Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Sensitivity analysis of $\beta$-decay half-life predictions for Ge, As, Zr and Mo nuclei within the mapped interacting boson model

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

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

Pith's one-line read The mapped interacting boson model predicts that the β+ decay rate of 68As is governed by a single quadrupole-quadrupole coupling constant, and that higher-order one-nucleon transfer terms shift the computed half-lives by only 5–10%.

desk verdict A careful, honest extension of mapped IBM to beta-decay half-lives in new mass regions, but the stated truncation of the transfer operators leaves the headline kappa-sensitivity claim less robust than it first appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19480 v2 pith:3M4O2DN2 submitted 2024-11-29 nucl-th nucl-ex

M. Homma , K. Nomura This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords betadecayhalf-livesinteractingbosonmodelGamow-Tellertransitionslog10ftvaluesparametersensitivityneutron-richnucleiquadrupole-quadrupoleinteractionenergydensityfunctional
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

The paper asks which parameters of the mapped interacting boson model actually control predicted β-decay rates, and whether the model's half-life predictions for Ge, As, Zr, and Mo isotopes can be trusted. The central finding is that the calculated $\log_{10}ft$ values for the β+ decay $^{68}$As$\to^{68}$Ge respond strongly to the quadrupole-quadrupole strength $\kappa$ used for the parent $^{68}$As core, while being nearly independent of the other boson, boson-fermion, and residual neutron-proton coupling constants. This matches an earlier result for neutron-rich Zr decays and suggests a single, physically meaningful parameter governs the decay predictions in this mass region. The paper also extends the one-nucleon transfer operators with higher-order d-boson terms and shows these shift half-lives by roughly 5–10%, changing strength distributions but not the qualitative decay pattern. A reader should care because the result identifies which model input must be constrained to make reliable half-life predictions for nuclei far from stability that feed the r-process.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the mapped neutron-proton interacting boson model (IBM-2) and its odd-odd extension, the interacting boson-fermion-fermion model (IBFFM-2), built by mapping the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov self-consistent mean-field potential energy surface onto the boson coherent state. The load-bearing interaction is the quadrupole-quadrupole term $\kappa \, \hat{Q}_\nu\cdot\hat{Q}_\pi$, whose variation produces the $\log_{10}ft$ changes. The β-decay operators are constructed from one-nucleon transfer operators whose coefficients are fixed by generalized seniority and occupation amplitudes, and are then extended to include higher-order d-boson terms through an overlap-matrix procedure, with terms containing more than two d-boson operators omitted. The sensitivity analysis scans the core parameters $\epsilon_d$, $\kappa$, $\chi_\nu$, $\chi_\pi$ for parent and daughter nuclei, the boson-fermion couplings $\Gamma$, $\Lambda$, $A$, and the residual neutron-proton strengths, computing $\log_{10}ft$ values and half-lives from summed Gamow-Teller and Fermi matrix elements with the phase-space integral.

What would settle it

Compute the $^{68}$As$\to^{68}$Ge GT and Fermi matrix elements with the full one-nucleon transfer operators, including all terms with more than two d-boson operators; if the Fermi running sum changes by more than the factor of 2 already seen, or if the calculated $\log_{10}ft$ values become insensitive to $\kappa_i$, the paper's central claim would fail. A full shell-model calculation in the same model space that shows no such $\kappa$ dominance would also refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the mapped IBM-2/IBFFM-2 framework, where the IBM Hamiltonian, single-particle energies, and occupation probabilities are fixed by self-consistent mean-field calculations, the authors find that the predicted $\log_{10}ft$ values for $^{68}$As$\to^{68}$Ge depend almost exclusively on the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction strength $\kappa_i$ of the odd-odd parent $^{68}$As, with a sharp change near $\kappa_i \approx -0.2$ MeV for both $3^+\to2^+$ and $3^+\to4^+$ transitions. Sensitivity to the other IBM parameters, the boson-fermion couplings, and the residual neutron-proton interaction strengths is weak or absent for this decay. This is consistent with the earlier finding for β− decays of neutron-rich Zr isotopes, where the $\kappa$ of the daughter Nb core was the controlling parameter, and it establishes the quadrupole-quadrupole coupling of the odd-odd nucleus's boson core as the common sensitivity point. Including higher-order terms in the one-nucleon transfer operators makes non-negligible contributions—up to a factor of 2 in the Fermi running sum for $^{68}$As and a factor of about 4 in the Gamow-Teller (GT) sum for $^{70}$As—but leaves the half-lives essentially unchanged (5–10% shifts), so the qualitative β-decay picture is robust against these terms. The computed half-lives reproduce the general trend of shorter half-lives away from stability, with $^{68}$As an order of magnitude too short, $^{70}$As close to data, and the Zr and Mo chains in the right order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the omitted terms in the one-nucleon transfer operators—products of more than two d-boson creation or annihilation operators—do not contribute enough to the GT and Fermi matrix elements to change the qualitative results, since the current computer code cannot compute them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $\kappa$ sensitivity is universal, reproducing the low-energy spectra of odd-odd nuclei is sufficient to calibrate the one input that most affects β-decay half-life predictions.
  • The 5–10% changes from higher-order transfer terms mean leading-order calculations remain useful for qualitative half-life systematics, but fully converged matrix elements are needed before using the framework for precision superallowed-decay or double-β-decay inputs.
  • The reproduced trend of shorter half-lives with neutron number in the Zr and Mo chains supports using the method for r-process waiting-point nuclei where data are absent.
  • The same sensitivity analysis can be extended to odd-mass nuclei within the interacting boson-fermion model, where the paper expects quadrupole-quadrupole strength to play an analogous role.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to repeat the sensitivity scan in another mass region, such as $A\approx130$; if the decay rates there do not show the same dominance of $\kappa$, the conclusion would be mass-region-specific rather than general.
  • Because the terms with more than two d-boson operators were never computed, the true size of higher-order corrections remains open; a complete calculation could alter Fermi strengths enough to affect superallowed $0^+\to0^+$ predictions, which the paper itself flags.
  • The near-insensitivity of the $A\approx70$ decays to the tensor neutron-proton interaction contrasts with the Zr finding, suggesting the relevant parameter set depends on the valence space and on whether bosons represent particles or holes; this could be probed by applying the same variation to odd-odd nuclei in transitional regions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the energy-density-functional-mapped interacting boson model (IBM-2/IBFFM-2) to compute Gamow-Teller and Fermi transition strengths and β-decay half-lives for neutron-deficient Ge/As and neutron-rich Zr/Mo isotopes. The model parameters for the even-even cores, single-particle energies, and occupation numbers are derived from relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov calculations, while the boson-fermion and residual neutron-proton interaction strengths are fitted to low-energy spectra. The central analysis in Sec. III B shows that the calculated log10ft values for the β+ decay of 68As are particularly sensitive to the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction strength κ_i of the parent nucleus, with a pronounced variation near κ_i ≈ −0.2 MeV. Section III C extends the one-nucleon transfer operators with higher-order terms and finds non-negligible but qualitatively minor effects. Section III D presents half-lives for 14 nuclei and finds rough agreement with experimental trends, with notable quantitative deviations (e.g., 68As: 19 s vs 152 s).

Significance. If the sensitivity result proves robust, it provides a clear constraint on which Hamiltonian parameter governs IBM-based β-decay predictions in the A≈70 and A≈100 regions, valuable for guiding future applications to r-process nuclei. The paper's strengths include a largely microscopic parameter determination, systematic one-parameter scans, an explicit treatment of higher-order transfer terms with a transparent code limitation, and a first systematic IBM half-life calculation for these isotopes. The conclusion that higher-order terms do not qualitatively alter the results is supported for the computable subset, but the omission of other terms leaves a gap. The quantitative half-life agreement is moderate; the model reproduces the general trend but misses individual cases by factors of 3 to 8.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C (after Eq. (37)) and Sec. III B (Figs. 4(b), 4(f))] The manuscript explicitly states in Sec. III C that 'terms that are products of more than two d-boson creation or annihilation operators are omitted, due to limitation of the current version of the computer code.' This truncation directly affects the central sensitivity claim. The κ_i sensitivity scans in Sec. III B, Figs. 4(b) and 4(f), are performed without any higher-order terms. Yet the included higher-order terms already double the Fermi running sum for 68As (Fig. 9(c)) and change the GT running sum for 70As by a factor of 4 (Fig. 8(j)). The omitted terms, which are explicitly listed for the 68As decay, could therefore be of comparable magnitude. The paper does not repeat the κ_i scan with the higher-order terms, so the robustness of the 'particularly sensitive to κ_i' conclusion to the truncation is not demonstrated. I ask the authors to either repeat the sensitivity scans including the computable higher-order terms or clearly state that the sensitivity claim applies only to the leading-order calculation.
  2. [Sec. III C (after Eq. (30))] The higher-order coefficients θ_{jρ j′ρ j′′ρ} are set equal to ζ_{jρ j′ρ j′′ρ} 'for the sake of simplicity' (Sec. III C). Since the higher-order contributions are claimed to be non-negligible, this assumption is load-bearing for the conclusion that the higher-order terms 'do not significantly alter qualitative features' (abstract). Different θ values could change the size of the higher-order corrections, potentially by the same factors seen in Figs. 8–9. The authors should provide a justification for this assumption, e.g., from the generalized seniority framework used for the ζ coefficients, or test the sensitivity of the running sums to this choice.
  3. [Sec. III D, Eq. (40)] In Eq. (40), the statistical rate function is defined as f(Z,E_f) = ∫_1^{E_f} F(Z,E) p E (E_f − E)^2 dE, with the lower limit 1 corresponding to the electron rest mass in the units ℏ = m = c = 1. For both β− and β+ decays, the maximum total electron/positron energy is W0 = Q_β/(m_e c^2) + 1, where Q_β is the usual kinetic-energy release tabulated in Ref. [57]. As written, the upper limit E_f = Q_β − E_x appears to omit the +1 rest-mass term. This systematically alters all f factors and hence all half-lives in Table II and the comparison in Fig. 13. Please clarify the convention for Q_β; if the experimental Q values are used as the kinetic-energy release, the integral should run to E_f = Q_β − E_x + 1 (in units of m_e c^2).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II] In the row for 106Zr, the daughter nucleus is listed as 104Nb; it should be 106Nb.
  2. [Sec. III A, after Eq. (16)] The text 'according to the type of the β decay under study (i.e., β+ or β+)' should read 'β+ or β−'.
  3. [Sec. III B, first paragraph] The text lists six boson-fermion parameters and 'the parameters vd and vt' as varied, but does not mention vss from Eq. (8). Please state explicitly whether vss is kept fixed (e.g., set to zero) and why it is not varied.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] In the panels (b) and (f), the axis label appears as 'i [MeV]' with the Greek letter missing; the typesetting should show 'κ_i [MeV]'.
  5. [Sec. II B, step 3] It is not specified how the Γρ, Λρ, and Aρ values from the odd-N and odd-Z neighbors are combined when constructing the odd-odd IBFFM; a brief explanation of the selection rule would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the β-decay half-lives are computed from EDF-mapped and spectrum-fitted wave functions and compared with experiment, not fitted to β-decay data; the only circular-adjacent element is the corroborating self-citation supporting the robustness of the κi-sensitivity claim, which is not load-bearing.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III B, final paragraph ('A major conclusion drawn from the present analysis ...')]
    "A major conclusion drawn from the present analysis is that the predicted log10 ft values for the β+ decays of odd-odd As nuclei within the mapped IBM-2 and IBFFM-2 are especially sensitive to the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction strength κi in the parent or odd-odd As nuclei. This finding appears to be robust, in view of the fact that similar parameter sensitivities of the calculated log10 ft values were observed in our previous study of [35] for the β decays of neutron-rich Zr region with mass A ≈ 100."

    The robustness of the paper's central claim is argued by citing Ref. [35], a calculation by the same two authors reporting an analogous κ-sensitivity in the A ≈ 100 region. On inspection this self-citation is corroborative, not load-bearing: the 68As sensitivity is computed independently in the present paper (Figs. 4-7), and Ref. [35] is a published, externally falsifiable calculation whose parameters were fitted to low-energy spectra, not to the predicted half-lives. The paper even reports a divergence from [35] (no vt sensitivity for As), confirming the present analysis is not merely echoing its input. The citation does not force the result; it only supports the robustness statement, so it counts as a minor self-citation rather than structural circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The IBM-2 Hamiltonian parameters are determined by mapping the RHB-SCMF (DD-PC1 + separable pairing) potential energy surfaces onto the boson coherent-state expectation value (Sec. II B, step 1); only κ' is set by cranking. Quasiparticle energies and occupation amplitudes come from constrained SCMF calculations. The GT and Fermi operator coefficients (Eqs. 21-24) are functions only of those u, v and β amplitudes: the paper states 'No phenomenological parameter is introduced in the T_GT and T_F operators.' The only adjustable couplings (Γρ, Λρ, Aρ, vd, vss, vt) are fitted to low-energy spectra of odd-mass and odd-odd nuclei (Sec. II B, steps 2-3), never to β-decay data. The half-lives (Eqs. 28, 38-40) are therefore true predictions, and they are compared honestly with experiment (Fig. 13, Table II), including large discrepancies (68As: 19 s vs 152 s; 78Ge: 14886 s vs 5220 s) and a general underestimation for Zr with N ≤ 62. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The κi-sensitivity claim is a model-internal property computed from the present diagonalizations; Ref. [35] corroborates it but does not constitute its derivation. Two passages warrant flagging as limitations rather than circularity: (i) Sec. III C states that in the GT/Fermi matrix elements 'terms that are products of more than two d-boson creation or annihilation operators are omitted, due to limitation of the current version of the computer code,' and the paper concedes that one cannot firmly conclude whether the higher-order-term effects are significant enough to improve the half-life description; this truncation bears on the robustness of the higher-order-term conclusion and of the κ-sensitivity pattern, but it is an approximation, not a circular reduction. (ii) The higher-order coefficient ansatz 'θjρj′ρj′′ρ are here assumed to be equal to ζjρj′ρj′′ρ, for the sake of simplicity' is a stated assumption. The reuse of same-group parameters from Refs. [32] and [34] for spectra is normal model input. Overall, the central derivation is independent of the quantities it claims to predict, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative predictions rest on a chain of model assumptions, most of which are standard in the IBM/IBFFM literature. The most fragile are the truncation of higher-order transfer terms and the transferability of boson-fermion parameters from odd-mass to odd-odd nuclei. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Gamma_rho (boson-fermion dynamical interaction strength) = Not tabulated uniformly; shown in Fig. 2 for Nb/Tc and Ref. [32] for As
    Fitted to reproduce low-lying positive-parity levels of odd-mass nuclei; then transferred to odd-odd nuclei (Sec. II B).
  • Lambda_rho (exchange interaction strength) = Not tabulated uniformly; shown in Fig. 2 for Nb/Tc and Ref. [32] for As
    Fitted together with Gamma_rho to odd-mass spectra (Sec. II B).
  • A_rho (monopole interaction strength) = Not tabulated uniformly; shown in Fig. 2 for Nb/Tc and Ref. [32] for As
    Fitted to odd-mass spectra (Sec. II B).
  • vd, vss, vt (delta, spin-spin, tensor residual neutron-proton interaction strengths) = Not tabulated uniformly; shown in Fig. 2 for Nb/Tc and Ref. [32] for As
    Fitted to reproduce low-lying positive-parity levels of odd-odd nuclei (Sec. II B step 3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Generalized seniority scheme for one-nucleon transfer operators
    The GT and Fermi operators are built from transfer operators of the form in Eqs. (13)-(16), whose coefficients follow from generalized seniority (Refs. [24,60,61]). This is a standard but nontrivial truncation.
  • domain assumption RHB-SCMF potential energy surface maps onto IBM coherent state
    The IBM-2 parameters for even-even cores are fixed by mapping the RHB-SCMF PES onto the boson coherent state expectation value (Sec. II B step 1). This assumes the collective quadrupole degrees of freedom are faithfully represented by s and d bosons.
  • domain assumption Boson-fermion parameters from neighboring odd-mass nuclei are valid for the odd-odd nucleus
    In Sec. II B step 3, Gamma_rho, Lambda_rho, and A_rho determined for neighboring odd-N and odd-Z nuclei are reused for the odd-odd nucleus to reduce the number of parameters. This assumes transferability across mass and neutron number.
  • ad hoc to paper Coefficients theta_jj' equal zeta_jj' for higher-order transfer terms
    In Sec. III C, the coefficients theta_j_rho j'_rho j''_rho are 'assumed to be equal to zeta_j_rho j'_rho j''_rho, for the sake of simplicity.' This is an unverified simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper Terms with more than two d-boson operators are omitted from the transition operator
    In Sec. III C, the authors omit terms that are products of more than two d-boson creation or annihilation operators 'due to limitation of the current version of the computer code.' This truncation could affect the matrix elements and half-lives.
  • domain assumption Kappa_nu = kappa_pi = kappa/2 for Zr, and 0 for all other nuclei
    In Sec. II B step 1, this simplifying assumption is made for the like-nucleon quadrupole interaction strengths. It is not derived from the mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity analysis of $\beta$-decay half-life predictions for Ge, As, Zr and Mo nuclei within the mapped interacting boson model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3M4O2DN2

@misc{pith2026241119480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity analysis of $\beta$-decay half-life predictions for Ge, As, Zr and Mo nuclei within the mapped interacting boson model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3M4O2DN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19480}
}
abstract

We analyze parameter sensitivities of the mapped interacting boson model (IBM) and boson-fermion-fermion model (IBFFM) in the description of $\beta$-decay properties of the even-mass neutron-deficient Ge and As, and neutron-rich Zr and Mo isotopes. Based on the self-consistent mean-field calculations with a given energy density functional and a pairing interaction, the IBM Hamiltonian for even-even nuclei, single-particle energies, and occupation probabilities for unpaired nucleons, which are necessary building blocks of the IBFFM Hamiltonian and Gamow-Teller and Fermi transition operators, are completely determined. A few coupling constants of the boson-fermion and residual neutron-proton interactions are only phenomenological parameters fitted to reproduce low-energy spectra of odd-mass and odd-odd nuclei. It is found that the calculated $\log{}_{10}ft$ values for the $\beta^+$ decays $^{68}$As$\to^{68}$Ge are particularly sensitive to the quadrupole-quadrupole boson interaction strength used for the parent ($^{68}$As) nucleus. We further incorporate higher-order terms in the one-nucleon transfer operators in the boson system, and find that, while their effects are non-negligible, they do not significantly alter qualitative features of $\beta$-decay properties. We report a novel application of the mapped IBM framework to compute $\beta$-decay half-lives, and show that the observed trend along isotopic chains are reasonably reproduced.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19480 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The IBM-2 parameters for the even-even (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The IBFFM-2 parameters adopted in the present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Excitation energies of the even-even [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predicted log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Absolute squares of the calculated GT transition matrix elements, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, and F. Iachello, Nucl. Phys. A 309, 1 (1978)

    1978

  2. [1]

    The constrained SCMF calculations are per- formed for the even-even Ge, Zr, Mo, and Ru isotopes by means of the relativistic Hartree- Bogoliubov (RHB) method [50, 51], using the density-dependent point-coupling (DD-PC1) EDF

    work page

  3. [2]

    The single-fermion Hamiltonian ˆHF (3) and boson- fermion interactions ˆVBF (4) are constructed by using the procedure of Refs. [55, 56]: The RHB- SCMF calculations are performed for the neighbor- ing odd-N or odd-Z nucleus with the constraint on zero deformation to provide quasiparticle energies, ˜ϵjρ , and occupation probabilities, v2 jρ , at the spher-...

    work page

  4. [3]

    1 + 2 vjρ ujρ 2 (ˆnsρ + 1)ˆndρ 0+ 1 Nρ(2jρ + 1) P j′ρ β2 j′ρjρ K 2 #1/2 , (26) K ′′ jρ =

    The parameters Γ ρ, Λ ρ, and Aρ, which are deter- mined in the previous step for the neighboring odd- N and odd- Z nuclei, are used for the odd-odd nu- cleus, in order to reduce the number of parameters. The quasiparticle energies ˜ϵjρ and occupation prob- abilities v2 jρ are, however, newly computed for the odd-odd nucleus in the same way as in the previ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    higher”, red triangles) and do not (“default

    Calculate the coefficients ζjρj′ρj′′ρ with the expres- sion ζjρj′ρj′′ρ = X J (−1)J+jρ+j′ ρ−j′′ ρ × q (2J + 1)(2j′ρ + 1) 2 j′′ ρ J 2 jρ j′ ρ ϕJ jρj′′ρ , (36) with ϕJ jρj′′ρ = (−1)jρ−j′′ ρ ujρ s 2J + 1 2jρ + 1 × " δjρj′′ρ − n C J √ λJ (C J )T o kjρ kj′′ρ # . (37) The details of the above procedure are found in Ref. [62]. The GT and Fermi operators are calcu...

    work page

  6. [5]

    , n), and the corresponding boson states, |B, (i); J M⟩ (i = 1 ,

    Construct a set of n fermion states, |F, (i); J M⟩ (i = 1, . . . , n), and the corresponding boson states, |B, (i); J M⟩ (i = 1 , . . . , n), which are orthonormal

    work page

  7. [6]

    For the last term of Eq

    Construct the overlap matrix Θ J of the fermionic states for each angular momentum J. For the last term of Eq. (29), the matrix elements of Θ J are given as ΘJ mr =δmr + 10 nX i=1 δji,J ! × nX k=1 βjkjr βjkjm jr 2 jk jm 2 J , (34) where βj1j2 ’s are defined in Eq. (6), and the curly bracket denotes Wigner’s 6 − j symbol

    work page

  8. [7]

    (35) Here C J is the n×n square matrix

    Diagonalize the overlap matrix Θ J ΘJ C J = C J λJ . (35) Here C J is the n×n square matrix. Its columns are the eigenvectors of ΘJ which are normalized in the condition P k(C J ik)2 = 1. λJ is the diagonal matrix which contains eigenvalues of Θ J

    work page

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Yoshida, Y

    S. Yoshida, Y. Utsuno, N. Shimizu, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054321 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Suzuki, S

    T. Suzuki, S. Shibagaki, T. Yoshida, T. Kajino, and T. Otsuka, Astrophys. J. 859, 133 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Dillmann, K.-L

    I. Dillmann, K.-L. Kratz, A. W¨ ohr, O. Arndt, B. A. Brown, P. Hoff, M. Hjorth-Jensen, U. K¨ oster, A. N. Os- trowski, B. Pfeiffer, D. Seweryniak, J. Shergur, and W. B. Walters (the ISOLDE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 162503 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    Nishimura, Z

    S. Nishimura, Z. Li, H. Watanabe, K. Yoshinaga, T. Sumikama, T. Tachibana, K. Yamaguchi, M. Kurata- Nishimura, G. Lorusso, Y. Miyashita, A. Odahara, H. Baba, J. S. Berryman, N. Blasi, A. Bracco, F. Cam- era, J. Chiba, P. Doornenbal, S. Go, T. Hashimoto, S. Hayakawa, C. Hinke, ...

    2011

  5. [12]

    Quinn, A

    M. Quinn, A. Aprahamian, J. Pereira, R. Surman, O. Arndt, T. Baumann, A. Becerril, T. Elliot, A. Estrade, D. Galaviz, T. Ginter, M. Hausmann, S. Hennrich, R. Kessler, K.-L. Kratz, G. Lorusso, P. F. Mantica, M. Matos, F. Montes, B. Pfeiffer, M. Portillo, H. Schatz, F. Schertz, ...

    2012

  6. [13]

    Lorusso, S

    G. Lorusso, S. Nishimura, Z. Y. Xu, A. Jungclaus, Y. Shimizu, G. S. Simpson, P.-A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, H. Watan- abe, F. Browne, P. Doornenbal, G. Gey, H. S. Jung, B. Meyer, T. Sumikama, J. Taprogge, Z. Vajta, J. Wu, H. Baba, G. Benzoni, K. Y. Chae, F. C. L. Crespi, N. Fukuda, R. ...

    2015

  7. [14]

    Caballero-Folch, C

    R. Caballero-Folch, C. Domingo-Pardo, J. Agramunt, 17 A. Algora, F. Ameil, A. Arcones, Y. Ayyad, J. Ben- lliure, I. N. Borzov, M. Bowry, F. Calvi˜ no, D. Cano- Ott, G. Cort´ es, T. Davinson, I. Dillmann, A. Estrade, A. Evdokimov, T. Faestermann, F. Farinon, D. Galaviz, A. R. G...

    2016

  8. [15]

    Langanke and G

    K. Langanke and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 819 (2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    M. T. Mustonen and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014304 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Marketin, L

    T. Marketin, L. Huther, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. C 93, 025805 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Kumar, N

    A. Kumar, N. Shimizu, Y. Utsuno, C. Yuan, and P. C. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064319 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    M¨ oller, B

    P. M¨ oller, B. Pfeiffer, and K.-L. Kratz, Phys. Rev. C67, 055802 (2003)

    2003

  14. [21]

    ´Alvarez-Rodr ´ ıguez, P

    R. ´Alvarez-Rodr ´ ıguez, P. Sarriguren, E. M. de Guerra, L. Pacearescu, A. Faessler, and F. ˇSimkovic, Phys. Rev. C 70, 064309 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    Sarriguren, Phys

    P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 91, 044304 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    J. M. Boillos and P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034311 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Pirinen and J

    P. Pirinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054309 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    ˇSimkovic, V

    F. ˇSimkovic, V. Rodin, A. Faessler, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. C 87, 045501 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    Brant, N

    S. Brant, N. Yoshida, and L. Zuffi, Phys. Rev. C 74, 024303 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    Yoshida and F

    N. Yoshida and F. Iachello, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2013, 043D01 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    J. T. Suhonen, Frontiers Phys. 5, 55 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    E. M. Ney, J. Engel, T. Li, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034326 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Ravli´ c, E

    A. Ravli´ c, E. Y¨ uksel, Y. F. Niu, and N. Paar, Phys. Rev. C 104, 054318 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Yoshida, Y

    K. Yoshida, Y. Niu, and F. Minato, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034305 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Navr´ atil and J

    P. Navr´ atil and J. Dobe, Phys. Rev. C37, 2126 (1988)

    1988

  26. [33]

    Dellagiacoma and F

    F. Dellagiacoma and F. Iachello, Phys. Lett. B 218, 399 (1989)

    1989

  27. [34]

    Brant, N

    S. Brant, N. Yoshida, and L. Zuffi, Phys. Rev. C 70, 054301 (2004)

    2004

  28. [35]

    studies, within the interacting boson-fermion model (IBFM-2). It is especially expected that the β-decay properties of odd-mass nuclei also depend on the relevant strength parameters, such as that for the quadrupole- quadrupole boson interaction in the IBFM-2 Hamilto- nian. In...

  29. [36]

    Iachello and A

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

    1987

  30. [37]

    Mardones, J

    E. Mardones, J. Barea, C. E. Alonso, and J. M. Arias, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034332 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024311 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044318 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    Ferretti, J

    J. Ferretti, J. Kotila, R. I. M. n. Vsevolodovna, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054329 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044306 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    Nomura, L

    K. Nomura, L. Lotina, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 106, 064304 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034319 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Homma and K

    M. Homma and K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014303 (2024)

    2024

  38. [45]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044301 (2022)

    2022

  39. [46]

    Nomura, N

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

    2008

  40. [47]

    Nomura, N

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

    2010

  41. [48]

    Nomura, T

    K. Nomura, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, and L. Guo, Phys. Rev. C 83, 041302 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    Iachello and P

    F. Iachello and P. Van Isacker, The interacting boson- fermion model(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991)

    1991

  43. [50]

    Brant, V

    S. Brant, V. Paar, and D. Vretenar, Z. Phys. A 319, 355 (1984)

    1984

  44. [51]

    F. T. Avignone, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008)

    2008

  45. [52]

    The SCMF calculations yield PESs with tri- axial quadrupole ( β and γ) shape degrees of free- dom

    and the separable pairing force of finite range [53]. The SCMF calculations yield PESs with tri- axial quadrupole ( β and γ) shape degrees of free- dom. The RHB-SCMF PES is then mapped onto the expectation value of ˆHB in the boson coherent state [54], and this procedure speci...

  46. [53]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 046301 (2017)

    2017

  47. [54]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Men´ endez, and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  48. [55]

    Nomura, Phys

    K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. C 110, 024304 (2024)

    2024

  49. [56]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, F. Iachello, and I. Talmi, Phys. Lett. B 76, 139 (1978)

    1978

  50. [58]

    Scholten, Prog

    O. Scholten, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 14, 189 (1985)

    1985

  51. [59]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034318 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Y. Tian, Z. Y. Ma, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    J. N. Ginocchio and M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A 350, 31 (1980)

    1980

  56. [64]

    Nomura, T

    K. Nomura, T. Nikˇ si´ c, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054305 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Nomura, R

    K. Nomura, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034308 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

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

  59. [67]

    Cejnar, J

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

    2010

  60. [68]

    P. D. Duval and B. R. Barrett, Phys. Lett. B 100, 223 (1981)

    1981

  61. [69]

    Iachello, ed., Interacting Bose-Fermi Systems in Nu- clei (Springer, New York, 1981)

    F. Iachello, ed., Interacting Bose-Fermi Systems in Nu- clei (Springer, New York, 1981)

    1981

  62. [70]

    Dellagiacoma, Beta decay of odd mass nuclei in the interacting boson-fermion model, Ph.D

    F. Dellagiacoma, Beta decay of odd mass nuclei in the interacting boson-fermion model, Ph.D. thesis, Yale Uni- versity (1988)

    1988

  63. [71]

    Barea, C

    J. Barea, C. E. Alonso, and J. M. Arias, Phys. Rev. C 65, 034328 (2002)

    2002

  64. [72]

    E. J. Konopinski and M. E. Rose, in Alpha- Beta- and Gamma-ray Spectroscopy, Vol. 2, edited by S. Kai (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1965) 18 p. 1327

    1965

Pith tools

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