Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 70 references

SU(3) rigid triaxiality in $^{154}$Sm

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the rigid triaxiality of 154Sm is governed by the SU(3) irrep (18,2), and that the SU3-IBM Hamiltonian reproduces measured energy levels, B(E2) transition strengths, and quadrupole moments when that irrep is the ground

desk verdict A competent but over-claiming SU3-IBM fit to 154Sm: the (18,2) irrep is assumed, not verified, and the agreement is uneven. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10008 v1 pith:ITNLFP3C submitted 2025-09-12 nucl-th

Chunxiao Zhou , Xue Shang , Tao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.Fw21.10.Re23.20.-g27.70.+q
keywords rigidtriaxiality154SmSU3-IBMSU(3)symmetryinteractingbosonmodelB(E2)transitionstrengthsquadrupolemomentsgamma-bandstaggering
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

154Sm has long been treated as an axially symmetric deformed nucleus, but recent experiments suggest a small triaxial deformation. The authors use the SU3-IBM, an interacting-boson framework where quadrupole shapes are labeled by SU(3) irreps (λ, μ), and show that choosing the ground-state irrep (18,2) gives good agreement with measured energy levels, E2 transition strengths, and quadrupole moments. The extracted triaxial angle is about 7.2 degrees, which lies between the recent experimental value and an earlier theoretical result. The paper argues this supports SU(3) symmetry as the organizing principle behind rigid triaxiality in heavy deformed nuclei.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the SU3-IBM Hamiltonian H = α n_d + H_Tri, with static part H_S = −(a1/2N)C2 + (a2/2N²)C3 + (a3/2N³)C2² and dynamic part H_D built from the SU(3) generators L and Q. The Casimir operators C2 and C3 generate prolate and oblate shapes, and the C2² term is what turns on triaxiality. The load-bearing identity is a3 = a1N²/(2g) − a2N/(6g)(3 + λ0 + 2μ0), with g = λ² + μ² + 3λ + 3μ + λμ, which lets any irrep (λ, μ) become the ground state by tuning a3. Tied to this is the angle mapping γ = arctan(√3(μ+1)/(2λ+μ+3)), which converts the irrep (18,2) into a triaxial angle of about 7.2°.

What would settle it

A decisive test is high-precision spectroscopy of the model's predicted unobserved levels (8⁺₃, 10⁺₂, 6⁺₅, 7⁺₂, 6⁺₄, 8⁺₄) and an independent extraction of γ for the 0⁺₂ state, which the model places at about 13.9°; a clear disagreement would break the (18,2)+(14,4) assignment. Alternatively, a precise remeasurement of B(E2; 0⁺₂→2⁺₁) could help: the model predicts 3.26 W.u. while the adopted experimental value is 11.4(+2.8/−1.7) W.u., a large discrepancy that the paper does not fully explain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: in the SU3-IBM, rigid triaxial shapes are realized by a Hamiltonian built from SU(3) Casimir operators up to fourth order, and each ground-state shape corresponds to a specific irrep (λ, μ). For 154Sm the authors choose (18,2), which fixes the Hamiltonian parameters through a known relation, and find that the resulting rotational bands reproduce the experimental low-lying spectrum, the odd-even γ-band staggering S(J), the absolute B(E2) values, and the quadrupole moments of low-lying states. Using the irrep-to-angle mapping they obtain γ ≈ 7.2°, larger than the earlier 3.7° prediction and consistent with the measured 5.0(15)°. The conclusion is that the small rigid

Load-bearing premise

The fit stands or falls on the assumption that 154Sm's ground state is essentially a single, unmixed SU(3) irrep, (18,2), and that the formula γ = arctan(√3(μ+1)/(2λ+μ+3)) correctly converts that irrep into a physical triaxial angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the (18,2) assignment is correct, the low-lying bands of 154Sm are organized by the three SU(3) irreps (18,2), (14,4), and (22,0), and the model's predicted unobserved levels (such as 8⁺₃, 10⁺₂, 6⁺₅, 7⁺₂, 6⁺₄, 8⁺₄) become concrete targets for future experiments.
  • Because the same SU3-IBM simultaneously fits energies, B(E2) values, and quadrupole moments, the paper concludes that higher-order SU(3) interactions are both necessary and sufficient to describe rigid triaxiality in 154Sm, in contrast to the standard two-body IBM-1.
  • The extracted γ ≈ 7.2° for the ground state is a quantitative prediction: triaxiality is small but nonzero, and the γ-band staggering S(J) should remain small and positive, matching the adopted data.
  • The approach implies that 154Sm is a rigid triaxial rotor with SU(3) symmetry rather than a γ-soft shape, and that the same pattern should appear in other heavy deformed nuclei.
  • If the companion study on 166Er reaches the same conclusion, rigid triaxiality emerges as a general deformation mode of large deformed nuclei, confirming an old speculation about non-axial shapes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The single-irrep assumption is strong; realistic nuclei likely mix SU(3) irreps. Including such mixing could shift the extracted γ and might bring the 7.2° closer to the experimental 5.0(15)°.
  • Editorial inference: The angle mapping γ = arctan(√3(μ+1)/(2λ+μ+3)) is derived in a rigid-rotor limit; its accuracy for a finite nucleus like 154Sm is not guaranteed, so the numerical γ values should be read as model-dependent estimates.
  • Editorial inference: The model's success with a small parameter set suggests a systematic survey of rare-earth nuclei: testing whether their ground-state (λ, μ) assignments track known deformation systematics would directly probe how universal the SU(3) dominance claim is.
  • Editorial inference: The predicted high-spin levels constitute a falsifiable list; a modern Coulomb-excitation or transfer experiment could confirm the band structure or expose where the pure SU(3) picture breaks down.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the recently proposed SU3-IBM, an interacting-boson Hamiltonian with SU(3) Casimir operators and higher-order SU(3) terms, to the nucleus 154Sm. The authors fit seven parameters (alpha, a1, a2, a3, t1, t2, t3) plus a boson effective charge and assume that the ground-state band is dominated by the SU(3) irrep (18,2). On this basis they calculate energy spectra, B(E2) values, quadrupole moments, and gamma-band staggering and compare with experiment. They report good overall agreement, extract gamma ~ 7.2 degrees from Eq. (13), and claim that the SU3-IBM provides a nearly unique description of rigid triaxiality in 154Sm. The central claim is explicitly conditional: if the irrep is (18,2), the model can effectively reproduce the data.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would be a useful demonstration that an algebraic SU(3)-based IBM can describe rigid triaxiality in a well-deformed nucleus, complementing the configuration-mixing and Monte Carlo shell-model results of Otsuka et al. The model is transparent, the Hamiltonian is clearly specified, and the comparison with experiment covers spectra, E2 transitions, quadrupole moments, and staggering. The paper also makes concrete predictions for levels that have not yet been observed. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the ground-state irrep is assumed rather than derived, the extracted gamma is not an independent prediction, and several key B(E2) values deviate substantially from experiment. The claim of a 'nearly unique' determination is not supported by the tests reported in the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Eq. (9)] The ground-state irrep (18,2) is chosen solely because Ref. [10] predicted triaxiality for 154Sm, and a3 is then fixed by Eq. (9) so that (18,2) is the minimum of ⟨H_S⟩. The Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(4) contains alpha n_d and L-dependent terms that break SU(3), so the eigenstates are generally mixtures of several irreps. The paper does not compute the SU(3) content of the wavefunctions or the overlap of the ground state with (18,2). Without such a computation, the labels (18,2), (14,4), (22,0) and the resulting gamma from Eq. (13) are not justified. This is the load-bearing assumption of the paper.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 3] The claimed good agreement with B(E2) data is not uniform. B(E2; 0+2 -> 2+1) is calculated as 3.26 W.u. versus the experimental 11.40(+0.28/-0.17) W.u., a factor of ~3.5 discrepancy. The yrast transitions B(E2; 8+1 -> 6+1), B(E2; 10+1 -> 8+1), and B(E2; 12+1 -> 10+1) are underestimated by roughly 20-25%. The text acknowledges only the 0+2 -> 2+1 and 4+2 -> 6+1 cases; the yrast deviations are not discussed. Since these are among the most collective transitions in the nucleus, the statement that B(E2) values are in 'good agreement' needs qualification.
  3. [Table 1 and Eq. (13)] The extracted gamma = 7.2 degrees for the ground state lies outside the experimental value 5.0(15) degrees. The paper frames this as a larger value than the MCSM result, but it is actually inconsistent with the quoted experiment at the ~1.5 sigma level. More importantly, gamma is not predicted independently: Eq. (13) maps the chosen irrep (18,2) to a fixed angle, and (18,2) was selected because triaxiality was already expected. The comparison in Table 1 therefore does not constitute a test of the model's predictive power for the triaxial deformation angle.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that 'the validity and correctness of the SU3-IBM is determined in a nearly unique way' is not supported by the evidence. Only one irrep, (18,2), is considered. No test is shown for alternative irreps such as (20,0), (16,4), or (18,0), which could in principle also be made the ground state by adjusting a3 through Eq. (9). The seven-parameter fit plus the freedom to choose (lambda, mu) substantially reduces the weight of the claim. A scan over plausible irreps, or a calculation of the ground-state overlap with (18,2), is needed before uniqueness can be asserted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] There are several typographical errors: 'vality' should be 'validity', 'gevin' should be 'given', 'understandig' should be 'understanding', 'symemtry' should be 'symmetry', and 'excepted' should be 'expected'. The notation 'BE(2)' appears alongside 'B(E2)' and should be made consistent.
  2. [Figure 1] The caption and text for Fig. 1 refer to a3 dependence of low-lying 0+ levels, but the figure labels in the extracted text are garbled. Please ensure the figure is readable and the axis labels are explicitly defined.
  3. [References] Reference [63] is 'in preparation' and therefore cannot be checked. Since the paper relies on the companion 166Er study for a broader conclusion, either include the data or soften the claim. Also, Ref. [29] describes the SU(3) limit as both prolate and oblate; this apparent duplication should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (14)] The staggering quantity S(J) is defined for the gamma band, but the figure caption does not specify which experimental levels are assigned to the gamma band. Please clarify the assignment criteria, especially for the higher-spin members used in the staggering analysis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported triaxiality angle γ≈7.2° is obtained by evaluating Eq. (13) at the input irrep (18,2), so this central 'result' reduces to the chosen input by construction; the universality extension additionally relies on an unpublished same-author companion paper.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eq. (13), Table 1, and the text after Eq. (13)]
    "Based on the relationship in Eq. (9) and the conclusion given in Ref. [10], the irrep (λ, μ) = (18, 2) is chosen ... our model yields a bigger value γ ≈ 7.2◦ based on the SU(3) irrep (18,2)"

    Eq. (13) defines γ = arctan(√3(μ+1)/(2λ+μ+3)) as a one-to-one function of the SU(3) irrep (λ, μ). The paper selects (λ, μ) = (18, 2) as an input, explicitly guided by Ref. [10]'s triaxiality conclusion for the same nucleus, and then reports γ ≈ 7.2° as a model output. The reported triaxiality is therefore not derived from independent data or from a fit to an observable; it is the chosen irrep rewritten through a formula. No alternative irreps are tested, and no overlap or SU(3)-purity diagnostic is given, so the γ value is a restatement of the input choice rather than a prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4 (Discussions)]
    "In another paper on 166Er [63], the same conclusion is also obtained. These results reveal that rigid triaxial shapes are universal deformation modes for the large deformed nuclei."

    The claim that rigid triaxial shapes are universal deformation modes in large deformed nuclei is supported partly by Ref. [63], which is listed as 'in preparation' and is authored by the same C.X. Zhou and T. Wang. This is an unpublished self-citation, not an external, machine-checked, or independently reproduced result. The universal conclusion therefore leans on the authors' own forthcoming work as load-bearing evidence rather than on an established external result.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: after fixing the Hamiltonian parameters, the computed energy spectra, B(E2) values, and quadrupole moments are genuine outputs that require diagonalizing the SU3-IBM Hamiltonian, and several high-spin levels and transition rates are extrapolations rather than fit points. Equation (9) is also algebraically checkable from the Casimir eigenvalues given in Eqs. (7)–(8), so its citation to the authors' earlier work [61] is not itself a circular step. However, the headline triaxiality angle γ ≈ 7.2° is central to the paper's comparison with Otsuka et al. and with experiment, and it is obtained purely by inserting the chosen irrep (18,2) into Eq. (13). Because (18,2) is selected on the basis of a prior triaxiality claim for 154Sm and is never independently determined by the data or by an irrep-purity test, this step is a reduction by construction: the predicted triaxiality encodes the assumed triaxial irrep. The universality claim in Section 4 additionally invokes an in-preparation same-author paper, which is not independent corroboration. These issues warrant a partial-circularity score of 6, while acknowledging that other computed observables carry genuine independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on 9 hand or fit quantities (7 Hamiltonian parameters, one effective charge, and the chosen irrep), plus several domain assumptions about the SU(3)-geometry correspondence and single-irrep dominance. The predictive content beyond the fit is limited by these choices.

free parameters (9)
  • alpha = 0.0604 MeV
    Fitted to the overall energy scale (d-boson excitation energy) to match low-lying levels.
  • a1 = 1.4516 MeV
    Fitted to the rotational band spacing and band head energies.
  • a2 = 0.0327 MeV
    Fitted to the shape and band structure.
  • a3 = 0.1988 MeV
    Determined from a1, a2 and the chosen irrep via Eq. (9), but since a1 and a2 are free and the relation is not exactly satisfied by the quoted values, it is effectively fitted.
  • t1 = 0.002382 MeV
    Fitted to reproduce rotational energies within bands.
  • t2 = -0.002608 MeV
    Fitted to reproduce band staggering and energies.
  • t3 = 0.0484 MeV
    Fitted to the L^2 rotational term.
  • e (boson effective charge) = 2.06916 (W.u.)^(1/2)
    Fitted to the absolute B(E2; 2+1 to 0+1) value; all other B(E2)s use this single charge.
  • Ground-state SU(3) irrep (lambda, mu) = (18,2)
    Chosen by hand based on the triaxiality prediction of Otsuka et al.; central input, not derived in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian (3) with up to quartic SU(3) Casimir terms realizes a rigid triaxial rotor.
    Adopted from Smirnov et al. (Ref. [5]); the paper does not rederive this.
  • domain assumption gamma = atan(sqrt(3)(mu+1)/(2 lambda + mu + 3)) correctly maps the SU(3) irrep (lambda, mu) to the Bohr-Mottelson triaxial angle.
    Used in Eq. (13) to obtain gamma = 7.2 degrees for (18,2); the mapping is taken from the literature and is not justified for 154Sm specifically.
  • ad hoc to paper The 154Sm ground state is dominated by a single SU(3) irrep (18,2) with negligible mixing.
    The entire calculation assumes this single-irrep dominance; no mixing calculation is presented.
  • standard math The effective E2 operator is e*Q with a single effective charge, and Q is the SU(3) generator used in the Hamiltonian.
    Standard IBM assumption; the charge e is fitted to one transition.
  • domain assumption N = 11 bosons is the correct IBM-1 mapping for 154Sm.
    Standard counting (6 proton pairs and 5 neutron pairs); not explicitly justified in the paper.
  • domain assumption The dynamic part H_D (t1, t2, t3) does not contribute to the ground-state energy or the optimal irrep.
    Stated in Section 2; used to separate static and dynamic fitting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SU(3) rigid triaxiality in $^{154}$Sm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITNLFP3C

@misc{pith2026250910008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SU(3) rigid triaxiality in $^154$Sm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITNLFP3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10008}
}
abstract

The $^{154}$Sm nucleus, which has long been regarded as a typical quantum system exhibiting axial symmetry, has been recently suggested to exhibit a small degree of triaxiality by Otsuka \textit{et al.}. This small triaxiality was recently observed using the $\gamma$ decay of the $^{154}$Sm isovector giant dipole resonance. Thus further studying this small triaxiality is very necessary for understanding the nature of the collectivity in nuclei. In this paper, the rigid triaxiality in $^{154}$Sm is investigated using the newly proposed SU3-IBM theory. If the irreducible representation (irrep) of the ground state is (18,2) in the SU(3) symmetry limit, the new model can effectively reproduce the experimental data of $^{154}$Sm, showing good agreements with realistic energy spectra, B(E2) values, and quadrupole moments. This result further confirms the vality of the SU3-IBM for the description of the rigid triaxiality in realistic nuclei, and reveals the SU(3) dominance of the collectivity motions in nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10008 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The low-lying 0+ levels as a function of a3 for Hˆ S and N = 11. Other parameters are a1 = 1.4516 MeV, a2 = 0.0327 MeV. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 E (MeV) 2 + 1 4 + 1 6 + 1 8 + 1 10+ 1 12+ 1 14+ 1 0 + 1 2 + 4 3 + 1 4 + 4 5 + 1 6 + 3 7 + 1 2 + 2 4 + 2 6 + 2 8 + 2 0 + 2 2 + 5 3 + 2 4 + 5 4 + 6 2 + 3 4 + 3 0 + 3 (a) Expt. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 E (MeV) 2 + 1 4 + 1 6 + 1 8 + 1 10+ 1 12+ 1 14+ 1 0 + 1 2 + 4 3 + 1 4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The experimental and calculated partial low-lyin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The staggering parameter S (J) for 154Sm. The experimental data are taken from [64], and the parameters used in SU3-IBM are same as those used in Fig. (2). The data of IBM-CM and CQ are obtained from [68]. sponding parameters in the Hamiltonian are α = 0.0604 MeV, a1 = 1.4516 MeV, a2 = 0.0327 MeV, a3 = 0.1988 MeV, t1 = 0.002382 MeV, t2 = −0.002608 MeV and t3 = 0.0484 MeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [10]

    Otsuka, Y

    T. Otsuka, Y . Tsunoda, N. Shimizu, Y . Utsuno, T. Abe and H. Ueno, Prevailing triaxial shapes in atomic nuclei and a quantum theory of rotation of composite object, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (2025) 126. 5

    2025

  2. [1]

    Bohr, Rotational motion in nuclei, in Nobel Lec- tures, Physics 1971–1980

    A. Bohr, Rotational motion in nuclei, in Nobel Lec- tures, Physics 1971–1980. ed. by S. Lundqvist (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), pp. 213–232. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1975/bohr/facts/

    1971

  3. [2]

    Bohr, B.R

    A. Bohr, B.R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, vol. II (Ben - jamin, New Y ork, 1975)

    1975

  4. [3]

    Davydov, G.F

    A.S. Davydov, G.F. Filippov, Rotational states in even atomic nuclei, Nucl. Phys. 8 (1958) 237

    1958

  5. [4]

    Davydov, V .S

    A.S. Davydov, V .S. Rostovsky, Relative transition prob a- bilities between rotational levels of non-axial nuclei, Nucl. Phys. 12 (1959) 58

    1959

  6. [5]

    Smirnov, N.A

    Y .F. Smirnov, N.A. Smirnova and P .V an Isacker, SU(3) realization of the rigid asymmetric rotor within the inter- acting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 041302(R)

    2000

  7. [6]

    Wood, A.M

    J.L. Wood, A.M. Oros-Peusquens, R. Zaballa, J.M. All- mond and W .D. Kulp, Triaxial rotor model for nuclei with independent inertia and electric quadrupole tensors, Phys . Rev. C 70 (2004) 024308

    2004

  8. [7]

    Allmond, J.L

    J.M. Allmond, J.L. Wood and W .D. Kulp, Destructive in- terference of E2 matrix elements in a triaxial rotor model, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 051305(R)

    2010

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Otsuka, Y

    T. Otsuka, Y . Tsunoda, T. Abe, N. Shimizu and P . V an Duppen, Underlying structure of collective bands and self-organization in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 222502

    2019

  2. [9]

    Tsunoda, N

    Y . Tsunoda, N. Shimizu and T. Otsuka, Shape transition of Nd and Sm isotopes and the neutrinoless double β decay nuclear matrix element of 150Nd , Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) L021302

    2023

  3. [11]

    Kleemann, N

    J. Kleemann, N. Pietralla, U. Friman-Gayer, J. Isaak, O . Papst, K. Prifti, V . Werner, A.D. A yangeakaa, T. Beck, G. Colò, M.L. Cortes, S.W . Finch, M. Fulghieri, D. Gribble, K.E. Ide, X.K.H. James, R.V .F. Janssens, S.R. Johnson, P . Koseoglou, Krishichayan, D. Savran and W ...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Arima and F

    A. Arima and F. Iachello, Collective nuclear states as r ep- resentations of a SU(6) group, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 1069

    1975

  5. [13]

    Iachello and A

    F. Iachello and A. Arima, The Interacting Boson Model, (Cambridge University Press, 1987)

    1987

  6. [14]

    Warner, A triple point in nuclei, Nature 420 (2002) 61 4

    D. Warner, A triple point in nuclei, Nature 420 (2002) 61 4

    2002

  7. [15]

    R. F. Casten, Shape phase transitions and critical-poi nt phenomena in atomic nuclei, Nat. Phys. 2 (2006) 811

    2006

  8. [16]

    R. F. Casten and E. A. McCutchan, Quantum phase tran- sitions and structural evolution in nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl . Part. Phys. 34 (2007) R285

    2007

  9. [17]

    Bonatsos and E

    D. Bonatsos and E. A. McCutchan, Shape phase transi- tions in geometrical and algebraic nuclear collective mod- els, Nucl. Phys. News 19 (2009) 13

    2009

  10. [18]

    R. F. Casten, Quantum phase transitions and structural evolution in nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62 (2009) 183

    2009

  11. [19]

    Cejnar and J

    P . Cejnar and J. Jolie, Quantum phase transitions in the interacting boson model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62 (2009) 210

    2009

  12. [20]

    Cejnar, J

    P . Cejnar, J. Jolie and R. F. Casten, Quantum phase tran- sitions in the shapes of atomic nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2155

    2010

  13. [21]

    R. V . Jolos and E. A. Kolganova, Phase transitions in atomic nuclei, Phys.-Usp. 64 (2021) 325

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fortunato, Quantum phase transitions in algebraic a nd collective models of nuclear structure, Prog

    L. Fortunato, Quantum phase transitions in algebraic a nd collective models of nuclear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 121 (2021) 103891

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cejnar, P

    P . Cejnar, P . Stránský, M. Macek and M. Kloc, Excited- state quantum phase transitions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54 (2021) 133001

    2021

  16. [24]

    Bonatsos, A

    D. Bonatsos, A. Martinou, S. K. Peroulis,T. J Mertzimek is and N Minkov, Prolate-oblate shape transitions and O(6) symmetry in even–even nuclei: a theoretical overview, Phys. Scr. 99 (2024) 062003

    2024

  17. [25]

    Cejnar and J

    P . Cejnar and J. Jolie, Quantum phase transitions stud- ied within the interacting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 6237

    2000

  18. [26]

    Cejnar, S

    P . Cejnar, S. Heinze, and J. Jolie, Ground-state shape phase transitions in nuclei: Thermodynamic analogy and finite-N effects, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034326

    2003

  19. [27]

    Iachello and N.V

    F. Iachello and N.V . Zamfir, Quantum phase transitions i n mesoscopic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 212501

    2004

  20. [28]

    F. Pan, T. Wang, Y . S. Huo and J. P . Draayer, Quantum phase transitions in the consistent-Q Hamiltonian of the interacting boson model, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 (2008) 125105

    2008

  21. [29]

    Jolie, R.F

    J. Jolie, R.F. Casten, P .von Brentano, and V . Werner, Quantum phase transition for γ-soft nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 162501

    2001

  22. [30]

    Chen, Classical limit of the inte r- acting boson Hamiltonian, Phys

    P .V an Isacker and J.Q. Chen, Classical limit of the inte r- acting boson Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. C 24 (1981) 684

    1981

  23. [31]

    Heyde, P .V an Isacker, M

    K. Heyde, P .V an Isacker, M. Waroquier and J. Moreau, Triaxial shapes in the interacting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 29 (1984) 1420

    1984

  24. [32]

    Ginocchio and M.W

    J.N. Ginocchio and M.W . Kirson, Relationship between the Bohr collective Hamiltonian and the interacting-boson model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1744

    1980

  25. [33]

    Dieperink, O

    A.E.L. Dieperink, O. Scholten and F. Iachello, Classic al limit of the interacting-boson model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1747

    1980

  26. [34]

    Fortunato, C.E

    L. Fortunato, C.E. Alonso, J.M. Arias, J.E. García-Ram os and A. Vitturi, Phase diagram for a cubic- Q interacting boson model Hamiltonian: Signs of triaxiality, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 014326

    2011

  27. [35]

    Leschber and J.P

    Y . Leschber and J.P . Draayer, Algebraic realization of ro- tational dynamics, Phys. Lett. B 190 (1987) 1

    1987

  28. [36]

    Castan˜ os, J.P

    O. Castan˜ os, J.P . Draayer and Y . Leschber, Shape vari- ables and the shell model, Z. Phys. A 329 (1988) 33

    1988

  29. [37]

    Zhang, F

    Y . Zhang, F. Pan, L.R. Dai and J.P . Draayer, Triaxial rotor in the SU (3) limit of the interacting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 044310

    2014

  30. [38]

    Grahn, S

    T. Grahn, S. Stolze, D.T. Joss, R.D. Page, B. Say ˘gı, D. O’Donnell, M. Akmali, K. Andgren, L. Bianco et al., Ex- cited states and reduced transition probabilities in 168Os, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 044327

    2016

  31. [39]

    Say ˘gı, D.T

    B. Say ˘gı, D.T. Joss, R.D. Page, T. Grahn, J. Simpson, D. O’Donnell, G. Alharshan, K. Auranen, T. Bäck et al., Re- duced transition probabilities along the yrast line in 166W , Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 021301(R)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Goasdu ff, J

    A. Goasdu ff, J. Ljungvall, T.R. Rodríguez, F.L. Bello Gar- rote, A. Etile, G. Georgiev, F. Giacoppo, L. Grente, M. Klintefjord et al. , B(E2) anomalies in the yrast band of 170Os, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 034302. 6

    2019

  33. [42]

    Garrett, J.Bangay, A.Diaz V arelaet al., Detailed spec- troscopy of 110Cd: Evidence for weak mixing and the emergence of γ-soft behavior, Phys

    P .E. Garrett, J.Bangay, A.Diaz V arelaet al., Detailed spec- troscopy of 110Cd: Evidence for weak mixing and the emergence of γ-soft behavior, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 044304

    2012

  34. [43]

    Batchelder, N.T

    J.C. Batchelder, N.T. Brewer, R.E. Goans, et al. , Low- lying collective states in 120Cd populated by β decay of 120Ag: breakdown of the anharmonic vibrator model at the three-phonon level, Phys. Rev. C. 86 (2012) 064311

    2012

  35. [44]

    Garrett, T.R

    P .E. Garrett, T.R. Rodríguez, A. Diaz V arela et al. , Mul- tiple shape coexistence in 110,112Cd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 142502

    2019

  36. [45]

    Wang, A collective description of the unusually low r a- tio B4/2 = B(E2; 4+ 1 → 2+ 1 )/B(E2; 2+ 1 → 0+ 1 ), EPL 129 (2020) 52001

    T. Wang, A collective description of the unusually low r a- tio B4/2 = B(E2; 4+ 1 → 2+ 1 )/B(E2; 2+ 1 → 0+ 1 ), EPL 129 (2020) 52001

    2020

  37. [46]

    Zhang, Y .W

    Y . Zhang, Y .W . He, D. Karlsson, C. Qi, F. Pan and J.P . Draayer, A theoretical interpretation of the anomalous re- duced E2 transition probabilities along the yrast line of neutron-deficient nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022) 137443

    2022

  38. [47]

    Wang, B(E2) anomaly cannot be explained with O(6) higher-order interactions, Phys

    T. Wang, B(E2) anomaly cannot be explained with O(6) higher-order interactions, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064303

    2023

  39. [48]

    Zhang, S.N

    Y . Zhang, S.N. Wang, F. Pan, C. Qi and J.P . Draayer, Tri- axial rotor modes in finite- N boson systems, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 024303

    2024

  40. [49]

    F. Pan, Y . Zhang, Y .X. Wu, L.R. Dai and J.P . Draayer, B(E2) anomaly along the yrast line in neutron-deficient A ≈170 even-even nuclei induced by a triaxial rotor term, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 054324

    2024

  41. [50]

    W . Teng, Y . Zhang and C. Qi, A novel approach for the anomalous collectivity in neutron-deficient Os isotopes, Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 014102

    2025

  42. [51]

    Zhang and W

    Y . Zhang and W . Teng, B(E2) anomaly and triaxial defor- mation in the interacting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 014324

    2025

  43. [52]

    Teng, S.N

    W . Teng, S.N. Wang, Y . Zhang, X.Z. Zhao, X. Deng and X.T. Li, B(E2) anomaly and triaxial deformation within a two-fluid SU(3) symmetry Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 084106

    2025

  44. [53]

    Cheng, D.H

    Y .X. Cheng, D.H. Zhao, Y .Y . Shao, L. Gong, T. Wang and X.S. Kang, SU(3) analysis for B(E2) anomaly, Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 104105

    2025

  45. [54]

    Wang, Y .X

    T. Wang, Y .X. Cheng, D.K. Li, X.S. Kang, S.C. Jin, T. Wang, Z.Q. Zhang, C.G. Zhang and Z.X. Zhang, Level- anticrossing and new relationship in the B(E2) anomaly, arXiv:2503.22100v2, submitted

    arXiv

  46. [55]

    Wang, New γ-soft rotation in the interacting boson model with SU(3) higher-order interactions Chin

    T. Wang, New γ-soft rotation in the interacting boson model with SU(3) higher-order interactions Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 074101

    2022

  47. [56]

    T. Wang, X. Chen and Y . Zhang, Spherical-like spectra for the description of the normal states of 108−120Cd in the SU3-IBM and the Q2+ 1 anomaly, Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 014107

    2025

  48. [57]

    Wang, Typical new spherical-like γ-soft spectra in 104,106,108Pd, Phys

    T. Wang, Typical new spherical-like γ-soft spectra in 104,106,108Pd, Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 034301

    2025

  49. [58]

    Zhao, X.S

    D.H. Zhao, X.S. Kang, L. Gong, Z.Y . Yin and T. Wang, Double shape quantum phase transitions in the SU3-IBM: new γ-soft phase and the shape phase transition from the new γ-soft phase to the prolate shape, arXiv: 2504.06571, submitted

    arXiv

  50. [59]

    Wang, B.C He, C.X

    T. Wang, B.C He, C.X. Zhou, D.K. Li and L. Fortunato, Emerging γ-soft-like spectrum in 196Pt in the SU3-IBM (I), Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) 094102

    2024

  51. [60]

    Wang, B.C

    T. Wang, B.C. He, D.K. Li and C.X. Zhou, Prolate-oblate asymmetric shape phase transition in the interacting boson model with SU(3) higher-order interactions, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064322

    2023

  52. [61]

    Zhou and T

    C.X. Zhou and T. Wang, E(5)-like emerging γ softness in 82Kr, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 024309

    2023

  53. [62]

    T. Wang, C. X. Zhou and L. Fortunato, arXiv: 2412.14881

    arXiv

  54. [63]

    Zhou and T

    C.X. Zhou and T. Wang, Rigid triaxiality has the SU(3) symmetry: 166Er as an example, in preparation

  55. [64]

    Evaluated Nuclear Struc - ture Data File

    National Nuclear Data Center. Evaluated Nuclear Struc - ture Data File. http: //www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/

  56. [65]

    Zamfir and R

    N. Zamfir and R. Casten, Signatures of γ softness or tri- axiality in low energy nuclear spectra, Physics Letters B 260 (1991) 265

    1991

  57. [66]

    McCutchan, D

    E.A. McCutchan, D. Bonatsos, N.V . Zamfir and R.F. Cas- ten, Staggering in γ-band energies and the transition be- tween different structural symmetries in nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 024306

    2007

  58. [67]

    Warner and R.F

    D.D. Warner and R.F. Casten, Predictions of the inter- acting boson approximation in a consistent Q framework, Phys. Rev. C 28 (1983) 1798

    1983

  59. [68]

    Y .X. Wu, X. H. Qi, F. Pan and J.P . Draayer, Configura- tion mixing in even-even 148−154Sm within the interacting boson model, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 044310

    2024

  60. [69]

    Harder, K

    M. Harder, K. Tang and P .V an Isacker, An IBM descrip- tion of coexistence in the platinum isotopes, Phys. Lett. B 405 (1997) 25

    1997

  61. [70]

    β excitation

    N. Pietralla and O.M. Gorbachenko, Evolution of the “ β excitation” in axially symmetric transitional nuclei, Phy s. Rev. C 70 (2004) 011304(R). 7

    2004

  62. [71]

    Möller, N

    T. Möller, N. Pietralla, G. Rainovski, T. Ahn, T. Ahn, C. Bauer, M.P . Carpenter, L. Coquard, R.V .F. Janssens, J. Leske, C.J. Lister, E.A. McCutchan, O. Moller, D. Sew- eryniak and S. Zhu, Absolute β-to-ground band transition strengths in 154Sm, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 031305(R). 8

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.