Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei

A. Gezerlis; G. Palkanoglou

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that realistic quadrupole deformation makes spin-triplet proton-neutron pairing dominate the ground states of the lightest lanthanides, and that this shows up as a distinct suppression of odd-even mass staggering.

desk verdict Solid, clearly written mean-field study whose relative claim (deformation favors spin-triplet pn pairing) holds up, but whose absolute dominance/fingerprint claim needs a vt/vs sensitivity scan in the deformed regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08879 v2 pith:TDNLBXPB submitted 2025-05-13 nucl-th cond-mat.supr-connucl-ex

G. Palkanoglou , A. Gezerlis This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thcond-mat.supr-connucl-ex MSC 81V35

keywords spin-tripletpairingproton-neutronnucleardeformationHartree-Fock-Bogolyubovodd-evenmassstaggeringlightlanthanidesCassiniovalscorrelationenergies

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

This paper takes up the old question of what nuclear deformation does to pairing correlations and answers it for the lightest lanthanides, the heavy nuclei closest to having equal neutron and proton numbers. It claims that quadrupole deformation suppresses pairing overall, but not equally: spin-singlet pairing between like nucleons is weakened more than spin-triplet proton-neutron pairing, so the deformed ground states near mass number 130 become dominated by deuteron-like triplet pairing. The paper then shows that this shift leaves a measurable trace, a suppressed odd-even staggering of nuclear masses that is distinct from the suppression deformation causes by itself. If the claim holds, precision mass measurements could reveal the presence of spin-triplet pairing in a region of the chart where it has never been observed.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a deformed multimodal Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov (HFB) treatment: a mean-field description in which the one-body potential is an axially deformed Woods-Saxon well built from Cassini-oval parametrizations of the nuclear surface, and the pairing interaction is a regulated zero-range force acting in six separate spin-isospin channels, three isovector spin-singlet channels and three isoscalar spin-triplet proton-neutron channels. Two auxiliary quantities carry the argument: a normalized spin-singlet pairing amplitude that labels a state as singlet, mixed, or triplet, and a correlation energy measured relative to the normal unpaired HFB state, together with the odd-even staggering gap built from those energies. The load-bearing mechanism is that deformation modifies single-particle wavefunctions and the surface-peaked spin-orbit field unequally for the two pairing types, pushing triplet correlations into the interior and leaving singlet correlations vulnerable at the surface; the ordering of the constrained singlet and triplet correlation energies as beta2 grows is what determines which pairing symmetry wins.

What would settle it

A fully self-consistent mean-field calculation that lets pairing and deformation settle together, run on 110Cs or on the A=126-136 Eu isotopes, would falsify the claim if it found a spin-singlet ground state or a different equilibrium deformation that removes the triplet advantage. In the lab, precision mass measurements of neutron-deficient Eu or neighbouring isotopes from A=126 to A=131 showing odd-even gaps at the roughly 1.2 MeV spin-singlet baseline, with no dip where triplet pairing is predicted, would remove the proposed fingerprint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quadrupole deformation's net effect in this region is to suppress pairing correlations uniformly while tipping the competition between spin symmetries toward spin-triplet pairing. Concretely, when the realistic deformation of the light lanthanides (beta2 around 0.25-0.34 with smaller beta4 and beta6 terms) is imposed, the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov ground states of nuclei on the N=Z side of the mass-130 region have larger spin-triplet proton-neutron pairing amplitudes than spin-singlet ones, and the associated correlation-energy ordering reverses in individual nuclei such as 110Cs at beta2 around 0.11. The authors describe the outcome as spin-triplet pairing being assisted, not destroyed, by deformation, and they trace it to the spin-orbit field: triplet pairs form between low-orbital-angular-momentum particles whose wavefunctions stay in the nuclear interior, while singlet pairs sit closer to the surface and suffer more from the deformation-enhanced spin-orbit field. The same mechanism produces a suppressed odd-even mass staggering in triplet-dominated isotopes, which the paper proposes as an experimentally accessible fingerprint.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fixing the nuclear shape from the outside and letting pairing respond to it does not change which pairing symmetry wins; a fully self-consistent treatment that lets a triplet-paired state reshape the deformation could reverse the ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the lightest lanthanides near N=Z, realistic deformation makes spin-triplet proton-neutron pairing the dominant pairing symmetry of the HFB ground state, so spherical-only treatments misidentify the pairing structure there.
Isotopes whose ground states are triplet-paired should show reduced odd-even mass staggering, and the reduction should survive comparison with the normal spin-singlet gap scale, giving mass measurements a concrete target.
Moving away from N=Z by even a few neutrons quenches triplet pairing under deformation, so the experimental window for this signature is narrow and specific.
Higher multipoles (beta4, beta6) partially counteract the quadrupole suppression of correlation energy, meaning deformation should not be treated as a single uniformly harmful parameter.
The constrained singlet and triplet HFB states provide static reference states that capture proton-neutron pairing correlations for heavier nuclei, which could anchor more fundamental many-body methods.

Reading between the lines

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

If pairing were allowed to reshape the mean field self-consistently, triplet-paired ground states might settle at a different equilibrium deformation; the authors themselves anticipate that triplet pairing could favor moderate-to-high deformation, which would broaden the predicted region where this signature appears.
The interior-versus-surface mechanism suggests a general rule: any deformation that moves low-angular-momentum orbitals toward the Fermi surface while pushing high-angular-momentum orbitals away should favor isoscalar triplet pairing, a prediction that could be probed in other mass regions with N approximately equal to Z and moderate deformation.
The odd-even staggering fingerprint could be tested by new mass measurements of neutron-deficient europium and neighbouring isotopes between A=126 and A=131, where current data stop short of the predicted triplet region.
A fully self-consistent calculation including deformation-pairing feedback would provide the cleanest check of whether the ordering of singlet and triplet correlation energies survives.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi [Name], quick read of arXiv:2505.08879. The one thing to know: this is a solid follow-up to Palkanoglou, Stuck, Gezerlis PRL 134, 032501, giving the full deformed multimodal HFB formalism and new detail on how deformation shifts the singlet/triplet balance. The central relative claim—deformation suppresses pairing overall but favors spin-triplet pn pairing over spin-singlet—is credible and not an artifact of the fit. The absolute dominance claim for the light Lanthanides, as a matter of current calibration, is not as well pinned down as the paper suggests.

What's new and good: the six-channel pairing block structure, the careful description of the Cassini-oval surface and the spin-orbit mechanism that pushes triplet pairs to the interior, the higher-multipole results (beta4/beta6 actually enhance pairing), and the odd-even staggering analysis that ties the suppression to triplet pairing. The authors are honest about the main idealizations: deformation is held fixed, the regulator introduces shell artifacts (they admit it in Sec IV C 1), and the low-l wavefunction assumption in Sec V is flagged as reasonable rather than derived. That is the right tone for a phenomenological mean-field paper.

The soft spot, in my view, is the calibration. The zero-range strengths vs=87, vt=120 MeV are fixed at beta=0 to reproduce the spherical HFB of Refs [18,26]—which are the authors' own earlier calculations, so there is a mild circularity, though the deformation dependence is genuinely not in the fit. What is missing is a sensitivity scan in the deformed regime. Figures 3–4 show that correlation energies and the singlet fraction xS respond strongly to vt/vs even at beta=0. If a re-fit with a different regulator or a vt/vs of, say, 1.2–1.6 shifted the triplet crossover for 110Cs from beta2~0.11 to beyond the FRDM values (0.25–0.34), the headline dominance claim would fall apart. The relative claim—deformation assists triplet competition—would likely survive, but the OES fingerprint claim is tied to absolute dominance. A single figure scanning vt/vs at the realistic FRDM deformations would settle this, and its absence is the main thing I'd ask for.

Minor quibbles: the OES marker rests on one experimental anchor point (the ~1.2 MeV gap), and no error bars anywhere, which is common in this literature but still limiting.

Bottom line: for a nuclear many-body audience this deserves serious refereeing and probably publication after the sensitivity scan is added. I'd bring it to the reading group and I'd cite it if I worked in this region. The thinking is clear, the limitations are stated, and the core mechanism is physically sensible.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a deformed Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov (HFB) model in which the single-particle field is a Woods-Saxon potential with multipole deformations parametrized via Cassini ovals and the pairing interaction is a regulated zero-range contact force acting in six spin-isospin channels. The two pairing strengths are fitted at zero deformation to reproduce the spherical HFB phenomenology of Refs. [18,26] on the A=132 isobar, giving vs=87 MeV and vt=120 MeV. The authors then study the evolution of spin-singlet, spin-triplet, and mixed-spin pairing correlations, correlation energies, and odd-even mass staggering as functions of quadrupole and higher multipole deformation in the light lanthanides near N=Z. The central conclusions are that (i) moderate quadrupole deformation suppresses pairing overall but favors spin-triplet over spin-singlet correlations, with an explicit crossover near β2≈0.11 for 110Cs, and (ii) for realistically deformed Eu isotopes, the suppression of the proton odd-even mass staggering is a distinct fingerprint of spin-triplet pairing rather than a trivial deformation effect.

Significance. If the central claim survives the robustness checks discussed below, this is a valuable contribution: it provides an experimentally testable, falsifiable fingerprint for the elusive deuteron-like pairing channel in heavy deformed nuclei, and it goes beyond earlier spherical treatments by systematically varying deformation modes. The paper is also useful as a methods exposition: the block structure of the HFB pairing matrix, the channel decomposition diagnostics, and the correlation-energy definitions are described in detail, and the authors are transparent about known regulator artifacts and about the fixed-deformation limitation. The main caveat is that the quantitative crossover to triplet dominance rests on a single parameter ratio fitted only in the spherical limit, with no sensitivity analysis in the deformed regime.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV B; Figs. 8, 10, 13] The crossover to triplet dominance is computed at the single value vt/vs=1.38, and no deformed-regime sensitivity analysis is shown. Because the crossover in Figs. 8 and 13 occurs at β2 values close to the FRDM range β2≈0.25–0.34, a plausible re-fit within vt/vs≈1.2–1.6, or a different regulator window, could shift the crossover beyond the realistic deformation and invalidate the dominance claim. The authors should supply the crossover β2 as a function of vt/vs (or an equivalent sensitivity scan) over a reasonable parameter range. The relative statement that deformation favors triplet over singlet might survive such a scan, but the dominance and odd-even-staggering fingerprint claims as stated require this check.
[Sec. V] The deformation is externally fixed, and pairing is not allowed to reshape the mean field, as the authors explicitly acknowledge. Since the conclusion that spin-triplet pairing is 'assisted' in realistic nuclei assumes that a self-consistent calculation would yield the same shape, the ordering of singlet and triplet correlation energies could differ if the triplet-paired state favors a different equilibrium deformation. At a minimum, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of the crossover to the deformation degrees of freedom, for example by checking whether the singlet-constrained and triplet-constrained HFB states have different energy minima as functions of β2.
[Sec. IV C 1 a] The paper admits that the regulator window produces artificial shell effects, specifically the dips in the triplet correlation energy of 128Gd at β2≈0.15 and 0.22. Because the crossover values and the relative slopes in Figs. 8 and 10 are extracted in the presence of these artifacts, the quantitative robustness of the crossover to the regulator choice is not established. A test with a different window width or a smooth regulator is needed to confirm that the reported crossover positions are not regulator artifacts. This is particularly important because the crossover for 110Cs occurs at β2≈0.11, close to the region where such artifacts appear.
[Sec. V] The explanation of triplet-pairing enhancement relies on the assumption that low-l single-particle states retain their interior spatial character under deformation, which is stated as 'reasonable' but not demonstrated. Since this assumption is load-bearing for the proposed mechanism, the authors should provide a direct check, for example the l-content overlap of the deformed single-particle states or the evolution of the pair-density radius defined in Eq. (54) for the relevant states, rather than only asserting the property.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III C, Eqs. (44)–(45)] The normalization in Eqs. (44)–(45) is not dimensionally consistent as written: the singlet fraction should be a ratio of square roots, xS = [Σ_{α singlet} K_α^2]^{1/2} / [Σ_{α all} K_α^2]^{1/2}, rather than the ratio of a sum to a square-rooted quantity. The authors should clarify the notation.
[Sec. III A, Sec. IV C 2] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Schröndiger' in Sec. III A, 'Hamitlonian' in Sec. III, and 'avergae' in Sec. IV C 2, that should be corrected in a revision.
[Sec. III B, Eq. (33)] The fitted values vs=87 MeV and vt=120 MeV can only be interpreted together with the regulator window and the normalization of the cylindrical basis; the authors should state the basis normalization and the dimensions of vα explicitly, since the comparison with the values used in Refs. [18,26] is otherwise ambiguous.
[Sec. IV C 2, Fig. 13] The caption of Fig. 13 does not define the open, half-full, and full symbol coding; the reader must infer from the text that they correspond to β2=0.1, β2=0.33, and the realistic deformation. The caption should be self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the deformed-regime triplet-enhancement prediction is not contained in the spherical-limit calibration.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here. The interaction strengths vs = 87 MeV and vt = 120 MeV are fixed in Sec. IV B by matching spherical-limit HFB correlation energies and pairing amplitudes of Refs. [18,26] on the A = 132 isobar (Figs. 1-4). All deformation-dependent results—the crossover to triplet dominance in 110Cs at beta2 ≈ 0.11, the mixed-spin window in 128Gd, and the odd-even staggering suppression in the Eu chain—are then computed with the same parameters, with deformation entering only through the one-body Woods-Saxon/Cassini potential and spin-orbit field. At the spherical limit, 110Cs has a spin-singlet ground state, so the triplet dominance that emerges with deformation is not an input of the fit; it is a genuine prediction of the model. Self-citations to Ref. [36] are summaries of the same calculation, not load-bearing replacements for it, and the spherical calibration target includes the authors' own earlier work only in the sense of a standard benchmark, not as a result that is being relabeled. The explicit caveats in Sec. V—fixed deformation and the assumption that low-l states retain interior spatial character when deformed—are limitations or unproven assumptions, not circular reductions, and the absence of a deformed-regime sensitivity scan is a robustness concern, not a circularity. No equation or fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a standard mean-field framework with several domain assumptions: a fixed deformed Woods-Saxon potential, a regulated contact pairing interaction with two fitted strengths, and the neglect of the Hartree term. The most paper-specific assumptions are the fixed external deformation and the interior character of low-l orbitals under deformation; both are stated but not derived.

free parameters (4)

vs (singlet pairing strength) = 87 MeV
Tuned so that the spherical limit reproduces the correlation energies and pairing amplitudes of Refs [18,26] on the A=132 isobar (Sec IV B, Figs 1-4).
vt (triplet pairing strength) = 120 MeV
Tuned, with vt/vs around 1.38, to match the spherical HFB results of Refs [18,26] (Sec IV B).
Energy window for pairing regulator = 10 MeV width centered at -13 MeV
Carried over from Refs [18,26]; the window position and width control which single-particle states feel the pairing interaction and affect all results, with artificial shell effects admitted when states exit the window (Sec IV B, IV C 1).
Deformation parameters beta2, beta4, beta6 = Scans at 0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.33; realistic values from FRDM [45]
Deformation is an external input chosen by hand or taken from the FRDM table; it is not fitted to pairing data, but all conclusions are conditional on these shapes.

assumptions (7)

standard math Standard HFB theory: the ground state is a Bogolyubov quasiparticle vacuum and can be found by gradient descent via Thouless' theorem.
Sec III, Eqs (16)-(18). Unproved background, standard in the field.
domain assumption The mean field is a Woods-Saxon potential with constant surface diffuseness, whose equipotentials follow the Cassini-oval parametrization of the nuclear surface.
Sec II, Eqs (8)-(10). Relies on saturation of nuclear forces and constant diffuseness; parameters V0, a from Ref [46].
ad hoc to paper Pairing is described by a zero-range contact interaction in six spin-isospin channels restricted to Jz=0 pairs, regulated by an energy window.
Sec III B, Eq (29). The operator structure and regulator are chosen for this work; strengths are fitted (see free parameters).
ad hoc to paper The Hartree field (Gamma) is neglected and absorbed into the single-particle potential.
Sec III B: 'one can neglect the correction Gamma and see it as included in the parameters of the single-particle potential.' This is an explicit modeling simplification.
domain assumption Deformation is externally fixed and does not respond to pairing correlations.
Sec IV A and Sec V: 'we have considered the nuclear deformation as fixed.' The two are not minimized self-consistently.
ad hoc to paper Low-l single-particle states retain their interior spatial character under moderate deformation.
Sec V: 'Assuming that the low-l single particle states retain the property of having spatial wavefunctions far from the nuclear surface even when deformed (this is reasonable...)' This underpins the spin-orbit mechanism.
domain assumption The classification thresholds (xS^2 >= 4/5 singlet, etc.) meaningfully separate pairing symmetries.
Sec III C, Eq (44). Used to label states; thresholds are conventional.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDNLBXPB

@misc{pith2026250508879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDNLBXPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08879}
}

read the original abstract

Nucleons are known to form pairing correlations with various types of spin-symmetries. Spin-singlet neutron-neutron and proton-proton pairing is abundant in the nuclear chart but spin-triplet and mixed-spin proton-neutron pairing correlations have also been predicted to form at least in the ground states of certain nuclei. A realistic candidate region is that of the lightest Lanthanides where it was recently demonstrated that the nuclear deformation expected to emerge enhances spin-triplet pairing correlations. In this paper we provide the details of the deformed multimodal Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov theory that lead to this conclusion, as well as the details of the effects identified. We present in detail the response of different pairing correlations to various deformation modes and calculate their signatures in the odd-even staggering of masses. This paper provides a detailed discussion, and some resolutions, on the long-standing question ``what is the effect of nuclear deformation on the various pairing correlations?''

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08879 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. The pairing amplitudes on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. The correlation energies of nuclei on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The evolution of the correlation energies of two differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The spatial configuration of the pairing correlations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. The single particle states around the Fermi surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Top panel: The correlation energies and symmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Novel Phases of a Baryon-Dense QCD-like Theory
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Adding a baryon chemical potential to AMSB-deformed s-confining SQCD produces novel finite-density vacua with baryon-number and parity breaking, with both first- and second-order transitions.
Interplay between Nuclear Shell Structure and Pairing around Doubly Magic $^{132}$Sn
nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Proton (sub)shell closures enhance neutron odd-even staggering asymmetry across N=82; new 138Sb mass and HFB calculations support this for even-Z but leave odd-Z harder to explain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

(7) is the simplest non-trivial defor- mation one can start from because in an expansion of the form in Eq

Quadrupole deformation Quadrupole deformation which is parametrized by the β2 parameter in Eq. (7) is the simplest non-trivial defor- mation one can start from because in an expansion of the form in Eq. (7), β0 is fixed by the volume of the nucleus andβ1 corresponds mainly (for small deformations) to a translation of the whole system (see, e.g., Ref. [43]...

work page
[2]

We will focus on a single nucleus, Eu (Z = 63), and its isotopic chain for A = 126 − 136

Higher deformation modes and odd-even mass staggering We now turn to higher deformation modes ( βλ with λ> 2) whose interplay with spin-triplet and mixed-spin pairing correlations has been hardly touched before in the literature. We will focus on a single nucleus, Eu (Z = 63), and its isotopic chain for A = 126 − 136. The quadrupole deformation prescribed...

work page
[3]

D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 607 (2003)

work page 2003
[4]

Som` a, T

V. Som` a, T. Duguet, and C. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064317 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

Barbieri, T

C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. C105, 044330 (2022)

2022
[6]

Drissi, A

M. Drissi, A. Rios, and C. Barbieri, Ann. Phys 489 169729 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Schuck and M

P. Schuck and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 100, 031301 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 167 (2019)

2019

Show all 48 references

[9]

Martin and M

N. Martin and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065801 (2016)

2016
[10]

Sourie and N

A. Sourie and N. Chamel, MNRAS 503, 1407 (2021)

2021
[11]

A. Rios, A. Polls, and W. H. Dickhoff, J. Low Temp. Phys. 189, 234 (2017)

2017
[12]

Oishi, M

T. Oishi, M. Kortelainen, and A. Pastore Phys. Rev. C 96, 044327 (2017)

2017
[13]

Magierski, K

P. Magierski, K. Sekizawa, and G. Wlaz lowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 042501 (2017)

2017
[14]

Bernard, S

R. Bernard, S. A. Giuliani, and L. M. Robledo Phys. Rev. C 99, 064301 (2019)

2019
[15]

Y. F. Niu, Z. M. Niu, G. Col` o, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Lett. B 780, 325 (2018)

2018
[16]

Scamps, D

G. Scamps, D. Lacroix, G. F. Bertsch, and K. Washiyama, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034328 (2012)

2012
[17]

Sadhukhan, J

J. Sadhukhan, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, J. A. Sheikh, and A. Baran, Phys. Rev. C 90, 061304(R) (2014)

2014
[18]

Gupta and M

S. Gupta and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 109, 045806 (2024)

2024
[19]

Gandolfi, G

S. Gandolfi, G. Palkanoglou, J. Carlson, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, Condens. Matter 7, 19 (2022). 17

2022
[20]

G. F. Bertsch and Y. Luo, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064320 (2011)

2011
[21]

Hinohara, T

N. Hinohara, T. Oishi, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034302 (2024)

2024
[22]

Poves and G

A. Poves and G. Martinez-Pinedo, Phys. Lett. B 430, 203 (1998)

1998
[23]

Baroni, A.O

S. Baroni, A.O. Macchiavelli, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064308 (2010)

2010
[24]

Frauendorf and A

S. Frauendorf and A. O. Macchiavelli, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys 78, 24 (2014)

2014
[25]

Matsubara et al., Phys

H. Matsubara et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 102501 (2015)

2015
[26]

Van Isacker and A

P. Van Isacker and A. O. Machiavelli, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 178 (2021)

2021
[27]

Frauendorf, Rev

S. Frauendorf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 463 (2001)

2001
[28]

Gezerlis, G

A. Gezerlis, G. F. Bertsch, and Y. L. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252502 (2011)

2011
[29]

Bulthuis and A

B. Bulthuis and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014312 (2016)

2016
[30]

Rrapaj, A

E. Rrapaj, A. O. Macchiavelli, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014321 (2019)

2019
[31]

Scalesi, T

A. Scalesi, T. Duguet, P .Demol, M. Frosini, V. Som` a, A. Tichai, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 209 (2024)

2024
[32]

Tichai, P

A. Tichai, P. Arthuis, T. Duguet, H. Hergert, V. Som` a, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 786, 195 (2018)

2018
[33]

Hergert, S

H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Lang- hammer, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034307 (2013)

2013
[34]

Baroni, P

S. Baroni, P. Navr´ atil, and S. Quaglioni, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034326 (2013)

2013
[35]

Gambacurta and D

D. Gambacurta and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C 91, 01430 (2015)

2015
[36]

Marevi´ c, N

P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, E.M. Ney, R. Navarro P´ erez, M. Verriere, and J. O’Neal, Comput. Phys. Commun. 276, 108367 (2022)

2022
[37]

Dobaczewski, P

J. Dobaczewski, P. B¸ aczyk, P. Becker, M. Bender, K. Bennaceur, J. Bonnard, Y. Gao, A. Idini, M. Konieczka, M. Kortelainen, L. Pr´ ochniak, A.M. Romero, W. Satu la, Y. Shi, T.R. Werner, L.F. Yu, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 48 (10) 102001 (2021)

2021
[38]

Palkanoglou, M

G. Palkanoglou, M. Stuck, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 032501 (2025)

2025
[39]

V. S. Stavinsky, N. S. Rabotnov and A. A. Seregin, Yad. Fiz. 7, 1051 (1968)

1968
[40]

Garrote, R

E. Garrote, R. Capote, and R. Pedrosa, Comput. Phys. Commun., 92, 267 (1995)

1995
[41]

M¨ oller, Nucl

P. M¨ oller, Nucl. Phys. A192, 529 (1972)

1972
[42]

Okada, T

K. Okada, T. Wada, R. Capote, and N. Carjan, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034608 (2023)

2023
[43]

Carjan, F

N. Carjan, F. Ivanyuk, V. Pashkevich, Phys. Proc. 31, 173 (2012)

2012
[44]

Gordon, C

A. Gordon, C. Jirauschek, and F. X. K¨ artner, Phys. Rev. A 73, 042505 (2006)

2006
[45]

Ring and P

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

1980
[46]

Duguet, P

T. Duguet, P. Bonche, P.-H. Heenen, J. Meyer, Phys. Rev. C 65, 014311 (2001)

2001
[47]

M¨ oller, A

P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109, 1 (2016)

2016
[48]

Bohr and B

A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure , Vol. I (Benjamin, New York, 1969)

1969

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

(7) is the simplest non-trivial defor- mation one can start from because in an expansion of the form in Eq

Quadrupole deformation Quadrupole deformation which is parametrized by the β2 parameter in Eq. (7) is the simplest non-trivial defor- mation one can start from because in an expansion of the form in Eq. (7), β0 is fixed by the volume of the nucleus andβ1 corresponds mainly (for small deformations) to a translation of the whole system (see, e.g., Ref. [43]...

work page

[2] [2]

We will focus on a single nucleus, Eu (Z = 63), and its isotopic chain for A = 126 − 136

Higher deformation modes and odd-even mass staggering We now turn to higher deformation modes ( βλ with λ> 2) whose interplay with spin-triplet and mixed-spin pairing correlations has been hardly touched before in the literature. We will focus on a single nucleus, Eu (Z = 63), and its isotopic chain for A = 126 − 136. The quadrupole deformation prescribed...

work page

[3] [3]

D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 607 (2003)

work page 2003

[4] [4]

Som` a, T

V. Som` a, T. Duguet, and C. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064317 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Barbieri, T

C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. C105, 044330 (2022)

2022

[6] [6]

Drissi, A

M. Drissi, A. Rios, and C. Barbieri, Ann. Phys 489 169729 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Schuck and M

P. Schuck and M. Urban, Phys. Rev. C 100, 031301 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 167 (2019)

2019