D1S might push the oblate-prolate competition past N=64, making the blurring even more extended than the paper claims.
  • A natural experimental follow-up is the excitation energy or transition strength of the first 2+ state of 98Kr; if the oblate picture persists, these should continue the smooth trend, whereas a sharp drop would mark the prolate ground state that the mass trend alone cannot exclude.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-precision mass measurements of the neutron-rich krypton isotopes 96Kr, 97Kr, and 98Kr performed with the ISOLTRAP spectrometer at ISOLDE. The 96Kr and 97Kr values agree with earlier measurements, the 97Kr Penning-trap value is three times more precise than the previous one, and the 98Kr mass is reported for the first time. Using these masses, the authors construct the two-neutron separation energy trend of the krypton chain and compare it with energy-density-functional and beyond-mean-field calculations from UNEDF0 and Gogny-D1S. They interpret the resulting S2n trend, in particular a reduction of the slope at N=62, as evidence that krypton remains oblate-like or transitional through 98Kr and that the low-Z boundary of the A=100 deformed region is blurred rather than sharp. The data are publicly deposited on Zenodo.

Significance. If the 98Kr mass is correct, this is a valuable new anchor at N=62 for a chain that sits at the proposed low-Z boundary of the A=100 deformation region. The measurement chain is meticulous: mass-dependent systematic uncertainties are treated following established ISOLTRAP protocols, the 96Kr and 97Kr results validate the procedure against previous work, the space-charge systematics are examined explicitly, and the data are deposited. The theoretical comparisons use functionals and interactions whose parameters were fixed previously, so the interpretation is not fitted to the new masses. These are genuine strengths. The significance of the paper, however, rests almost entirely on the single first mass value of 98Kr, whose identification is indirect; this makes the central 'blurred boundary' claim more fragile than the rest of the analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Mass measurement of 98Kr; Fig. 2(c)] The assignment of the fitted MR-ToF peak to 98Kr is supported only by indirect tests: proton-gate release-curve behavior, buncher holding-time decay, yield ratios, and the time-of-flight expected from the AME2020 extrapolation. Two contaminant peaks in the same m/q=98 spectrum are explicitly unidentified. Since 98Kr is the only new N=62 anchor and the central conclusion depends on its mass, this is a load-bearing point. The paper should either identify the two contaminants, give quantitative upper limits on their yields relative to the fitted peak, or demonstrate that any unresolved contamination cannot shift the extracted centroid by more than the quoted 52-keV uncertainty. As written, the statement that the tests 'give confidence' is appropriate but does not fully establish the identification needed for the main claim.
  2. [Discussion and Conclusion; Fig. 6] The claim of a 'slight, but definite, reduction of the S2n slope' at N=62 rests on a single new experimental point, the 98Kr mass, with a 52-keV uncertainty. A quantitative significance statement is needed: for example, a comparison between the measured S2n(98) and the value interpolated from the neighboring chains or from a no-kink baseline, with full propagation of the 96Kr and 98Kr uncertainties. Without such a statement, 'definite' overstates the evidential weight of one point. Relatedly, the theoretical interpretation in Fig. 6 also predicts a charge-radius jump at N=60 that the experimental radii do not show; the paper acknowledges this, but the central narrative should make clear that the mass trend is the sole new experimental support for the oblate-driven picture.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] There is a typo in the lower-row caption: 'interlaction' should be 'interaction'.
  2. [Fig. 1 insert] The new masses highlighted in red are hard to distinguish in the small inset panel; please increase the marker size or add labels for readability.
  3. [Table I] The heading 'Reference ions ratio R or C_Tof' is awkward and does not indicate that R and C_TOF are different quantities measured with different techniques; consider splitting the columns and defining both symbols explicitly in the caption.
  4. [General] The paper alternately uses 'border' (title and abstract) and 'boundary' (body) for the same concept; please unify the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the new krypton masses are measured against independent calibration references and compared with, not fitted to, theoretical predictions whose parameters are fixed in prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a set of measured masses. For 96Kr, the MR-ToF calibration uses 32S16O+ and 85Rb+; for 97Kr, 39K+ and 97Mo+/85Rb+; and for 98Kr, 98Mo+ and 85Rb+. These reference masses are independently known, and the two-point calibration relation of Eqs. (2)-(3) does not contain the unknown krypton masses as inputs. The frequency-ratio formula, Eq. (5), likewise uses only the reference mass and the measured frequency ratio. No parameter is fitted to the new masses and then renamed a prediction. The theoretical comparison is also not circular: the UNEDF0 functional [26] and the Gogny D1S/SCCM calculations [27] were published independently with parameters fixed before this work; the paper extends SCCM to 100Kr but does not adjust any functional parameter to the new 98Kr mass. The authors even note that the D1S calculations 'agree less with the experimental data', which is evidence that the theory is not forced to match the data. The abstract's 'blurring the apparent low-Z boundary' is an interpretation of the measured S2n trend relative to fixed predictions, not a quantity defined by those predictions. The only substantive caveat is experimental, not circular: the 98Kr peak assignment rests on indirect tests, and the paper explicitly states 'Two other contaminants could not be identified' and that the tests 'give confidence' rather than proof. A misidentification would weaken the empirical claim, but it would not make the derivation circular. There is no self-citation chain carrying the argument, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the measured values, and the interpretive step is externally comparable to theory rather than equivalent to its inputs.

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

No ad hoc free parameters are fitted to produce the masses; calibration parameters a and b (Eq. 1) are determined from reference ions of well-known mass and are standard practice. The theoretical functionals have parameters fixed in their original publications and are not adjusted here. The main assumptions are the accuracy of reference masses, the validity of the MR-ToF calibration, the correctness of the 98Kr peak assignment, and the relevance of EDF intrinsic shapes for interpreting mass trends.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reference atomic masses from AME2020 (85Rb, 39K, 98Mo, 32S16O) are accurate enough for calibration.
    Used in Eqs. 2 and 7 to convert measured times and frequencies to mass excesses; any error in a reference mass propagates directly into the reported values (Experiment section).
  • domain assumption The time-of-flight calibration relation (Eqs. 1-3) is valid for the analyte and reference ions over the same number of revolutions.
    This is the standard MR-ToF MS assumption; the paper checks space-charge effects but does not independently validate the calibration model for 98Kr.
  • domain assumption The m/q=98 peak assigned to 98Kr is free of unresolved contamination from the two unidentified peaks in the spectrum.
    The new 98Kr mass and the N=62 S2n point depend on this assignment; identification is supported only by half-life and yield tests, not by direct mass-resolved tagging.
  • domain assumption Energy density functional predictions (UNEDF0, D1S, SCCM) provide a reliable link between intrinsic shapes and two-neutron separation energy trends.
    The interpretation that krypton remains oblate-like up to N=62 relies on the model comparison in the Discussion; the paper itself notes that UNEDF0 fails to reproduce the experimental charge radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending the low-$Z$ "border'' of the $A=100$ region of deformation with precision mass spectrometry of $^{96-98}$Kr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHG42ADO

@misc{pith2026250905538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending the low-$Z$ "border'' of the $A=100$ region of deformation with precision mass spectrometry of $^96-98$Kr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHG42ADO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05538}
}
abstract

The onset of collective nuclear behavior in the ${N=60}$, ${A\sim100}$, region is examined through high-precision mass measurements of $^{96-98}$Kr, performed with the ISOLTRAP mass spectrometer at ISOLDE, CERN. Our results for $^{96-97}$Kr agree with previous measurements, with our new $^{97}$Kr Penning-trap mass value three times more precise. The mass value of $^{98}$Kr is measured for the first time. The new mass surface, together with comparisons to beyond-mean-field theoretical predictions, suggests that collectivity persists for the ${Z=36}$ isotopes, blurring the apparent ``low-$Z$ boundary'' of this deformed region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of ISOLDE and the ISOLTRAP on-line mass spectrometer. The typical kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time-of-flight spectra for the different MR-ToF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A typical ToF-ICR resonance of 97Kr+ using the Ramsey-type excitation scheme (T RF on −T RF off −T RF on = 10 ms￾40 ms -10 ms) [51, 52]. The grey-scale map represents the ion events recorded in each bin. The mean and standard deviation of the time-of-flight distribution recorded in each frequency bin are shown as black circles while the red line shows the result of the least-squares adjustment of these data points t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper row: Total energy as a function of quadrupole deformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (top row) Total energy surfaces and (bottom rows) collective wavefunctions for the first three excited 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental two-neutron separation energies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. A. Johansson, Nuclear Physics64, 147 (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    Federman and S

    P. Federman and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. C20, 820 (1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    Togashi, Y

    T. Togashi, Y. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, and N. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 172502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Urban, K

    W. Urban, K. Sieja, T. Rzaca-Urban, J. Wi´ sniewski, A. Blanc, M. Jentschel, P. Mutti, U. K¨ oster, T. Soldner, G. de France, G. S. Simpson, C. A. Ur, A. G. Smith, and J. P. Greene, Phys. Rev. C104, 064309 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Federman, S

    P. Federman, S. Pittel, and A. Etchegoyen, Phys. Lett. B140, 269 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    Rinta-Antila, S

    S. Rinta-Antila, S. Kopecky, V. S. Kolhinen, J. Hakala, J. Huikari, A. Jokinen, A. Nieminen, J. ¨Ayst¨ o, and J. Sz- erypo, Phys. Rev. C70, 011301 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Hager, V.-V

    U. Hager, V.-V. Elomaa, T. Eronen, J. Hakala, A. Joki- nen, A. Kankainen, S. Rahaman, S. Rinta-Antila, A. Saastamoinen, T. Sonoda, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Phys. Rev. C75, 064302 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Rahaman, U

    S. Rahaman, U. Hager, V.-V. Elomaa, T. Eronen, J. Hakala, A. Jokinen, A. Kankainen, P. Karvonen, I. D. Moore, H. Penttil¨ a, S. Rinta-Antila, J. Rissanen, A. Saas- tamoinen, T. Sonoda, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, The European Phys- ical Journal A32, 87 (2007)

    2007

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Manea, D

    V. Manea, D. Atanasov, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, R. B. Cakirli, T. Eronen, S. George, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, Y. A. Litvinov, D. Lunney, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, F. Wienholtz, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. C88, 054322 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    de Roubin, D

    A. de Roubin, D. Atanasov, K. Blaum, S. George, F. Her- furth, D. Kisler, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V. Manea, E. Minaya Ramirez, M. Mougeot, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, A. Welker, F. Wien- holtz, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. C96, 014310 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Mukul, C

    I. Mukul, C. Andreoiu, J. Bergmann, M. Brodeur, T. Brunner, K. A. Dietrich, T. Dickel, I. Dillmann, E. Dunling, D. Fusco, G. Gwinner, C. Izzo, A. Ja- cobs, B. Kootte, Y. Lan, E. Leistenschneider, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, S. F. Paul, M. P. Reiter, J. L. Tracy, J. Dilling, and A. A...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hukkanen, W

    M. Hukkanen, W. Ryssens, P. Ascher, M. Bender, T. Ero- nen, S. Gr´ evy, A. Kankainen, M. Stryjczyk, O. Be- liuskina, Z. Ge, S. Geldhof, M. Gerbaux, W. Gins, A. Husson, D. Nesterenko, A. Raggio, M. Reponen, S. Rinta-Antila, J. Romero, A. de Roubin, V. Virta- nen, and A. Zadvorn...

    2024

  5. [13]

    M˘ arginean, D

    N. M˘ arginean, D. Bucurescu, C. A. Ur, C. Mihai, L. Corradi, E. Farnea, D. Filipescu, E. Fioretto, D. Ghit ¸˘ a, B. Guiot, M. G´ orska, M. Ionescu-Bujor, A. Iord˘ achescu, D. Jelavi ´ c Malenica, S. M. Lenzi, P. Ma- son, R. M˘ arginean, D. Mengoni, G. Montagnoli, D. R. Napoli...

    2009

  6. [14]

    Delahaye, F

    P. Delahaye, F. Ames, and A. Kellerbauer, Nucl. Phys. A746, 604 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Naimi, G

    S. Naimi, G. Audi, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. B¨ ohm, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, S. George, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, D. Nei- dherr, M. Rosenbusch, S. Schwarz, L. Schweikhard, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 032502 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    M. Keim, E. Arnold, W. Borchers, U. Georg, A. Klein, R. Neugart, L. Vermeeren, R. Silverans, and P. Lievens, Nuclear Physics A586, 219 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    Albers, N

    M. Albers, N. Warr, K. Nomura, A. Blazhev, J. Jolie, D. M¨ ucher, B. Bastin, C. Bauer, C. Bernards, L. Bet- termann, V. Bildstein, J. Butterworth, M. Cappel- lazzo, J. Cederk¨ all, D. Cline, I. Darby, S. Das Gupta, J. M. Daugas, T. Davinson, H. De Witte, J. Diriken, D. Filipes...

    2012

  10. [18]

    Flavigny, P

    F. Flavigny, P. Doornenbal, A. Obertelli, J.-P. Delaroche, M. Girod, J. Libert, T. R. Rodriguez, G. Authelet, H. Baba, D. Calvet, F. Chˆ ateau, S. Chen, A. Corsi, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, V. Lapoux, T. Motobayashi, M. Niikura, N. Paul, J.- Y. Rouss´...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Dudouet, A

    J. Dudouet, A. Lemasson, G. Duchˆ ene, M. Rejmund, E. Cl´ ement, C. Michelagnoli, F. Didierjean, A. Ko- richi, G. Maquart, O. Stezowski, C. Lizarazo, R. M. P´ erez-Vidal, C. Andreoiu, G. de Angelis, A. Astier, C. Delafosse, I. Deloncle, Z. Dombradi, G. de France, A. Gadea, A. ...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Cl´ ement, M

    E. Cl´ ement, M. Zieli´ nska, A. G¨ orgen, W. Korten, S. P´ eru, J. Libert, H. Goutte, S. Hilaire, B. Bastin, C. Bauer, A. Blazhev, N. Bree, B. Bruyneel, P. A. Butler, J. Butter- worth, P. Delahaye, A. Dijon, D. T. Doherty, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Fitzpatrick, C. Fransen, G. Georgiev...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-body Problem, Texts and monographs in physics (Springer, 2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Benderet al., Phys

    M. Benderet al., Phys. Rev. C73, 034322 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    J. P. Delarocheet al., Phys. Rev. C81, 014303 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, P

    R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, P. Sarriguren, and L. M. Rob- ledo, Phys. Rev. C82, 061302 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, P

    R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, P. Sarriguren, L. Robledo, and S. Perez-Martin, Phys. Lett. B691, 202 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Kortelainen, T

    M. Kortelainen, T. Lesinski, J. Mor´ e, W. Nazarewicz, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, M. V. Stoitsov, and S. Wild, Phys. Rev. C82, 024313 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, Phys. Rev. C90, 034306 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Mukherjee, D

    M. Mukherjee, D. Beck, K. Blaum, G. Bollen, J. Dilling, S. George, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, A. Kellerbauer, H. J. Kluge, S. Schwarz, L. Schweikhard, and C. Yazidjian, Euro. Phys. J. A35, 1 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Kreim, D

    S. Kreim, D. Atanasov, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. B¨ ohm, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, T. E. Cocolios, D. Fink, S. George, A. Herlert, A. Kellerbauer, U. K¨ oster, M. Kowalska, D. Lunney, V. Manea, E. Minaya Ramirez, S. Naimi, D. Neidherr, T. Nicol, R. E. Rossel, M. Rosen- busch, ...

    2013

  22. [30]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Catherall, W

    R. Catherall, W. Andreazza, M. Breitenfeldt, A. Dor- sival, G. J. Focker, T. P. Gharsa, G. T. J, J.-L. Grenard, F. Locci, P. Martins, S. Marzari, J. Schipper, A. Shornikov, and T. Stora, Journ. Phys. G44, 094002 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Penescu, R

    L. Penescu, R. Catherall, J. Lettry, and T. Stora, Review of Scientific Instruments81, 02A906 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Herfurth, J

    F. Herfurth, J. Dilling, A. Kellerbauer, G. Bollen, S. Henry, H.-J. Kluge, E. Lamour, D. Lunney, R. Moore, C. Scheidenberger, S. Schwarz, G. Sikler, and J. Szerypo, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A469, 254 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    R. Wolf, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. B¨ ohm, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, S. Naimi, D. Neidherr, M. Rosen- busch, L. Schweikhard, J. Stanja, F. Wienholtz, and K. Zuber, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A686, 82 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    R. Wolf, F. Wienholtz, D. Atanasov, D.and Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, F. Herfurth, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, Y. A. Litvinov, D. Lunney, V. Manea, D. Nei- dherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, J. Stanja, and K. Zuber, Intern. Journ. of Mass Spectr.349-350, 123 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Guilhaus, Journal of Mass Spectrometry30, 1519 (1995)

    M. Guilhaus, Journal of Mass Spectrometry30, 1519 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    Wienholtz, D

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

    2013

  30. [38]

    K¨ onig, G

    M. K¨ onig, G. Bollen, H.-J. Kluge, T. Otto, and J. Sz- erypo, Int. J. Mass Spectrom.142, 95 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Wienholtz, S

    F. Wienholtz, S. Kreim, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, and R. Wolf, Int. J. of Mass Spectrom.421, 285 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Savard, S

    G. Savard, S. Becker, G. Bollen, H.-J. Kluge, R. Moore, T. Otto, L. Schweikhard, H. Stolzenberg, and U. Wiess, Phys. Lett. A158, 247 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Raimbault-Hartmann, D

    H. Raimbault-Hartmann, D. Beck, G. Bollen, M. K¨ onig, H.-J. Kluge, E. Schark, J. Stein, S. Schwarz, and J. Sz- erypo, Nucl. Instr. Meth. B126, 378 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    A. T. Gallant, M. Brodeur, T. Brunner, U. Chowdhury, S. Ettenauer, V. V. Simon, E. Man´ e, M. C. Simon, C. An- dreoiu, P. Delheij, G. Gwinner, M. R. Pearson, R. Ringle, and J. Dilling, Phys. Rev. C85, 044311 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Sturm, F

    S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel, and K. Blaum, Nature 506, 467 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, and G. Audi, Chinese Physics C45, 30001 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Mougeot, D

    M. Mougeot, D. Atanasov, C. Barbieri, K. Blaum, M. Breitenfeld, A. de Roubin, T. Duguet, S. George, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, J. D. Holt, J. Karthein, D. Lun- ney, V. Manea, P. Navr´ atil, D. Neidherr, M. Rosen- busch, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, V. Som` a, A. Welker, F. Wienho...

    2020

  38. [46]

    James,MINUIT: Function Minimization and Error Analysis Reference Manual, Tech

    F. James,MINUIT: Function Minimization and Error Analysis Reference Manual, Tech. Rep. (1998) CERN Program Library Long Writeups

    1998

  39. [47]

    Purushothaman, S

    S. Purushothaman, S. Ayet San Andr´ es, J. Bergmann, T. Dickel, J. Ebert, H. Geissel, C. Hornung, W. Plaß, C. Rappold, C. Scheidenberger, Y. Tanaka, and M. Ya- vor, Int. J. Mass. Spectrom.421, 245 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Rosenbusch, S

    M. Rosenbusch, S. Kemnitz, R. Schneider, L. Schweikhard, R. Tschiersch, and R. N. Wolf, AIP Conference Proceedings1521, 53 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Maier, F

    F. Maier, F. Buchinger, L. Croquette, P. Fischer, H. Heylen, F. Hummer, C. Kanitz, A. Kwiatkowski, V. Lagaki, S. Lechner, E. Leistenschneider, G. Neyens, P. Plattner, A. Roitman, M. Rosen- busch, L. Schweikhard, S. Sels, M. Vilen, F. Wienholtz, and S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, Nucl...

    2023

  42. [50]

    M. B. Smith, T. Murb¨ ock, E. Dunling, A. Jacobs, B. Kootte, Y. Lan, E. Leistenschneider, D. Lunney, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, I. Mukul, S. F. Paul, M. P. Reiter, C. Will, J. Dilling, and A. A. Kwiatkowski, Hyperfine Interactions241, 59 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    George, K

    S. George, K. Blaum, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, M. Kret- zschmar, S. Nagy, S. Schwarz, L. Schweikhard, and C. Yazidjian, Int. J. Mass Spectrom.264, 110 (2007). 12

    2007

  44. [52]

    George, S

    S. George, S. Baruah, B. Blank, K. Blaum, M. Breiten- feldt, U. Hager, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, A. Kellerbauer, H.-J. Kluge, M. Kretzschmar, D. Lunney, R. Savreux, S. Schwarz, L. Schweikhard, and C. Yazidjian, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 162501 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Kellerbauer, K

    A. Kellerbauer, K. Blaum, G. Bollen, F. Herfurth, H.-J. Kluge, M. Kuckein, E. Sauvan, C. Scheidenberger, and L. Schweikhard, Eur. Phys. J. D22, 53 (2003)

    2003

  46. [54]

    Naimi, M

    S. Naimi, M. Rosenbusch, G. Audi, K. Blaum, C. B¨ ohm, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, S. George, F. Her- furth, A. Herlert, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, E. Minaya-Ramirez, D. Neidherr, L. Schweikhard, and M. Wang, Hyperfine Interactions199, 231 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    R. N. Perez, N. Schunck, R.-D. Lasseri, C. Zhang, and J. Sarich, Computer Physics Communications220, 363 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Chappert, M

    F. Chappert, M. Girod, and S. Hilaire, Physics Letters B668, 420 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, M. Girod, and S. P´ eru, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 242501 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    L. M. Robledo and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C84, 054302 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, A. Arzhanov, and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. C91, 044315 (2015)

    2015

  52. [64]

    boundary

    Unlike for the isotopic chains above, the ground state does not transition to prolate-like atN= 60. Finally, we show the predictions of these various meth- ods compared to the experimental observables in Fig. 6. The UNEDF0 functional is shown in green and the Gogny D1S interac...

    2020

Pith tools

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