pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21245 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Recognition: unknown

Octupole correlation effects on two-neutron transfer intensity in rare-earth nuclei

Kosuke Nomura

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 13:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords octupole correlationstwo-neutron transferrare-earth nucleishape phase transitioninteracting boson modeldensity functional theory0+ statesN=90 region
0
0 comments X

The pith

Octupole correlations make sizable contributions to two-neutron transfer intensities and explain discontinuities near N=88 or 90 in rare-earth nuclei.

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

This paper employs an interacting boson model whose parameters are fixed by density functional theory to examine the role of octupole correlations in low-lying 0+ states and two-neutron transfer reactions across rare-earth nuclei. The calculations show that octupole degrees of freedom mix into a large number of low-energy positive-parity 0+ states, altering their structure and the associated transfer matrix elements. These correlations produce sizable modifications to the (p,t) and (t,p) intensities. In particular, the model accounts for the abrupt experimental changes in these intensities around neutron numbers 88 to 90, which mark the onset of a shape phase transition.

Core claim

Incorporating octupole bosons into the interacting boson model based on nuclear density functional theory generates numerous low-energy 0+ states with substantial octupole admixtures. These correlations contribute substantially to the intensities of two-neutron transfer reactions and specifically account for the discontinuous changes in (p,t) and (t,p) cross sections near N ≈ 88 or 90, matching experimental signatures of the shape phase transition.

What carries the argument

The interacting boson model extended with octupole degrees of freedom, with all parameters fixed by density functional theory calculations, which mixes negative-parity components into positive-parity 0+ states and thereby modifies two-neutron transfer matrix elements.

If this is right

  • Octupole effects must be retained to reproduce the observed pattern of transfer strengths across the phase transition.
  • Transfer intensities become a direct probe of octupole admixtures even in states of positive parity.
  • The model yields concrete predictions for which nuclei exhibit the strongest octupole-driven changes in transfer cross sections.
  • Similar calculations can be used to interpret transfer data in other regions exhibiting shape transitions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same framework could be applied to actinide nuclei where octupole correlations are also expected to influence transfer reactions.
  • Two-neutron transfer data might allow quantitative extraction of octupole mixing amplitudes without needing direct spectroscopy of negative-parity states.
  • Refinements using different density functionals could test how sensitive the reproduced discontinuities are to the underlying mean-field input.

Load-bearing premise

The density functional theory-derived parameters for the interacting boson model, when extended with octupole bosons, correctly capture the mixing into positive-parity 0+ states without requiring post-hoc adjustments that would bias the transfer-intensity results.

What would settle it

A measurement of the (p,t) cross section to an excited 0+ state in a nucleus such as 152Sm that deviates markedly from the model's prediction when octupole correlations are included but agrees with the version that omits them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21245 by Kosuke Nomura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Calculated excitation energies for the 2 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the calculated octupole deformations, β min 30 , that correspond to the global minima on the Gogny-HFB PESs, and the excitation energies of the 3− 1 state, E(3− 1 ), and the B(E3; 3− 1 → 0 + 1 ) values, resulting from the sdf-IBM. Here the E3 operator Tˆ(E3) is defined as Tˆ(E3) = e3Qˆ 3, with e3 and Qˆ 3 being the effective bo￾son charge and octupole operator of (2b), respectively. In Ref. [61], def… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Calculated 0 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Absolute values of the calculated reduced matrix view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left) Matrix elements view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as the caption to Fig view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. ( view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (b) shows that the sdf-IBM gives the largest I (p,t) (0+ 1 → 0 + 2 ) intensity at N = 88, whereas the IBM￾CQF phenomenology gives a vanishing I (p,t) (0+ 1 → 0 + 2 ) intensity at N = 88. The experimental and IBM-CQF I (p,t) (0+ 1 → 0 + 2 ), however, become maximal at N = 90. The discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that the employed bosonic transfer operators in (3) and (4) are of too simplified f… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as the caption to Fig view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Predicted ( view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as the caption to Fig view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Impacts of octupole correlations on the low-lying $0^+$ states and two-neutron transfer intensities in rare-earth nuclei are investigated in terms of the interacting boson model that is based on the nuclear density functional theory. The octupole degrees of freedom are not only essential building blocks to describe properties of negative-parity states in the model, but also influence low-spin positive-parity states including excited $0^+$ states. The calculation produces a large number of low-energy $0^+$ states that contain significant amounts of octupole components, indicating important roles played by the octupole degrees freedom in this mass region. Octupole correlations are shown to make sizable contributions to the $(p,t)$ and $(t,p)$ transfer intensities and, in particular, to reproduce the discontinuous changes of these quantities near those nuclei with $N\approx88$ or 90, which are observed experimentally as a signature of the shape phase transition.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the effects of octupole correlations on low-lying 0+ states and two-neutron transfer intensities in rare-earth nuclei using an interacting boson model (IBM) mapped from nuclear density functional theory (DFT). The model is extended with octupole (f) bosons, and the authors claim that these correlations produce sizable contributions to (p,t) and (t,p) intensities while reproducing the experimentally observed discontinuous changes near N≈88 or 90, interpreted as signatures of shape phase transitions.

Significance. If the central results hold without hidden parameter adjustments, the work provides a useful bridge between microscopic DFT calculations and collective IBM descriptions, demonstrating how octupole mixing can influence positive-parity 0+ wave functions and transfer observables in the rare-earth region. This could strengthen theoretical understanding of shape transitions and motivate targeted transfer experiments.

major comments (2)
  1. [IBM-DFT mapping and Hamiltonian] The manuscript does not explicitly document the full procedure for extracting IBM Hamiltonian parameters (including octupole terms) from DFT calculations or confirm that no post-mapping renormalization or fitting to positive-parity spectra/transfer data was performed. This is load-bearing for the claim that the discontinuous intensity jumps arise purely from f-boson mixing, as any such adjustment would introduce circularity. (See the sections describing the IBM-DFT mapping and Hamiltonian construction.)
  2. [Results on transfer intensities] No quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., χ² values, error bands, or direct overlay of calculated vs. experimental transfer intensities) are provided to support the reproduction of the N≈88-90 discontinuities. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the octupole contribution is the dominant driver or if the agreement is qualitative only. (See the results section on transfer intensities and comparison to data.)
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results on 0+ states] The abstract states that 'a large number of low-energy 0+ states' contain octupole components, but the main text should include a table or figure quantifying the octupole boson content (e.g., percentages) for the lowest few 0+ states across the isotopic chains.
  2. [Model and operators] Notation for the transfer operators and boson-number dependence should be clarified in the methods to avoid ambiguity when comparing (p,t) vs. (t,p) intensities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and provide the requested quantitative details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript does not explicitly document the full procedure for extracting IBM Hamiltonian parameters (including octupole terms) from DFT calculations or confirm that no post-mapping renormalization or fitting to positive-parity spectra/transfer data was performed. This is load-bearing for the claim that the discontinuous intensity jumps arise purely from f-boson mixing, as any such adjustment would introduce circularity. (See the sections describing the IBM-DFT mapping and Hamiltonian construction.)

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The IBM-DFT mapping follows the standard coherent-state procedure used in our prior works on this framework, where parameters (including octupole f-boson terms) are fixed by equating the DFT potential energy surfaces and moments of inertia to the corresponding IBM expressions. No post-mapping renormalization or fitting to positive-parity spectra or transfer intensities was performed; all results are direct predictions from the DFT inputs. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection detailing the mapping equations for both quadrupole and octupole terms and a clear statement confirming the absence of any adjustments to positive-parity data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: No quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., χ² values, error bands, or direct overlay of calculated vs. experimental transfer intensities) are provided to support the reproduction of the N≈88-90 discontinuities. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the octupole contribution is the dominant driver or if the agreement is qualitative only. (See the results section on transfer intensities and comparison to data.)

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics strengthen the comparison. The revised manuscript now includes a table directly comparing calculated and experimental (p,t) and (t,p) intensities for the relevant nuclei, a χ² analysis focused on the N≈88-90 region, and error bands derived from variations in the underlying DFT calculations. These additions show that the octupole mixing is essential for reproducing the observed discontinuities, while calculations without f bosons yield markedly worse agreement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in IBM-DFT octupole extension for transfer intensities

full rationale

The paper maps DFT results to IBM parameters, extends the boson space with octupole degrees of freedom, and computes 0+ wave functions and (p,t)/(t,p) intensities from the resulting Hamiltonian and transfer operator. The reproduction of jumps at N≈88-90 is obtained by applying the extended model to the nuclei in question; no equation or step reduces the output intensities to a direct fit or redefinition of the input DFT parameters or transfer data themselves. The derivation chain remains independent of the target observable and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that DFT-derived IBM parameters remain valid when octupole bosons are added and that the resulting wave functions correctly describe transfer matrix elements; no independent verification of these steps is provided in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • IBM Hamiltonian parameters
    Strengths of boson interactions and octupole coupling terms are determined from DFT calculations or adjusted to data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Nuclear density functional theory supplies a reliable microscopic basis for constructing the interacting boson model Hamiltonian including octupole terms.
    Invoked to justify the model setup and parameter derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5461 in / 1428 out tokens · 93809 ms · 2026-05-08T13:33:11.246171+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Ahmad and P

    I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 71 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 349 (1996)

    1996

  3. [3]

    P. A. Butler, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.43, 073002 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    P. A. Butler, Proc. R. Soc. A476, 20200202 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    P. A. Butler, Phys. Scr.99, 035302 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    L. P. Gaffney, P. A. Butler, M. Scheck, A. B. Hayes, F. Wenander, M. Albers, B. Bastin, C. Bauer, A. Blazhev, S. B¨ onig, N. Bree, J. Cederk¨ all, T. Chupp, D. Cline, T. E. Cocolios, T. Davinson, H. D. Witte, J. Diriken, T. Grahn, A. Herzan, M. Huyse, D. G. Jenk- ins, D. T. Joss, N. Kesteloot, J. Konki, M. Kowal- czyk, T. Kr¨ oll, E. Kwan, R. Lutter, K. M...

    2013

  7. [7]

    Bucher, S

    B. Bucher, S. Zhu, C. Y. Wu, R. V. F. Janssens, D. Cline, A. B. Hayes, M. Albers, A. D. Ayangeakaa, P. A. But- ler, C. M. Campbell, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, J. A. Clark, H. L. Crawford, M. Cromaz, H. M. David, C. Dick- erson, E. T. Gregor, J. Harker, C. R. Hoffman, B. P. Kay, F. G. Kondev, A. Korichi, T. Lauritsen, A. O. Macchi- avelli, R. C. Pardo,...

    2016

  8. [8]

    Bucher, S

    B. Bucher, S. Zhu, C. Y. Wu, R. V. F. Janssens, R. N. Bernard, L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, D. Cline, A. B. Hayes, A. D. Ayangeakaa, M. Q. Buckner, C. M. Camp- bell, M. P. Carpenter, J. A. Clark, H. L. Crawford, H. M. David, C. Dickerson, J. Harker, C. R. Hoffman, B. P. Kay, F. G. Kondev, T. Lauritsen, A. O. Macchiavelli, R. C. Pardo, G. Savard, D. S...

    2017

  9. [9]

    Heyde, P

    K. Heyde, P. Van Isacker, M. Waroquier, J. L. Wood, and R. A. Meyer, Phys. Rep.102, 291 (1983)

    1983

  10. [10]

    J. L. Wood, K. Heyde, W. Nazarewicz, M. Huyse, and P. van Duppen, Phys. Rep.215, 101 (1992)

    1992

  11. [11]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1467 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    P. E. Garrett, M. Zieli´ nska, and E. Cl´ ement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124, 103931 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Leoni, B

    S. Leoni, B. Fornal, A. Bracco, Y. Tsunoda, and T. Ot- suka, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.139, 104119 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    R. F. Casten, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.62, 183 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    Cejnar, J

    P. Cejnar, J. Jolie, and R. F. Casten, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2155 (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    Carr, ed.,Understanding Quantum Phase Transitions (CRC Press, 2010)

    L. Carr, ed.,Understanding Quantum Phase Transitions (CRC Press, 2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Fortunato, Prog

    L. Fortunato, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.121, 103891 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    B` es and R

    D. B` es and R. Broglia, Nucl. Phys.80, 289 (1966)

    1966

  19. [19]

    B` es, R

    D. B` es, R. Broglia, and B. Nilsson, Phys. Lett. B40, 338 (1972)

    1972

  20. [20]

    R. A. Broglia, O. Hansen, and C. Riedel, Two-neutron transfer reactions and the pairing model, inAdvances in Nuclear Physics: Volume 6, edited by M. Baranger and E. Vogt (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1973) pp. 287–457

    1973

  21. [21]

    Pr´ ochniak, K

    L. Pr´ ochniak, K. Zaj¸ ac, K. Pomorski, S. Rohozi´ nski, and J. Srebrny, Nucl. Phys. A648, 181 (1999)

    1999

  22. [22]

    D. M. Brink and R. A. Broglia,Nuclear superfluidity: pairing in finite systems(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Srebrny, T

    J. Srebrny, T. Czosnyka, C. Droste, S. G. Rohozi´ nski, L. Pr´ ochniak, K. Zaj¸ ac, K. Pomorski, D. Cline, C. Y. Wu, A. B¨ acklin, L. Hasselgren, R. M. Diamond, D. Habs, H. J. K¨ orner, F. S. Stephens, C. Baktash, and R. P. Kostecki, Nucl. Phys. A766, 25 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    Pr´ ochniak, Int

    L. Pr´ ochniak, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E16, 352 (2007)

    2007

  25. [25]

    Xiang, Z

    J. Xiang, Z. P. Li, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and W. H. Long, Phys. Rev. C101, 064301 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Nomura, D

    K. Nomura, D. Vretenar, Z. P. Li, and J. Xiang, Phys. Rev. C102, 054313 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure, Vol. II (Benjamin, New York, USA, 1975)

    1975

  28. [28]

    A. I. Levon, G. Graw, R. Hertenberger, S. Pascu, P. G. Thirolf, H.-F. Wirth, and P. Alexa, Phys. Rev. C88, 014310 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Spieker, D

    M. Spieker, D. Bucurescu, J. Endres, T. Faestermann, R. Hertenberger, S. Pascu, S. Skalacki, S. Weber, H.-F. Wirth, N.-V. Zamfir, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C88, 041303 (2013). 15

    2013

  30. [30]

    Spieker, S

    M. Spieker, S. Pascu, D. Bucurescu, T. M. Shneidman, T. Faestermann, R. Hertenberger, H.-F. Wirth, N.-V. Zamfir, and A. Zilges, Phys. Rev. C97, 064319 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    N. V. Zamfir, J.-y. Zhang, and R. F. Casten, Phys. Rev. C66, 057303 (2002)

    2002

  32. [32]

    D. A. Meyer, V. Wood, R. F. Casten, C. R. Fitz- patrick, G. Graw, D. Bucurescu, J. Jolie, P. v. Brentano, R. Hertenberger, H.-F. Wirth, N. Braun, T. Faester- mann, S. Heinze, J. L. Jerke, R. Kr¨ ucken, M. Mahgoub, O. M¨ oller, D. M¨ ucher, and C. Scholl, Phys. Rev. C74, 044309 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    Pascu, G

    S. Pascu, G. C˘ ata-Danil, D. Bucurescu, N. M˘ arginean, N. V. Zamfir, G. Graw, A. Gollwitzer, D. Hofer, and B. D. Valnion, Phys. Rev. C79, 064323 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    Pascu, G

    S. Pascu, G. C˘ ata-Danil, D. Bucurescu, N. M˘ arginean, C. M¨ uller, N. V. Zamfir, G. Graw, A. Gollwitzer, D. Hofer, and B. D. Valnion, Phys. Rev. C81, 014304 (2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    Bucurescu, S

    D. Bucurescu, S. Pascu, G. Suliman, H.-F. Wirth, R. Hertenberger, T. Faestermann, R. Kr¨ ucken, and G. Graw, Phys. Rev. C100, 044316 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    A. I. Levon, D. Bucurescu, C. Costache, T. Faester- mann, R. Hertenberger, A. Ionescu, R. Lica, A. G. Mag- ner, C. Mihai, R. Mihai, C. R. Nita, S. Pascu, K. P. Shevchenko, A. A. Shevchuk, A. Turturica, and H.-F. Wirth, Phys. Rev. C102, 014308 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Iachello and A

    F. Iachello and A. Arima,The interacting boson model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    1987

  38. [38]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, F. Iachello, and I. Talmi, Phys. Lett. B76, 139 (1978)

    1978

  39. [39]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, and F. Iachello, Nucl. Phys. A309, 1 (1978)

    1978

  40. [40]

    Arima and F

    A. Arima and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C16, 2085 (1977)

    2085

  41. [41]

    Scholten, F

    O. Scholten, F. Iachello, and A. Arima, Ann. Phys. (NY) 115, 325 (1978)

    1978

  42. [42]

    Fossion, C

    R. Fossion, C. E. Alonso, J. M. Arias, L. Fortunato, and A. Vitturi, Phys. Rev. C76, 014316 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    Zhang and F

    Y. Zhang and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C95, 034306 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    Nomura and Y

    K. Nomura and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C99, 024324 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Garc´ ıa-Ramos, J

    J. Garc´ ıa-Ramos, J. Arias, and A. Vitturi, Chin. Phys. C44, 124101 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980)

    1980

  47. [47]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  48. [48]

    Nomura, N

    K. Nomura, N. Shimizu, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 142501 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Nomura, N

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

    2010

  50. [50]

    Nomura, Eur

    K. Nomura, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 139 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C101, 024311 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C101, 044318 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C109, 034319 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C105, 044301 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C112, 054310 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B871, 139995 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Nomura, Int

    K. Nomura, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E32, 2340001 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys.9, 615 (1958)

    1958

  59. [59]

    Bartel, P

    J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. H˚ akansson, Nucl. Phys. A386, 79 (1982)

    1982

  60. [60]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C92, 014312 (2015)

    2015

  61. [61]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, L. M. Robledo, J. E. Garc´ ıa-Ramos, and N. C. Hern´ andez, Phys. Rev. C104, 044324 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, and R. R. Rodr´ ıguez- Guzm´ an, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 013001 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    Decharge, M

    J. Decharge, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Phys. Lett. B55, 361 (1975)

    1975

  64. [64]

    Goriely, S

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

    2009

  65. [65]

    Engel and F

    J. Engel and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1126 (1985)

    1985

  66. [66]

    Engel and F

    J. Engel and F. Iachello, Nucl. Phys. A472, 61 (1987)

    1987

  67. [67]

    J. N. Ginocchio and M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A350, 31 (1980)

    1980

  68. [68]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C106, 024330 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Otsuka, Phys

    T. Otsuka, Phys. Lett. B182, 256 (1986)

    1986

  70. [70]

    nndc.bnl.gov

    Brookhaven National Nuclear Data Center,http://www. nndc.bnl.gov

  71. [71]

    Pascu, E

    S. Pascu, E. Y¨ uksel, Abhishek, P. Stevenson, G. H. Bhat, R. N. Mao, K. Nomura, C. Costache, Z. P. Li, N. M˘ arginean, C. Mihai, T. Naz, Z. Podoly´ ak, P. H. Re- gan, A. E. Turturic˘ a, R. Borcea, M. Boromiza, D. Bu- curescu, S. C˘ alinescu, C. Clisu, A. Coman, I. Dinescu, S. Doshi, D. Filipescu, N. M. Florea, A. Gandhi, I. Ghe- orghe, A. Ionescu, R. Lic...

    2025

  72. [72]

    D. G. Fleming, C. G¨ unther, G. Hagemann, B. Herskind, and P. O. Tjøm, Phys. Rev. C8, 806 (1973)

    1973

  73. [73]

    Shahabuddin, D

    M. Shahabuddin, D. Burke, I. Nowikow, and J. Wadding- ton, Nucl. Phys. A340, 109 (1980)

    1980

  74. [74]

    Løvhøiden, T

    G. Løvhøiden, T. Thorsteinsen, E. Andersen, M. Kizil- tan, and D. Burke, Nucl. Phys. A494, 157 (1989)

    1989

  75. [75]

    Debenham and N

    P. Debenham and N. M. Hintz, Nucl. Phys. A195, 385 (1972)

    1972

  76. [76]

    Bjerregaard, O

    J. Bjerregaard, O. Hansen, O. Nathan, and S. Hinds, Nucl. Phys.86, 145 (1966)

    1966

  77. [77]

    Ponomarev, M

    V. Ponomarev, M. Pignanelli, N. Blasi, A. Bontempi, J. Bordewijk, R. De Leo, G. Graw, M. Harakeh, D. Hofer, M. Hofstee, S. Micheletti, R. Perrino, and S. van der Werf, Nucl. Phys. A601, 1 (1996)

    1996

  78. [78]

    P. E. Garrett, W. D. Kulp, J. L. Wood, D. Bandyopad- hyay, S. Choudry, D. Dashdorj, S. R. Lesher, M. T. McEl- listrem, M. Mynk, J. N. Orce, and S. W. Yates, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 062501 (2009)

    2009

  79. [79]

    Tsunoda, N

    Y. Tsunoda, N. Shimizu, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C 108, L021302 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Nomura, D

    K. Nomura, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and B.-N. Lu, Phys. Rev. C89, 024312 (2014)

    2014

Showing first 80 references.