You are on page 1of 60


Self-consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure
Michael Bender and Paul-Henri Heenen
Service de Physique Nucle´aire The´orique, Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles,
B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

Paul-Gerhard Reinhard
Institut fu¨r Theoretische Physik II, Universita¨t Erlangen-Nu¨rnberg,
D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
(Published 23 January 2003)
The authors review the present status of self-consistent mean-field (SCMF) models for describing
nuclear structure and low-energy dynamics. These models are presented as effective energy-density
functionals. The three most widely used variants of SCMF’s based on a Skyrme energy functional, a
Gogny force, and a relativistic mean-field Lagrangian are considered side by side. The crucial role of
the treatment of pairing correlations is pointed out in each case. The authors discuss other related
nuclear structure models and present several extensions beyond the mean-field model which are
currently used. Phenomenological adjustment of the model parameters is discussed in detail. The
performance quality of the SCMF model is demonstrated for a broad range of typical applications.

c. Gaussian overlap Hamiltonian kernel
d. Collective Schro¨dinger equation
e. Relationship between the collective
Schro¨dinger equation and the Gaussian
overlap approximation
f. Extension of the generator coordinate
method and the Gaussian overlap
B. Symmetry restoration
1. Particle-number projection
a. General treatment
b. Variation before or after projection
c. The Lipkin-Nogami prescription
2. Angular momentum projection
a. Principle of the method
b. Calculation of multipole moments and
transition probabilities
c. Density dependence of the effective
d. Rotational correction as approximate
3. Center-of-mass projection
C. Time-dependent mean-field approaches
1. Time-dependent Hartree-Fock (Bogoliubov)
2. Quasiparticle random-phase approximation
IV. Technicalities
A. Representations
B. Algorithms
V. Parametrizations
A. Observables
1. Energies
2. Charge form factor and radii
3. Nuclear matter
a. Infinite nuclear matter
b. Semi-infinite nuclear matter
c. Relation to liquid-drop models
4. Stability
5. Some words of caution
B. The pairing gap and odd-even staggering of
C. Fit strategies
D. Global results

I. Introduction
A. The nuclear many-body problem
B. The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method
1. Basics of a mean-field description
2. The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equation
3. Symmetries and constraints
4. The BCS approximation
5. Local densities and currents, nonrelativistic
6. Local densities and currents, relativistic
C. Semiclassical approximations
D. Motivation of a nuclear energy functional
II. Choices for the Effective Interaction
A. Mean field
1. The Gogny interaction
2. Skyrme interactions
a. The Skyrme energy functional
b. Single-particle Hamiltonian
c. Time-odd fields
d. Choices for the coupling constants
e. Spin-orbit interaction
f. Tensor force
g. Density dependence
h. Finite-range terms
i. The Fayans energy functional
3. Relativistic mean-field models
4. Links between relativistic mean-field and
Skyrme Hartree-Fock models
5. The Coulomb interaction
B. Pairing correlations
1. Pairing interactions
2. Pairing-active space
III. Beyond the Static Mean-Field Approach
A. Configuration mixing
1. Generator coordinate method
a. Review of the formalism
b. Conservation of the nucleon numbers
c. Choice of the collective coordinate
2. Gaussian overlap approximation
a. Gaussian overlap kernel
b. Canonical collective variable







©2003 The American Physical Society


Bender, Heenen, and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models

1. Nuclear matter properties
2. Average quality of bulk observables
VI. Applications
A. Binding energies
B. Shell structure
1. Single-particle energies
2. Signatures for shell closures
3. Shell quenching
4. Proton emitters
C. Observables of the density distribution
1. Systematics of charge radii
2. Neutron radii
D. Deformation
1. Medium-mass nuclei
2. Shell quenching in light nuclei
3. Fission barriers
4. Superdeformed states and fission isomers
5. Octupole deformation
E. Q ␣ values in superheavy elements
F. Excitations
1. Rotational bands
2. Low-energy spectra
a. Light nuclei
b. Deformation effects in medium-mass
c. Ground-state correlations and mass
3. Giant resonances
4. Excitations of unnatural parity and ␤ decay
VII. Conclusions and Outlook
Appendix A: Energy-Density Functional From The Two-Body
Skyrme Force
Appendix B: The Nucleon Form Factor



The remarkable experimental progress in producing
and analyzing exotic nuclei has ushered in a renaissance
of nuclear structure models. One very successful theoretical approach is with self-consistent mean-field models, perhaps the leading theory for describing and predicting properties of heavy nuclei.
Intense research in recent years has produced a large
body of new material and insights. It is time to sort
through and to review this work. This article tries to
provide an up-to-date view of the self-consistent meanfield (SCMF) models for nuclear structure and excitations. In order to stay within the limits of a review article, we have reduced the material to the essentials and
tried to provide extensive citations to sources where
more details can be found. And yet we are sure that we
are missing some references which might be equally useful. We apologize in advance and hope that this article
will be, nonetheless, instructive for a broad readership.
A. The nuclear many-body problem

Models for nuclear structure have been developed
since the early days of nuclear physics about 70 years
ago. The production of more and more new isotopes has
revived the interest in nuclear structure models in recent
Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2003

years. The large variety of new modeling initiatives can
be grouped into three different approaches: ab initio
methods; self-consistent mean-field (SCMF) and shellmodel theories; and macroscopic models with a touch of
quantum shell structure. The present review concentrates on the various brands of SCMF theory. Nuclear
SCMF models are in many respects analogs of densityfunctional theory (Hohenberg and Kohn, 1964; Kohn
and Sham, 1965), which gives a very successful description of all kinds of many-electron systems (Jones and
Gunnarsson, 1989; Parr and Yang, 1989; Dreizler and
Gross, 1990; Nagy, 1998; Kohn, 1999; Singh and Deb,
1999; Calvayrac et al., 2000; Onida et al., 2002). In order
to put this level of approximation into perspective, we
briefly summarize here the status of the competing approaches, staying at a level of citations that is by no
means comprehensive.
Traditional ab initio methods start from a given
nucleon-nucleon potential, which is an effective interaction to describe nucleon-nucleon scattering data
(Machleidt and Slaus, 2001). It has a large repulsive
core, which means that nuclear matter is a strongly correlated quantum liquid. A description requires highly
developed many-body theories like the relativistic
Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (Serot and Walecka, 1986;
Brockmann and Machleidt, 1990; Dickhoff and Mu¨ther,
1992) or correlated basis functions (Pandharipande
et al., 1997; Heiselberg and Pandharipande, 2000). All
these treatments reproduce the basic features of nuclear
saturation. At second glance, however, there is an interesting distinction: all approaches that employ strictly the
given nucleon-nucleon potential fail to yield the saturation point of nuclear matter quantitatively, while those
models that employ an additional (empirical) threebody force perform very well. The microscopic origin of
this three-body force is still under discussion. Intrinsic
nucleonic degrees of freedom may play a role, and very
recently models have been proposed which try to draw
lines directly from underlying QCD formulations to
nuclear structure (Lutz et al., 2000; Kaiser et al., 2002).
The methods are so involved that almost all of these
investigations have been done in homogeneous nuclear
(or neutron) matter. Very recent developments in computational techniques allow ab initio calculations of finite nuclei, currently reaching about as far as the carbon
nuclei (Navratil et al., 2000). The problem of a threebody force persists, of course, in these investigations as
The other extreme of nuclear models is the macroscopic nuclear liquid-drop model (Myers and Swiatecki,
1982), which parametrizes the energy in terms of global
properties such as volume energy, asymmetry energy,
surface energy, etc. The actual parameters are fitted phenomenologically. The liquid-drop model thus describes
very well the average trends of nuclear binding energies.
It is usually augmented by a shell-correction energy that
approximates the quantal shell effects not taken into account in the liquid-drop model. This correction energy is
calculated from the single-particle spectrum obtained
using a phenomenologically adjusted single-particle po-

Bender, Heenen, and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models

tential (Brack et al., 1972). Both combined constitute the
microscopic-macroscopic (mic-mac) method which has
been tuned to very high descriptive power. The rootmean-square error on binding energies is nowadays below 0.7 MeV (Mo¨ller et al., 1995). The mic-mac method,
however, relies on a large amount of ad hoc modeling,
particularly around the expected nuclear mean field.
This leaves uncertainties when extrapolating the model
into the unknown regime of exotic nuclei.
In between the two extremes of ab initio and liquiddrop models, there are two models that work at a microscopic level but employ effective interactions to allow a
treatment in either restricted spaces or forms of manybody wave functions. The first of these are the shellmodel approaches. In the shell model, one takes for the
mean field a standard phenomenological single-particle
model but then performs a configuration-mixing calculation involving all many-body states that can be constructed using a more or less broad band of singlenucleon states around the Fermi energy (Brown and
Wildenthal, 1988). The residual interaction in the active
space is usually fitted phenomenologically. HjorthJensen et al. (1992) have recently come up with microscopic determinations using as effective interaction a G
matrix from ab initio calculations. The problem of the
proper saturation point which plagues ab initio models is
circumvented by using a phenomenologically prescribed
mean field. The dimensions of these shell-model calculations grow explosively with system size. Thus Monte
Carlo techniques or specific diagonalization schemes
have been developed to tackle heavier nuclei. A large
body of surveys has been completed with these new
methods (Koonin et al., 1997a, 1997b; Caurier and
Nowacki, 1999; Otsuka, 2001; Otsuka et al., 2001).
The SCMF methods, to which the rest of this artcle
will be devoted, also fall in between ab initio and micmac methods, but they take a different path than the
shell model. They concentrate on an unprejudiced, selfconsistent determination of the nuclear mean field. To
this end, they employ effective interactions which are
tuned to their primary use in mean-field calculations.
The concept is closely related to energy-densityfunctional theory in electronic systems. Nuclear density
functional theory is outlined by Petkov and Stoitsov
(1991) and Fayans et al. (2000) for nonrelativistic models
and by Speicher et al. (1991, 1993) and Schmid et al.
(1995a) for relativistic ones.
However, electronic energy functionals of high accuracy may be derived ab initio from electron gas theory.
In the nuclear problem, the corresponding approach has
not yet been as successful. Attempts have been made to
map nuclear matter theory onto mean-field models for
finite nuclei using the local-density approximation
(LDA; Mu¨ther et al., 1990). These yield in a straightforward manner fair results for energies and radii, but for
quantitative purposes, energy functionals with phenomenologically determined parameters are far more accurate. Thus one proceeds in a more phenomenological
manner: the form of the effective energy functional is
motivated from ab initio theory, but the actual paramRev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2003


eters (around 10) are adjusted by extensive fits to
nuclear structure data. This will be discussed in detail in
the theoretical section of this review.
The nuclear SCMF models have been used extensively since the 1970s. Effective interactions were first
derived at that time and applied to a large variety of
problems. However, there were still several restrictions
imposed on the models which limited the range of applications and left room for mic-mac models. The main
restrictions were related to the symmetries of the wave
functions, which limited application of the model to
ground-state properties of even nuclei. The situation
changed in the 1990s when nearly symmetryunrestricted SCMF calculations became possible.
Thanks to this development, studies of rotational bands
in heavy nuclei could be systematically performed; in
particular, the SCMF models encountered great success
in studies of superdeformed rotational bands in isotopes
around Dy and Hg. This result was not obvious, since
the energy density functionals that were used were not
at all adjusted to this kind of phenomenon. To give another example, systematic calculations of superheavy
nuclei were also performed, throwing doubt on some of
the conclusions drawn from macroscopic models. At the
same time, intense experimental developments greatly
increased our knowledge of nuclei far from stability.
This in turn had an impact on effective interactions,
which were improved in several ways over the last decade. The success of the SCMF method has now reached
a point where one has to introduce correlations beyond
the mean field to improve further on the quality of the
description. Several developments along this line have
been started in recent years and the first applications
seem to be very promising.
We plan to review in this paper the present state of
developments, considering the three most widely used
variants of nuclear SCMF models. We try to give a comprehensive account of the underlying formal framework
and to demonstrate model performance with a brief
guided tour through a broad range of applications.
B. The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method

This section is devoted to the general features of
nuclear mean-field models. It starts with the basic building blocks and presents the formulation of the coupled
mean-field equations at a level that is common to all
mean-field models. The actual models are specified later
in Sec. II by way of their effective energy functionals.
For a more detailed introduction into the Hartree-FockBogoliubov (HFB) method see Mang (1975), Goodman
(1979), Ring and Schuck (1980), and Blaizot and Ripka
The notion of a ‘‘mean field’’ deserves further comment. We concentrate in this review on self-consistent
models, where the potential well for nucleons is computed from the nucleonic wave functions. This produces
a theory at the level of the Hartree-Fock approximation,
which is inadequate for a description of nuclear properties that are strongly influenced by pairing correlations.

x⬘ 兲 ⫽⫺ ␴ ⬘ 具 ⌽ 兩 aˆ r ⬘ . (1) where the number of single-particle wave functions N wf is larger than the number of nucleons A⫽Z⫹N.. one has to deal with two objects. we will use the expression ‘‘mean field’’ in a twofold manner.. Basics of a mean-field description The basic building block of any mean-field model is a set of single-nucleon wave functions. UU ⫹ ⫹V * V T ⫽1. ␶ 兲 . (2) The simplest model based on these single-nucleon states is the independent-particle model in which the state of a nucleus. 冕 dx⫽ 冕 d 3r . Each representation has its advantages and disadvantages. represents an independent-quasiparticle state or Hartree-FockBogoliubov state. (9b) ⫹ ␳ 共 x. In compact notation the transformation reads 冉 冊 冉 冊 bˆ aˆ ⫽W ⫹ ⫹ . (9a) ␬ 共 x. This transformation may be decomposed into the product of three simpler ones by virtue of the Bloch-Messiah theorem (Bloch and Messiah. ␾ n . is described by a Slater determinant 兩 ⌽ 典 ⬅det兵␺i(x). (8c) From the properties of ␳ and ␬. 75. i. one can show that the eigenvalues of R are equal to either 0 or 1. Heenen.x⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽ 兩 aˆ x ⬘ aˆ x 兩 ⌽ 典 ⬅ n Instead of the antisymmetric pair tensor ␬.⫺ ␴ ⬘ . (5) for all n. U T V⫹V T U⫽0.x⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽ 兩 aˆ x ⬘ aˆ x 兩 ⌽ 典 ⬅ 兺 ␾ n(U) 共 x兲 ␾ n(V) * 共 x⬘ 兲 . ␶ ⬘ 兲 . For independent quasiparticles. ␴ . Pairing correlations are included by introducing the concept of independent quasiparticles defined by the Bogoliubov transformation (Ring and Schuck. one generalizes the mean-field concept to include a pairing field.A 其 . Which form is to be preferred depends on the actual application. ␶ ⬘ aˆ x 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽⫺ ␴ ⬘ ␬ 共 x.N wf其 . (8b) These may be viewed as the components of a generalized quasiparticle density R⫽ 冉 ␳ ␬ ⫺␬* 1⫺ ␳ * 冊 . 兩⌽典. ␴ ⫽⫾1 for spin.bˆ ). and UV ⫹ ⫹V * U T ⫽0. They can also be handled in terms of quasiparticle wave functions in coordinate space: 冉 冊 ␾ n(U) 共 x兲 ␾ n ⫽ (V) ⫽ ␾ n 共 x兲 冉 冊 兺i U in ␺ i共 x兲 兺i V in ␺ i共 x兲 . and R. 1962). turns out to be more useful for the formulation of local energy-density functionals (Dobaczewski et al. ˆb ⫹ aˆ W⫽ 冉 U V* V U* 冊 .. 1.. 1. the pair density matrix ˜␳ . (3) which connects single-particle states to quasiparticle states. ␶ ⫽⫾1/2. but on the other hand we shall also use it to denote the particle-hole part (as contrasted to the particle-particle or pairing part) of the effective interaction or Hamiltonian in the HFB equation. j a (8a) ␬ ij ⫽ 具 ⌽ 兩 aˆ j aˆ i 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽ 共 V * U T 兲 ij ⫽⫺ ␬ ji . and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models To take these correlations into account. (bˆ ⫹ . The transformation to creation operators for states i reads aˆ ⫹ i ⫽ 冕 3 d r ␺ i 共 x兲 兺 ␴␶ aˆ ⫹ x . 兺 ␴␶ (7) A compact description for an independent-particle state is provided by the introduction of one-body density matrices.. which is obtained by time inversion of one of the indices of ␬. 1980)...i⫽1. 1984): ˜␳ 共 x. For formal purposes it is advantageous to introduce the creation operator aˆ ⫹ i for a nucleon in the singleparticle state ␺ i (x). Vol. x⫽ 共 r. U ⫹ U ⫹V ⫹ V⫽1. bˆ n⫹ ⫽ 兺i 共 U in aˆ ⫹i ⫹V in aˆ i 兲 .. calculated with the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations (known as the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations in condensed-matter physics). (10) R is then constructed by replacing ␬ with ˜␳ . . January 2003 bˆ n 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽0. (6) These states are orthonormal due to the unitarity of the quasiparticle transformation. given as ␳ ij ⫽ 具 ⌽ 兩 aˆ ⫹ ˆ i 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽ 共 V * V T 兲 ij ⫽ ␳ ji* . and ␶ ⫽⫾1 for isospin indices.i⫽1.. This is particularly useful for self-consistent mean-field models whose energy functionals are formulated in terms of these densities. The quasiparticle states are defined here in terms of fermion operators.r⬘ .e.e. 兺n ␾ n(V)共 x兲 ␾ n(V) *共 x⬘ 兲 .. a one-body density matrix ␳ and a pair tensor ␬. i.124 Bender. Rev. The independent-particle state can be characterized formally by aˆ ⫹ i 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽0 for occupied states (1⭐i⭐A) and aˆ i 兩 ⌽ 典 ⫽0 for unoccupied states (i ⬎A). Mod.. The representation of the density matrices in configuration space is equivalent to a representation in coordinate space. Each of the three forms. mean field will refer to methods and models that incorporate both the nucleon potential and the pairing field. 冕 dx ␾ n⫹ 共 x兲 ␾ m 共 x兲 ⫽ ␦ nm . (4) where the transformation matrix is unitary. The coordinate-space representation employs creation operators aˆ ⫹ x for eigenstates of position. The ground state of the system is given then by the quasiparticle vacuum condition. Some authors use equivalently ␴ . On the one hand.⫺ ␴ ⬘ . Following common usage in the literature. Phys. No.. r stands for spatial coordinates. 兵 ␺ i 共 x兲 .

␬ . Vn Vn H⫽ 冉 h⫺␭ ⌬ ⫺⌬ * ⫺h * ⫹␭ (12a) 冊 (12b) HFB equation (Mu¨hlhans et al. In fact. This basis provides a very compact representation of the HFB state which has sometimes been exploited for numerical solutions of the Rev. ␦ ␬ ij* h ij ⫽T ij ⫹ V ikjl ␳ lk . 兺 kl (14) where V ikjl is the antisymmetrized two-body matrix element. 1984). (6). and ␭⫺e n . The HFB state is defined by the occupation of all the states with negative energy. Tajima.x) tend to zero asymptotically. The Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equation The ground state 兩⌽典 of the HFB method is obtained by minimization of the total energy ˆ 兩 ⌿ 典 ⫽E 关 ␳ . Reinhard et al. One must keep only one of the two states in the Fermion algebra to maintain the proper fermionic anticommutation relations. Phys. while for ␭⬍0. but only on a smaller subset of pairing-active states. Any expectation value of an operator 具⌿兩N with an HFB state can be expressed in terms of the onebody densities only.. the tonian H matrix elements of the mean-field and gap Hamiltonians are given by (15) Expressing R and H in terms of the pair density ˜␳ .x⬘ ) The interaction terms h(x. 1. ␦ ␳ ji ⌬ ij ⫽ ␦E ⫽⫺⌬ ji . one usually takes the branch that is bound from below. and the kinetic energy and ␭ term are the only ones remaining for 兩 r兩 →⬁: with h ij ⫽ dx ⬘ H共 x. 75. This basis still requires the full HFB matrices U ni and V ni . and the V ni matrix is decomposed into 2⫻2 antidiagonal matrices. ␬ * 兴 . (18a) ˜␳ 共 x. 2m (17) (13) where the quasiparticle energies e n are the Lagrangian multipliers introduced to constrain the orthonormalization of the quasiparticle states. The HFB spectrum 兵 e n 其 is unbound from above and below. the whole spectrum is continuous. The solution of the HFB equation can be expressed in terms of several complete sets of individual states. Eq. Heenen. The asymptotic forms of ␾ (U) and ␾ (V) depend on the signs of ␭⫹e n . which can be ⫺␭ q 具 ⌿ 兩 N expressed in terms of the U and V transformation matrices H 冉 冊 冉 冊 Un Un ⫽e n . 兺 kl ⌬ ij ⫽ 1 2 V ijkl ␬ kl . E⫽ 具 ⌿ 兩 H (11) with constraints on proton and neutron numbers ˆ q 兩 ⌿ 典 ⫽N q . ⬁ n These wave functions are always localized. January 2003 ⫺ ប2 ⌬ ␾ n(U) 共 x兲 ⫽ 共 ␭⫹e n 兲 ␾ n(U) 共 x兲 . The quasiparticle basis ␾ n . In this basis.. pairing correlations couple bound . For ␭⬎0. edge of an underlying Hamiltonian H The minimization of the total Routhian E ␭ ⫽E ˆ q 兩 ⌿ 典 leads to the HFB equation. the U ni matrix is diagonal. we shall later use effective energy-density functionals in which only the energy functional E 关 ␳ . is defined by the diagonalization of the generalized one-body matrix R which can be performed since this matrix commutes with H. this representation is the appropriate tool for discussing the asymptotic properties of the HFB spectrum (Bulgac. Many HFB calculations use this double step. As for e n ⬎0 and ␭⬍0. and ˜h (x. A third basis is the Hartree-Fock basis. In the Hartree-Fock basis. Equation (12) can be rewritten in coordinate space as (Dobaczewski et al. respectively: ␾ (U) becomes a plane wave for ␭⫹e n ⬎0 and a decreasing exponential for ␭⫹e n ⬍0. For that. 1984.R兴 ⫽0. (18b) where X ¯⫽ 0⬍e兺⬍⫺␭ ¯⫹ 冕⫺␭ ¯ . 1980.x⬘ 兲 ⫽ X ␾ n(U)共 x兲 ␾ n(V) *共 x⬘ 兲 . The natural orbital or canonical basis ␺ i is obtained by diagonalization of the density ␳.x⬘ 兲 ⫽ X ␾ n(V)共 x兲 ␾ n(V) *共 x⬘ 兲 . Each of them corresponds to the diagonalization of a different operator. in which the mean-field Hamiltonian hˆ is diagonal. the lower components of ␾ (V) are localized functions. ␬ . ␬ * 兴 is given without explicit knowlˆ. 2m (16) ⫺ ប2 ⌬ ␾ n(V) 共 x兲 ⫽ 共 ␭⫺e n 兲 ␾ n(V) 共 x兲 . and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 2. the pair tensor ␬ is in its canonical form. A very compact form of the static HFB equation is given in terms of the generalized density (8c) as 关 H..125 Bender.. No. For a standard Hamilˆ ⫽T ˆ ⫹V ˆ where V ˆ is a two-body interaction.x⬘ 兲 ␾ n 共 x⬘ 兲 ⫽e n ␾ n 共 x兲 . This property is crucial to describing pairing correlations in nuclei far from stability for which the Fermi level is close to zero.x⬘ ) ⫽ ␦ E/ ␦˜␳ (x⬘ .. 1984) 冕 ␦E ⫽h ji* . The density matrix and the pair density matrix ˜␳ are localized over the nucleus. 1997. while ␾ (V) becomes a plane wave for ␭ ⫺e n ⬎0 and a decreasing exponential for ␭⫺e n ⬍0. first diagonalizing hˆ and then solving the HFB equations in this basis. 2000). Vol. One can write the density matrices only in terms of bound wave functions: ␳ 共 x. Mod. The eigenvalues show up in pairs ⫾e n where one state for each pair already carries the full information. The fact that the density matrix vanishes asymptotically has the important consequence that the natural orbitals must vanish for 兩 r兩 →⬁. it is either discrete ( 兩 e n 兩 ⬍⫺␭) or continuous ( 兩 e n 兩 ⬎⫺␭). Dobaczewski et al. the quasiparticle states with positive energy defining the excitations of the system.

4. (22) where the u. January 2003 is then suspect.126 Bender. and where 具 Q ˆ ␣ 兩 ⌿ 典 . (25) In a similar manner. The orbitals paired by pairing correlations are no longer connected by the signature symmetry and therefore are not known a priori. The BCS approximation consists in forcing the pairing potential dˆ to be diagonal in the basis of the eigenstates of the mean-field Hamiltonian hˆ . This form is better the operator expectation 具 Q suited to explore energy curves with several extrema. ␸ ¯n . It requires an a priori knowledge of pairing partner states and for this reason is well defined only in the case of time-reversal invariance.4) Rev. ¯n . to study one-quasiparticle or twoquasiparticle states. 0 ⫺d d T 0 再 . However. In this case. 1980). (20) where C ␣ is a constant. (2000a. where ␭ q and ␭ ␣ subject to the constraint 具 Q ˆ ␣ 典 denotes the are Langrange multipliers. Space symmetries are usually imposed through the basis on which the wave functions are expanded or the mesh that is used to discretize the wave function. Heenen. ˜v matrices refer to the signature blocks. IV for more details. see also Dobaczewski et al. There is then a Kramers degeneracy of the single-particle states ⑀ n ⫽ ⑀ ¯n which come in pairs of time-conjugate partners ␸ n .. A quadratic constraint is frequently used in the form ˆ 典⫺ E⫽ 具 H 兺 q⫽p. (19) ˆ ␣ 典 ⫽Q ␣ . Phys. R (21) where J x is the x component of the angular momentum operator.B. Eq. Two kinds of symmetry can be introduced: (i) symmetry related to the shape of the nucleus and (ii) time-reversal symmetry. see Sec. the U and V components of eigenvectors are exchanged and the sign of v is reversed. 冉 0 k ⫺k T 0 冊 and for h and ⌬: 冉 冊 冉 h h⫽ 0 ˜h * 0 ⌬⫽ . the diagonalization of the full HFB matrix still allows the construction of localized densities. v and ˜u . These orbitals are then Kramers degenerate and correspond to the two eigenvalues ⫾i of the signature operator ˆ x ⫽e i ␲ Jˆ x .n ˆ q典 ⫺ ␭ q具 N 兺␣ ␭ ␣ 具 Qˆ ␣ 典 . We associate the elements of the pair by the shorthand notation n. is very general and no symmetry is imposed a priori on the wave functions. The pairing problem reduces to determining the occupation amplitudes (u n . The energy landscape as a function of a spatial degree of freedom can be explored with the help of constraints. Very general shapes can be described at this point and several codes exist which allow us to study nuclear densities exhibiting triaxial quadrupole or octupole deformations. Vol. For axially symmetric nuclei.n 1 ˆ q典 ⫹ ␭ q具 N 2 兺␣ C ␣共 具 Qˆ ␣ 典 ⫺ ␮ ␣ 兲 2 . one can expect that their commutator is close to zero in well-bound nuclei where time-reversal invariance can be imposed. Time-reversal symmetry limits the systems that can be studied to even-even nonrotating nuclei and to twoquasiparticle excited states of those even nuclei when the quasiparticles are a pair of time-reversed orbits.. 3. i. the single-particle wave functions may remain eigenstates of signature. I. k⫽˜v ˜u (23) . reduce to the following problem: 冉 h d d ⫹ ˜ ⫺h 冊冉 u ˜v ⫺v ˜u 冊冉 ⫽ u ˜v ⫺v ˜u 冊冉 E ␻i ␦ ij 0 0 ⫺E ˆ␻i ␦ ˆi ˆ 冊 . the two degenerate states have opposite angular momentum projection on the symmetry axis. hˆ ␸ n ⫽␧ n ␸ n . However. This leads to simplifications for ␳ and ␬: ␳⫽ 冉 冊 r 0 0 ˜r * ␬⫽ . 75. 1. The creation of a quasiparticle (to study odd nuclei) or the rotation of a nucleus (driven by a constraint ␻ Jˆ x ) breaks time-reversal symmetry. However. The equations of motion are obtained by minimization of a Routhian.e. (3). Mod. v n ) by means of the gap equation 共 ␧ n ⫺␭ 兲共 u n2 ⫺ v n2 兲 ⫹2d nn¯ u n v n ⫽0. (24) Then the HFB equations. d nm ¯ ⫽ ␦ nm d nm ¯ . 冊 r⫽˜v˜v ⫹ ˜⫽ r vv ⫹ . 2000b) for a general discussion. (26) The two-component wave functions become simply ␾ n(U) ⫽u n ␸ n and ␾ n(V) ⫽ v n ␸ n . Symmetries and constraints The Bogoliubov transformation. ˆ 典⫺ E⫽ 具 H 兺 q⫽p. This is a consequence of the noncommutative properties of the mean-field and pairing Hamiltonians. and ␮ ␣ is the desired value of ˆ ␣ 典 . The HFB approach is cumbersome because the number of coupled equations that must be solved is double that of the BCS approximation. No. The BCS approximation The BCS approximation is a widely used simplification of the HFB method for time-reversal-invariant systems. It is equivalent to a linear constraint with ␭ ␣ varying over ˆ ␣ 典 ) (Ring and the iterations and equal to C ␣ ( ␮ ␣ ⫺ 具 Q Schuck. According to a well-established procedure (Goodman. (27) . 1974). The operators Q ˆ ␣ correexpectation value 具 ⌿ 兩 Q spond to the spatial degrees of freedom that one wants to explore. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models states to states in the continuum. 冉 V⫽ 0 ˜v * ⫺v 0 冊 . the HFB matrices are divided into blocks and their dimensions can be reduced by a factor of 2. The BCS approximation (see Sec. (12a) and (12b). the matrices U and V can be written in a block form: U⫽ 冉 u 0 0 ˜u * 冊 .

⌫ ␮t ␯ ⫽(i/2)( ␥ ␮ ␥ ␯ ⫺ ␥ ␯ ␥ ␮ ). A simplification arises in that only three of these are required in standard relativistic mean-field theories.r␴ ⬘ ␶ 兲 ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ . Eq. In this case. ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . for example).r␴ ␶ 兲 . or ␸ n in the nonrelativistic HFB method. spin-current tensor. 兺 ␴␶ Rev. (30) In what follows we shall consider pure proton and neutron states. A generalization to isospin nondiagonal contributions is straightforward when needed (for situations with T⫽0 pairing or to describe ␤ decay in the quasiparticle random-phase approximation. . Choosing ⌫ s ⫽1.r⬘ ␴ ⬘ ␶ ⬘ ). (29). see Dobaczewski. There are six local densities and currents that can be derived from the full density matrix. Isoscalar (T⫽0) densities are total densities (e.r⬘ 兲 • ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ 兴共 ␶ ␶ ⬘ ␶ 兲 ␣ . respectively. nonrelativistic The full density matrix ␳ (x. These are the density. 兺 ␴␶ ˜␳ 1 共 r兲 ⫽ ˜␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . namely. However. and kinetic spin density. The pair densities calculated in the BCS approximation are not localized when the Fermi level tends to zero.r␴ ⬘ ␶ 兲 ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ ␶ . 2 (31) i JT 共 r兲 ⫽ 共 ⵜ ⬘ ⫺ⵜ 兲 丢 sT 共 r.r⬘ 兲 ␦ ␴␴ ⬘ ⫹s1 ␣ 共 r. only the ␣ ⫽0 components of the isovector densities contribute.r兲 ⫽ ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . Eq.g. while isovector (T⫽1) densities account for proton-neutron differences (e.r⬘ 兲 兩 r⫽r⬘ .x⬘ ).. This restriction suffices for almost all applications. for example in BCS.r␴ ␶ 兲 ␶ . relativistic A very similar line of development can be followed for relativistic models. The ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ and ␶␶ ⬘ ␶ are matrix elements of the Pauli matrices in spin and isospin space. grow to fourcomponent Dirac spinor wave functions. 兺 ijk (32) where ⑀ ijk is the Levi-Civita symbol.r⬘ 兲 兩 r⫽r⬘ . spin density. we have ␳ 0 共 r兲 ⫽ ␳ 0 共 r. The spin-current tensor is usually approximated by the spin-orbit current J⫽ ⑀ ijk Jjk ei . Vol. No. pseudoscalar. Local densities and currents. the isoscalar and isovector (four-)vector densities and the isoscalar scalar density.. (10). Mod. (1996). With T⫽0 or 1. ␶␶ ⬘ ␶ ⫽ 共 ␶ ⬘ 兩 ␶ˆ 兩 ␶ 兲 . There are 16 independent bilinear covariants ¯␺ (r)⌫ ␺ (r) that can be constructed using the relativistic 4⫻4 Dirac matrices. s0 共 r兲 ⫽s0 共 r. which can be constructed as isoscalar or isovector densities. (29) The decomposition uses the fact that the three Pauli matrices together with the unit matrix form a complete basis in both spin and isospin spaces. ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . ␳ 1 ⫽ ␳ n ⫺ ␳ p ). See Dobaczewski and Dudek (1996) for a detailed discussion of their properties. 兺 ␴␶ ␳ 1 共 r兲 ⫽ ␳ 1 共 r..x⬘ )⫽ ␳ (r␴ ␶ . TT 共 r兲 ⫽ⵜ•ⵜ ⬘ sT 共 r. January 2003 ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . as computed. The generalization consists of letting the Pauli spinor wave functions ␾ n(U) . Werner.r⬘ 兲 ␦ ␴␴ ⬘ ⫹s00共 r.r⬘ 兲 兩 r⫽r⬘ . and pseudovector (axial) densities. the local pair density ˜␳ 0 (r) is related to the enhancement of the probability of finding a pair of nucleons with opposite spin due to correlations. Local densities and currents. (28a) and Eq. vector. 1. can be decomposed into four separate spin-isospin terms.r兲 ⫽ 兺 n⬎0 u n v n ␸ n 共 x兲 ␸ n* 共 x⬘ 兲 .r⬘ ␴ ⬘ ␶ ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 再 1 关 ␳ 00共 r. kinetic density. ␴␴ ⬘ ␶ i jT 共 r兲 ⫽ 共 ⵜ ⬘ ⫺ⵜ 兲 ␳ T 共 r.r兲 ⫽ 兺 ␴␴ ⬘ ␶ 127 6. ⌫ ␮v ⫽ ␥ ␮ . ␳ 0 ⫽ ␳ n ⫹ ␳ p ).g. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models The density matrices then become ␳ 共 x.x⬘ 兲 ⫽⫺2 v n2 ␸ n 共 x兲 ␸ n* 共 x⬘ 兲 . In most applications. and ⌫ ␮a ⫽ ␥ ␮ ␥ 5 gives the local scalar. 兺 ␴␶ (33) While the local density ␳ 0 (r) describes the probability of finding a nucleon at r.r⬘ 兲 • ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ 兴 ␦ ␶␶ ⬘ 4 ⫹1 ⫹ 兺 ␣ ⫽⫺1 冎 关 ␳ 1 ␣ 共 r.r⬘ 兲 兩 r⫽r⬘ .r␴ ␶ 兲 ␶ .r␴ ␶ 兲 . ␾ n(V) . et al. It is thus compulsory to switch to full HFB when dealing with exotic nuclei near the drip lines or to determine fission barriers. Heenen. It is the reason the BCS approximation is introduced for most mean-field calculations dealing with nuclei that are well bound and for which time-reversal invariance can be imposed. 5. (28b) This provides a much simpler scheme altogether. 75. A similar decomposition exists for the pair density matrix ˜␳ (x.Bender. Nazarewicz. ⌫ p ⫽ ␥ 5 . 2 ␶ T 共 r兲 ⫽ⵜ•ⵜ ⬘ ␳ T 共 r. ␴␴ ⬘ ␴ ⫽ 共 ␴ ⬘ 兩 ␴ˆ 兩 ␴ 兲 . the asymptotic conditions of the HFB method are lost since the pairing potential ⌬ is not zero asymptotically. only the local pair density is needed ˜␳ 0 共 r兲 ⫽ ˜␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . (28b).r兲 ⫽ (28a) s1 共 r兲 ⫽s1 共 r. Phys.x⬘ 兲 ⫽2 兺 n⬎0 ˜␳ 共 x. current. 兺 ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . tensor. and omiting the second index in the densities entering Eq.

1.A. Kleban et al.r⬘ ) falls off quickly with increasing r⫺r⬘ . Vol. the extended Thomas-Fermi method is also able to describe many local features of SCMF models (Bartel and Bencheikh.r⬘ 兲v共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 ␳ 共 r⬘ . It is also to some extent unnecessary because ␳ (r. or from fully self-consistent meanfield calculations. ␦ E provides a useful tool for analyzing trends in SCMF models and their parametrizations. January 2003 shell corrections (Aboussir et al. (2000). This yields for the square of the one-body density matrix 冋 兩 ␳ 共 r.r␴ ⬘ ␶ 兲共 ␥ ␮ 兲 ␴ ⬘␴ . Campi and Bouyssy. and references therein. This is called the density-matrix expansion and serves as a formal derivation of the ansatz for the Skyrme energy functional (Negele and Vautherin. (41) . 2002).r␴ ⬘ ␶ 兲共 ␥ ␮ 兲 ␴ ⬘ ␴ ␶ . (1997). The next step is the extended Thomas-Fermi method in which gradient corrections to the kineticenergy functional are taken into account. For details of the method and typical results see Brack et al.2. 1982). Including spin and isospin is straightforward. 1967). and kinetic density ␶ as defined in Sec. One employs effective interactions which are tuned for use in connection with self-consistent mean-field models. Pauli (1973). for example.. (1987). ␴ ⬘ now run over four spinor components. see. Heenen.. No.r兲 . II. Woods-Saxon. A direct path from the SCMF energy to the smooth ¯ is obtained by means of semiclassical approxienergy E mations. The remaining component E represents a smooth background energy. (2002) ¯ and Kruppa et al. I. and references therein. We concentrate here on the spatial part and skip the spin and isospin indices. I.r兲v共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 ␳ 共 r⬘ . current j. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models ␳ ␮ 0 共 r兲 ⫽ ␳ ␮ 1 共 r兲 ⫽ ␳ s0 共 r兲 ⫽ 兺 ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . Brack (1992). C. Myers (1977). In the latter case. 1995). or folded Yukawa potentials. The related vacuum polarization effects are supposed to be effectively contained in the parameters of the model. Mo¨ller et al. This suggests an expansion of order r (r⫺r⬘ ) n of the density matrix around ¯⫽(r⫹r ⬘ )/2.r2 ) to simplify the notation. states from the Dirac sea are omitted. 1992). At the same time. for example. D.A. 1975. irrespective of their deformation (Aboussir et al. It is calculated from the single-particle energies ␧ ␣ which are obtained either from parametrized single-particle models like the modified harmonic oscillator. There is also a large body of work concerning relativistic Thomas-Fermi and extended Thomas-Fermi methods. (34c) ⬘ ␴␴ ⬘ ␶ ␴␴ ⬘ ␶ where ␴.1. Nilsson and Ragnarsson (1995). The shellcorrection energy ␦ E is an oscillating function of particle number and deformation. Motivation of a nuclear energy functional As argued in Sec..r⬘ 兲 兩 2 ⬇ ␳ 2 共¯r兲 ⫺ 共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 2 ␳ 共¯r兲 ␶ 共¯r兲 册 1 ⫺j2 共¯r兲 ⫺ ␳ 共¯r兲 ⌬¯r ␳ 共¯r兲 .128 Bender. Centelles et al. 1975). This approach has allowed for the first time systematic large-scale calculations using Skyrme interactions over the whole chart of nuclei. (34b) 兺 ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ . (1998). The summation in the densities is usually restricted to positive energy states only. We sketch it here for the simple example of a local two-body interaction v (r⫺r⬘ ) using a compact notation in terms of the one-body density matrix ␳ as introduced in Sec. Semiclassical approximations There is a straightforward link from the SCMF approach to the mic-mac methods. 4 (40) which gives a local exchange energy-density functional E ex⫽ 1 2 冕 冋 冉 1 d 3 r V 0 ␳ 2 ⫹V 2 ␳ ␶ ⫺j2 ⫺ ␳ ⌬ ␳ 4 冊册 . (36) where g( ⑀ ) is a Gaussian smoothing function whose width is of the order of the shell spacing. 1972. ␴␴ ␶ (34a) 兺 ␳ 共 r␴ ␶ .r⬘ 兲 ⬇ ␳ 共¯r兲 i 共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 •j共¯r兲 冋 1 1 ⫹ 共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 2 ␶ 共¯r兲 ⫺ ⌬¯r ␳ 共¯r兲 2 4 册 (39) with local density ␳. thus dealing with ␳ (r1 . (38) Handling the full one-body density matrix in the exchange term is numerically expensive. Ragnarsson et al.r␴ ⬘ ␶ 兲 .B. The interaction energy contains a direct term and an exchange term. Mod. Myers and Swiatecki (1974. The simplest one is the Thomas-Fermi approximation. The short range of the nuclear interaction and the long wavelength of the single-nucleon states suggest an expansion in terms of zero-range interactions. Phys. ␳ 共 r. The idea be¯ with high hind the mic-mac models is to parametrize E accuracy. (37) d 3 rd 3 r ⬘ ␳ 共 r. 75. a full-fledged ab initio treatment of finite nuclei is still beyond present-day capabilities. ¯ ⫹ ␦ E. (1972). The basic idea of the mic-mac approach is a separation of the total energy into two parts (Strutinsky. 1978). see. E⫽E ␦ E⫽ 兺 ␧ ␣ ⫺ ␣ (35) 冕 ¯␧ F ⫺⬁ d␧ 兺␣ g 共 ␧⫺␧ ␣ 兲 . E dir⫽ E ex⫽ 1 2 1 2 冕冕 冕冕 d 3 rd 3 r ⬘ ␳ 共 r. It has been shown that the extended Thomas-Fermi energy gives a ¯ good approximation to the smooth background E (Brack and Quentin. It has been exploited to approximate SCMF calculations with Skyrme interactions by adding Rev.r⬘ 兲 .

where Pˆ ␴ ⫽ (1⫹ ␴ ˆ ␶ ⫽ 21 (1⫹ ␶ˆ 1 • ␶ˆ 2 ) the isospin-exchange operator. whose actual parameters are then adjusted phenomenologically (see Sec. The quantities B j . 1976) and the relativistuc mean-field models in Sec.Bender. In all these studies attempts were made to derive finite-range momentum-dependent or separable effective interactions directly from the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction. and finally the formulation of the relativistic mean-field model (Walecka.. The breakthrough came when the connection to the bare nucleon-nucleon force was abandoned and effective interactions tailored for use in mean-field calculations were directly adjusted to observables of finite nuclei. Eq. 1977) led to three ‘‘standard models’’ for the nuclear mean field which are widely used today and able to compete with the mic-mac method on a quantitative level.3. 2 (45) ˆ 1• ␴ ˆ 2 ) is the spin-exchange operator. Nonetheless it is consistent with the spirit of a zerorange force to expand this term as well. 129 Finite-range interactions have been introduced by Brink and Boeker (1967) in the form of the sum of two Gaussians with space-. Decharge´ and Gogny (1980) subsequently proposed a parametrization for an interaction which is now called the Gogny force: 2 vˆ Gogny共 r12兲 ⫽ 兺 e ⫺(r 12 / ␮ j ) j⫽1 2 ˆ ␴ ⫺H j Pˆ ␶ 共 W j ⫹B j P ⫺M j Pˆ ␴ Pˆ ␶ 兲 ⫹t 3 共 1⫹x 0 Pˆ ␴ 兲 ␦ 共 r12兲 ⫻␳␣ 冉 冊 r1 ⫹r2 ⫹iW ls 共 ␴ ˆ 1⫹ ␴ ˆ 2 兲 •kˆ† ⫻ ␦ 共 r12兲 kˆ. Saunier and Pearson. (37). 1. However such a form does not permit one to reproduce correctly the binding energies at the HartreeFock level of approximation. V. and W ls are parameters of the 1 2 . for example. x 0 . 1992). ␣ .x⬘ . January 2003 nuclear binding properties precisely enough. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models V n⫽ 冕 d 3 共 r⫺r ⬘ 兲v共 r⫺r⬘ 兲共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 n . Mean field dxdx ⬘ dydy ⬘ ␳ 共 x. r12⫽r1 P ⫺r2 . which do not yet reproduce the Rev. that its quantitative success is very limited.. The actual effective twobody interaction is the T matrix in the nuclear medium. W j . The matrix is a density-dependent and nonlocal operator yielding the potential energy E pot⫽ 1 2 冕冕冕冕 II. 1973). Since it shows up here without the ␳␶ term it may be parametrized independently. This guarantees Galilean invariance of the energydensity functional. M j . No. Campi and Bouyssy. 1989. The idea of a local-density approximation for such calculations was first explored by Negele (1970). (42) These are precisely the terms we shall recognize later on in the Skyrme energy functional (see Sec. It can be easily handled and there are models with finite-range direct terms.. II. For a more detailed discussion see Reinhard and Maruhn (1999). The notion of a two-body force does not fit so well here and needs to be replaced by (effective) meson fields as mediators of the effective interaction. 1972.. and kˆ⫽⫺ (i/2) (ⵜ1 ⫺ⵜ2 ). 1978). 1. 1990. is already formulated in terms of the local density. of Brueckner-Hartree-Fock. and isospin-exchange mixtures. Kerman et al. II. the Bonche-Koonin-Negele force (Bonche et al. but failed on a more quantitative level. Phys. 1966. Thus far the density-matrix expansion looks straightforward. spin-.y⬘ 兲 . 1966.. 2 (43) The term ⬀ ␳ ⌬ ␳ has already appeared in the exchange energy. A derivation of the parameters of the expansion from given Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations has provided only a fair reproduction of nuclear properties in subsequent mean-field calculations (Marcos et al. CHOICES FOR THE EFFECTIVE INTERACTION Self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations for closedshell nuclei were first performed in the mid 1960s (Muthukrishnan and Baranger. 75. the combination ( ␳ ␶ ⫺j2 ) in Eq. It is not yet clear to what extent this is a problem of the localdensity approximation or of the Brueckner-HartreeFock calculations. t 3 .. (41) has to be kept together. 1975. for example.. The rediscovery of Skyrme’s interaction by Vautherin and Ve´ne´roni (1969) and Vautherin and Brink (1972).C). However. the introduction of the Gogny force (Gogny. The direct term.A. A. 1967). It is to be noted. this simple model shows the basic steps of a density-matrix expansion. Boguta and Bodmer. but fails at a quantitative level. Vol. ␮ j . 1974. See. Bassichis et al. The calculations reproduced qualitatively the basic features of the nuclei.y⬘ 兲 ␳ 共 y.A. Heenen. Gogny (1973.y. Elsenhans et al. The Gogny interaction (44) An expansion similar to that above then yields all the terms as they are used in the Skyrme energy-density functional (Negele and Vautherin. 1965.x⬘ 兲 ⫻T共 x. Brockmann and Toki. Using ␳ 共 r兲 ⬇ ␳ 共¯r兲 ⫹ 21 共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 •ⵜ¯r ␳ 共¯r兲 ⫹ 81 共 r⫺r⬘ 兲 2 ⌬¯r ␳ 共¯r兲 yields after a partial integration E dir⫽ 1 2 冕 冉 冊 1 d 3r V 0␳ 2⫹ V 2␳ ⌬ ␳ . It is thus standard procedure to take the above density-matrix expansion as a motivation for the form of the mean-field energy functional. Davies et al. H j . Mod. 1967. It can be obtained from the microscopic nucleonnucleon force by many-body calculations like these. 1975) suggested adding a density dependence in the interaction and also a spin-orbit term. however.2). Altogether. The basic energy functional of the relativistic meanfield model can be motivated by a similar expansion while adjusting the concepts to a covariant formulation which is appropriate in the relativistic domain.

It has an anti-spinorbit effect and if ignored requires a decrease in the strength of the spin-orbit interaction. For this reason. which in general depends on r. Mod. 2 time-even: U q ⫽ (47) The time-odd part E odd contains all dependences on time-odd currents.n is then given by i hˆ q ⫽U q ⫺ⵜ•B q ⵜ⫺ 兵 Wq . The term E even contains only time-even densities. In this way. It is the only part which contributes in stationary calculations of Rev. C TJ ⫽⫺C TsT . 2.ⵜi ␴ˆ j 其 . The Skyrme energy functional ESk⫽ even-even nuclei. 1. In most applications. The contribution from the Skyrme interaction to the single-particle Hamiltonian for the nucleon species q⫽p. The interaction has been adjusted with the direct Coulomb and Coulomb exchange terms calculated exactly. the Skyrme energy functional that models the effective interaction between nucleons. (1975). The information going into the adjustment of the Gogny forces is summarized later on in Table I. ␦␳q ␦E . the coefficients C are taken to be constants except for C T␳ and C Ts which depend on density according to the parametrization C T 关 ␳ 0 兴 ⫽C T 关 0 兴 ⫹ 共 C T 关 ␳ 0. ␦ Tq (53) (54) Here B q ⫽ប 2 /2m q* is proportional to the inverse effective mass. For the spin-orbit interaction the zero-range force introduced by Bell and Skyrme (1956. For other choices see Sec. 1959b) is used. it is simpler to recouple the isoscalar and isovector densities to proton and neutron densities. The sum runs over the isospin T.3) is subtracted from the total energy and is taken into account variationally. The energy of the spurious center-of-mass motion (see Sec. Ground-state properties of even-even nuclei (which cover most applications of the Skyrme interaction in the published litera- . (46) As the Skyrme energy functional is local. the pair energy. which enables one to use the Gogny interaction simultaneously in both mean-field and pairing channels.B. Heenen. Skyrme. No. the usual problem of divergence of a zerorange interaction in the pairing channel is avoided. ␦ sq Wq ⫽ Cq ⫽ ␦E . Invariance under local gauge transformations links three pairs of time-even and time-odd terms in the energy functional C Tj ⫽⫺C T␶ . labeled D1S. (49) E Todd is constructed ‘‘Time-odd’’ refers to the densities from. (1984. the one-quasiparticle excitations describing odd nuclei were obtained by averaging all degenerate orbitals of a subshell.eq is the saturation density in infinite nuclear matter. II. that protons and neutrons do not mix. The time-even energy density is given by time-odd: Aq ⫽ ␦E . the total binding energy is given by the sum of the kinetic energy. They need to appear in bilinear form to render the functional time-reversal invariant. ⫹C TⵜJ ␳ T ⵜ•JT . All terms are taken into account in the pairing channel. All exchange terms have the same structure as the direct terms.ⵜ ␴ 其 2 i ⫹Sq • ␴ ˆ ⫺ⵜ• 共 ␴ ˆ •Cq 兲 ⵜ⫺ 兵 Aq . and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models interaction. ␦␶q ␦E . (48) while the time-odd part reads E Todd⫽C Ts sT2 ⫹C T⌬s sT •⌬sT ⫹C TsT sT •TT ⫹C Tⵜs 共 ⵜ•sT 兲 2 ⫹C Tj jT2 ⫹C Tⵜj sT •ⵜ⫻jT . It is useful to separate out the Skyrme energy functional as 兺 T⫽0. which greatly reduces the number of integrations when solving the Skyrme Hartree-Fock equations. an underestimate of 300 keV of the ground-state energy has been taken into account for odd-A nuclei. which is of course time even. Since the fit was done assuming spherical symmetry. 75. Phys.. This is a generalization of the Galilean invariance of the Skyrme interaction discussed by Engel et al. 1991) to correct for a too-large surface coefficient leading to an overestimate of the fission barrier of 240Pu. The various local potentials are calculated as a. and corrections for spurious motion: E⫽E kin⫹ 冕 d 3 rESk⫹E Coul⫹E pair⫺E corr . ␦ Jq ␦E .g below. including the Coulomb contributions. odd nuclei are not described with the same level of accuracy as even ones are described by the HFB method.eq兴 ⫺C T 关 0 兴 兲 冉 冊 ␳0 ␳ 0. Vol.ⵜ 其 . b. Moreover.ⵜ ␴ 其 ⫽ 兺 ij 兵 W ij . the Coulomb energy. (50) where ␳ 0. it has several technical advantages over the Gogny force.130 Bender. 1995). For discussion of the single-particle Hamiltonian. not a property of E Todd itself. ␦ jq B q⫽ Sq ⫽ ␦E . In what follows we now assume as is done in most applications. Skyrme interactions In the Skyrme Hartree-Fock approach. C Tⵜj ⫽⫹C TⵜJ (51) (see Dobaczewski and Dudek. Single-particle Hamiltonian The single-particle Hamiltonian hˆ q is obtained from the energy functional by using the variational principle. III.1 共 E Teven⫹E Todd兲 . January 2003 E Teven⫽C T␳ ␳ T2 ⫹C T⌬ ␳ ␳ T ⌬ ␳ T ⫹C T␶ ␳ T ␶ T ⫹C TJ JT2 (52) where 兵 Wq . The density-dependent zero-range force has been chosen with a spin-exchange mixture x 0 ⫽1 such that it does not contribute to the T⫽1 pairing channel.eq ␣ . The original parametrization D1 has been readjusted by Berger et al. Most calculations use this interaction.A.2.

which are invariant with respect to parity. which then also gives a local pairing energy functional (Dobaczewski et al. 1975) and finite nuclei (Stringari et al. 2002) are very similar. The 16 coupling constants of ESk are then uniquely linked to the 10 parameters t i . Choice (i) introduces many dependencies among the coupling constants. d.. Both the spin-orbit current J q.A. BSk1. Eq. (52). causes a spin instability in infinite nuclear matter (Chang. Figure 1 shows typical examples of the densities and potentials in 208Pb. (56). 75. Phys. leading to smaller kinetic energy. translational. 1972). Vol. Cq . (1975).2.1. Mod.D. 1984). 1975). Choices for the coupling constants There are basically two concepts to motivate the Skyrme energy density ESk : Rev. and isospin transformations (Dobaczewski and Dudek. c. because for these the time-odd fields vanish: Aq ⫽Cq ⫽Sq ⫽0.. 1. see Sec. the contributions to the pair energy are dropped. rotational.e. . and Wq only.. the value for BSk1 is slightly larger than 1. II. It contains systematically all possible bilinear terms in the local densities and currents [Eq. These restrictions lead to some difficulties. Some density dependence is added to the leading term in the expansion.2 terms in the Skyrme force. All Skyrme forces except SkP are well known to have unrealistic pairing properties. I. Other examples are odd-A and oddodd nuclei. 1998) and BSk1 (Samyn et al. r12 . The calculation of the energy functional from Eq. The form of the Skyrme energy functional is obtained as a localdensity approximation to the nuclear T matrix (Negele and Vautherin.. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models (i) ESk is derived from the Hartree-Fock expectation value HF ESk ⫽ 具 HF兩 vˆ Sk兩 HF典 (55) of the zero-range momentum-dependent two-body force introduced by Skyrme (1956. but there is a significant difference with regard to potentials. FIG. 1959a). a problem which persists even in recent parametrizations (see also Sec. Heenen. and kˆ as introduced in Sec.r and the spin-orbit potential exhibit a peak at the nuclear surface. with the result that the isovector spin-orbit term and all time-odd terms are fixed. i. and ␣ of v Sk (see Appendix A). January 2003 (56) ˆ ␴ . II. The time-odd fields also contribute to dynamics in timedependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations and to various excitation modes calculated with the quasiparticle random-phase approximation. 1. This is reflected in the depth of the potentials U q . which are much shallower for BSk1 to obtain similar single-particle energies at the Fermi surface with both parametrizations. with P Note that the t 0. The densities obtained from SLy6 (Chabanat et al...1. ˆ ␴ 兲 ␦ 共 r12兲 ⫹ 21 t 1 共 1⫹x 1 Pˆ ␴ 兲关 kˆ†2 ␦ 共 r12兲 vˆ Sk共 r12兲 ⫽t 0 共 1⫹x 0 P ⫹ ␦ 共 r12兲 kˆ2 兴 ⫹t 2 共 1⫹x 2 Pˆ ␴ 兲 kˆ† • ␦ 共 r12兲 kˆ ⫹ 16 t 3 共 1⫹x 3 Pˆ ␴ 兲 ␦ 共 r12兲 ␳ ␣ 冉 冊 r1 ⫹r2 2 ⫹iW 0 共 ␴ ˆ 1⫹ ␴ ˆ 2 兲 •kˆ† ␦ 共 r12兲 kˆ. correspond to the zero-range limit of a Gogny-type force up to second order in the derivatives (Vautherin and Brink. One example is rotating nuclei where the cranking constraint ␻ Jˆ x violates time-reversal symmetry in the intrinsic frame. U q . which was used in some early parametrizations to derive the density-dependent term. (ii) ESk is parametrized directly without reference to an effective two-body force. as calculated with the Skyrme interactions: solid lines.131 Bender. 1972. When including pairing correlations. 1996). Therefore this strict approach is rarely followed. W 0 . (55). No.g below). While SLy6 has a low effective mass of m * 0 /m⫽0.A.69 in nuclear matter. where the time-odd fields from the unpaired nucleon(s) induce dynamical core polarization. dotted lines. Time-odd fields The time-odd fields Aq . ture) are determined by the time-even fields B q . SLy6. 1976). Eq. a strict approach calculates the energy functional from Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov states. Time-even densities and potentials in 208Pb. time-reversal. (56) is presented by Engel et al. for neutrons (left) and protons (right). and only the particle-hole part of the energy functional is calculated from Eq. the usual parametrization of a three-body force. and Sq contribute to the single-particle Hamiltonian. only in situations where the intrinsic time-reversal symmetry is broken and Kramers degeneracy of single-particle levels is removed. For example. see Appendix A for the actual expressions for the coupling constants. (31)] up to second order in the derivatives. x i .

to correct this or that deficiency of the stan- . for example.. SLy5 and SLy7 (Chabanat et al. 1956. However.. January 2003 II. SkI3 and SkI4. with the forces SkM (Krivine et al. The standard form of the relativistic mean-field model. omits the exchange interactions and leads to values of C ⵜJ 1 ⬇0 in the nonrelativistic limit. Such a procedure is reasonable when describing natural parity excitations within the quasiparticle RPA. Heenen. they introduced a density dependence to the spin-orbit term to get their Skyrme Hartree-Fock calculations for these highly speculative objects into agreement with other models. in turn. as well as for spherical nuclei where the spin-orbit tensor J always boils down to the spin-orbit current J. Only a few applications have tried this so far. Many numerical codes calculate the residual interaction strictly from Eq. the J2 term contributes to the time-even energy density in the same way as the usually neglected tensor force. This was exploited by Reinhard and Flocard (1995) to make two new Skyrme-type parametrizations. Therefore setting C TJ ⫽0 is reasonable unless a unique way to adjust it is found. C Ts . on the other hand. 1. This. which are crucial for unnatural parity states. Another form of density dependence was introduced by Pudliner et al. This additional degree of freedom was explored by Pearson and Farine (1994).132 Bender. Dobaczewski. (1977). i.2. use a power of density dependence ␣ ⫽1. For parametrizations that set C TJ ⫽0. e. 75. 1975). The spintensor term also frequently triggers difficulties on the quasiparticle RPA level. The Skyrme-force concept links C TJ to the other Skyrme-force parameters. The price to be paid is that the additional coupling constants. and Sharma et al. who include in their random-phase-approximation (RPA) calculations only those time-odd terms that are fixed by gauge invariance of the functional. et al. Spin-orbit interaction The two terms ⬀C TJ and ⬀C TⵜJ contribute to the spinorbit potential. (1996).ⵜ ␴ 其 →⫺iWq •ⵜ⫻ ␴ ˆ 2 (57) where Wq ⫽ ␦ E/ ␦ Jq is now a local spin-orbit potential.A. (1975).e. These two forces differ from the standard Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces in the extrapolation of shell structure to exotic nuclei. Among the forces which strictly enforce the Hartree-Fock expectation value for C TJ are Z ␴ (Friedrich and Reinhard. (1991). the spinorbit term in the single-particle Hamiltonian can be rewritten as i ⫺ 兵 Wq .3. by Reinhard and Friedrich (1985). Only once in the published literature has there been an attempt to do so (Tondeur. Reinhard and Flocard (1995). Skyrme. for example. as described in Sec. C TJ ⫽⫺C TsT . This argument. No. while leaving the properties of more stable nuclei nearly unchanged. Phys. Inspired by shell-model calculations with realistic interactions for neutron drops. and SIII introduced by Beiner et al. Many other generalizations have been tried.. 2002). (1997). This also nicely decouples the particle-hole and particleparticle (⫽pairing) channels of the effective interaction (see Fayans et al. Most other parametrizations set C TJ ⫽0. 1989). For spherical shapes. and Pearson (2001) for various reasons. and it fixes the isospin strucⵜJ ture of the genuine spin-orbit terms as C ⵜJ 0 ⫽3C 1 (Bell and Skyrme. Nayak and Pearson (1998). Choice (ii). (1995) find that this reduced isospin dependence is crucial for describing the isotopic shifts of the charge radii of Pb nuclei.. Doubts about the necessity of this extension were raised by Onsi et al.2. Density dependence All first-generation Skyrme interactions. and C T⌬s . 1980) and SkM* (Bartel et al. Dobaczewski. but it neglects the spinspin terms. Mod. II. et al.. and SkX (Brown.. 1959a) and discussed by Stancu et al. as done. The term it multiplies comes from a local two-body tensor force considered in the original papers of Skyrme (1956. 2000). SII introduced by Vautherin and Brink (1972).A.. (2002)]. One might therefore argue that by including the tensor force one could counterbalance the unwanted J2 term exactly (Beiner et al. it is not easy to use C TJ as a free parameter in the spirit of the energy-functional approach and to adjust it to spectral data. 1984). applies neither to deformed shapes nor to time-odd fields. Tensor force Most applications of the time-odd energy functional set C Tⵜs ⫽0. Lalazissis et al. II. which violates self-consistency when employing forces with C TJ ⫽0 [see also the discussion of Bender.4). The simple generalization from 1 to ␣ has been the most efficient so far... have to be adjusted to the data. but omitted in all modern Skyrme parametrizations except for the SL1 force introduced by Liu et al. SkP (Dobaczewski et al. 1982).A. like SI. The coupling constants of the energy functional not fixed by global symmetries are free parameters. g. a tensor force gives an additional contribution to the J2 term. The simplest approach is to tentatively set the unknown couplings to zero.. f. In the time-even part of the functional. 1998). The interpretation of the Skyrme interaction as an energy density functional endows the spinorbit interaction with a more flexible isospin structure. Vol. Rev.A. (56). a problem that is cured for values of ␣ between 1/6 and 1/3 as they have been introduced. which is equivalent to a three-body delta force in the time-even functional (but not in its time-odd part). offers the possibility of adjusting the remaining coupling constants (see Bender. the forces of Tondeur (Tondeur et al. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models The consequences for spin-orbit splitting are discussed in Sec. the power ␣ ⫽1 yields too large an incompressibility K ⬁ . 1959b). The spin-orbit interaction in the nonrelativistic limit of the standard relativistic mean field differs from the Skyrme energy functional not only in its isospin dependence. 1983). 1998).e and the problem of tensor forces in Sec. is free of all these difficulties. but also in its density dependence (see also Sec. 1984). Although one might disagree with this rationale for neglecting the J2 terms. however.f. (1994). II.

This keeps the number of coupling constants around 10 as in the case of the Skyrme functional. in which C T␶ . (1977). see also Mahaux et al. in which the coupling constants also depend on the isospin density. These properties are common to any relativistic model. 1997. pointlike or through meson fields. An alternative. These fields nearly cancel each other out in the calculation of the potential but add up for the spin-orbit interaction. (59). Waroquier et al. (1983) also added an admixture of the density-dependent twobody delta force and a three-body delta force. Waroquier et al. is sometimes used (Aboussir et al. In a relativistic description. Relativistic mean-field theories have been applied to nuclear matter and finite nuclei with remarkable success. has the technical advantage that it can be easily accomplished numerically by solving the Helmholtz equation (⫺⌬ ⫹ ␮ ⫺2 ) ¯␳ T (r)⫽ ␮ ⫺2 ␳ T (r). Relativistic mean-field models h. The motion of the nucleons is governed by the Dirac equation (Bjorken and Drell.T ␳ 0 )/(1⫹h 2. It is noteworthy that all generalizations of the density dependences published so far were formulated within the Hartree-Fock expectation-value approach to the Skyrme energy functional. The volume term contains a density dependence of the v v form C T␳ 关 ␳ 兴 ⫽C T␳ 关 0 兴 (1⫺h 1. which leads to numerous inter-relations between coupling constants and also adds density dependences in unwanted places. 1985). Finite-range terms The Skyrme Hartree-Fock method employs strictly point couplings. enabling a good mass fit (that requires m * 0 /m⬇1 at the nuclear surface) for the description of giant resonances. C TJ . which call for m * 0 /m⬇0.Bender. But none of these interactions has been used subsequently. the surface energy is modeled in analogy to Eq. although the mechanism leading to saturation or the way the spin-orbit interaction appears depend on the particular framework that is used. 1976). 3. Vol. which are now four-component Dirac spinors. 1995. The basic concept of these models is the same as for nonrelativistic mean-field approaches: the many-body state is built up as an independent particle or quasiparticle state from the single-particle wave functions. the spin-orbit interaction emerges naturally from the interplay between two strong and counteracting fields: a long-range attractive scalar field and a shortrange repulsive vector field. (58) with the folded density ¯␳ T 共 r兲 ⫽ 冕 d 3r ⬘ e ⫺ 兩 r⫺r⬘ 兩 / ␮ ␳ 共 r⬘ 兲 .. There are several extensive reviews on the . January 2003 Mean-field models for low-energy nuclear structure physics employing nonrelativistic kinematics are quite successful. 1997). The Fayans energy functional The energy functional of Fayans et al. The interaction. it plays the role of the gradient terms in the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method. but employs a much more elaborate density dependence and folding for all remaining terms [including the density dependences. 冕 d 3 r ␳ T2 共 r兲 → 冕 d 3 r ␳ T 共 r兲¯␳ T 共 r兲 . (48)]. While the Skyrme functional can be viewed as a systematic expansion in derivatives up to second order with a usually simple density dependence. while the standard relativistic meanfield model has finite range through meson folding. Similarly. It employs Yukawa folding (rather than Gaussian) and exchange terms are neglected.. 75. The relativistic mean-field finite range differs from that of the Gogny force. (1983). To a large extent. (2000) is constructed somewhat differently.. Krewald et al. (1991) introduced additional three-body momentum-dependent forces. The folded form has advantages in dynamical applications because folding smooths. Phys. C T⌬ ␳ . It is a simplified version of the Skyrme functional. but includes a density dependence..3 ⭐ ␮ ⭐0. 133 i. No. Duerr (1956) had already shown by the 1950s how in a phenomenological relativistic theory the saturation properties of nuclear matter are reproduced and a spin-orbit interaction emerges naturally without any separate adjustable parameter. the Fayans functional omits the terms containing derivatives except for the spin-orbit interaction. Farine et al. 1964). (1989). Typical ranges of the Yukawa function are 0. since the depth of the nuclear potential is below 100 MeV and much smaller than the nucleon rest mass of nearly 1 GeV. (58). No time-odd terms have been considered so far (although the functional is also used to calculate odd-A nuclei).. The Yukawa folding. C TⵜJ and all time-odd coupling constants are set to zero. However. 1. Eq. Mod. is considered to be an effective interaction. Instead of employing C T⌬ ␳ ␳ T ⌬ ␳ T terms. 1979. Complete Skyrme functionals with finite-range ␳ T2 terms are used by Umar et al.. (1997) add a density dependence to all momentumdependent terms of the Skyrme force. there is a variant of the Skyrme Hartree-Fock which merges the gradient term with the zero-range two-body force into a finite-range two-body coupling.T ␳ 0 ).. which prevents a mapping onto Eq. (56). this depth is the result of the cancellation between much larger contributions and there are therefore good reasons to consider relativistic kinematics for the nucleon. (2001) to generate a density dependence of the effective mass. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models dard Skyrme functional. Farine et al. This idea was developed further by Farine et al.5 fm. Heenen. and Liu et al. 4 ␲ ␮ 2 兩 r⫺r⬘ 兩 T (59) where ␮ is a free parameter to be adjusted phenomenologically.8 in the nuclear interior (Bohigas et al. This is at first not surprising. Chabanat et al. As C T␶ ⫽0 the effective mass is everywhere m T* /m⫽1. One of the most obvious signatures of relativity is the large nuclear spin-orbit force. while gradient terms stir up fluctuations. An early interaction constructed along these lines is the Bonche-Koonin-Negele force (Bonche et al. Rev. Eq.

␳ 2 (63) Ecoupl⫽g ␴ ⌽ ␴ ␳ s0 ⫹g ␻ ⌽ ␻␮ ␳ ␮ 0 ⫹g ␳ ⌽ ␮␳ ␳ ␮ . ERMF⫽Enucl⫹Emeson⫹Ecoupl⫹Enonl . 1981. J ␲ T⫽1 ⫺ . The contribution of the exchange term is assumed to be absorbed into the effective coupling constants through the phenomenological fit of the model.6. the effective interaction is introduced through Klein-Gordon equations for the meson fields. ␻ . is not unique. 1. however. and we shall thus keep their presentation short. essential nuclear properties such as incompressibility or surface properties cannot be reproduced . Note that the spacelike components of the vector densities vanish for time-reversal-invariant systems. b 3 . v ␣2 ¯ 1 (62) 兺 ⌽ M共 ⫺⌬⫹m M兲 ⌽ M . This is a hint that we are dealing with effective fields in an effective Lagrangian. 3 4 4 (65) Emeson⫽ where ␳ sT and ␳ ␮ T are the scalar and vector densities as introduced in Sec.. g ␳ . These equations have to be solved selfconsistently. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models relativistic mean-field method (see Reinhard. Machleidt et al. The index ␮ is the standard index of a relativistic fourvector.B..1 .1. • ␻ field ⌽ ␻␮ . In a strict sense. Phys. However. and various brands of relativistic density-functional theory. T⫽1 cannot contribute on the Hartree level of standard relativistic mean-field models. There is no experimental evidence for a free ␴ meson.0 short-range repulsion. Ring. J ␲ . The relativistic mean-field method is usually formulated in terms of a hadronic Lagrangian. 1974. 75. I. although the ␴ field is a crucial ingredient in relativistic mean-field models. and mesonic fields entering the Dirac equations. Another widely used approximation is the neglect of exchange (Fock) terms in the mean-field equations. all possible combinations of the above-mentioned approximations are relativistic meanfield models. T⫽0 ⫹ . but not always done in the literature) for the most widely used standard approach. Holinde. 1989. Reinhard (1989). b 2 . including those of Serot and Walecka (1986). are finite-range models. The quantities g ␴ . g ␻ . The standard relativistic mean-field energy functional is given by (setting ប⫽1 and c⫽1 as is usually done in relativistic theory) E⫽ 冕 d 3 r ERMF⫹E Coul⫹E pair⫺E cm . J ␲ T⫽1 ⫺ . because the pseudoscalar and pseudovector densities it couples to vanish for stationary states unless time-reversal invariance and parity are broken. A functional with linear coupling terms Eq. Serot. 1992. A detailed disRev. with nucleon densities as source terms in the Klein-Gordon equations. and Ring (1996). This view of the model. (60) (61) ⍀ Enucl⫽ 兺 ␣ ⫽1 ␺ ␣ 共 ⫺i ␥ •ⵜ⫹m B兲 ␺ ␣ . and c 3 are parameters of the energy functional while the v ␣2 are BCS occupation probabilities. Heenen. one has a choice between effective zero-range forces (point couplings) and effective finite-range interactions. There is some confusion about the naming of the models. This formulation makes the connection to the nonrelativistic models discussed above more apparent and will be chosen here. Such an assumption is consistent with one-boson-exchange potentials fitted to nucleon-nucleon scattering at low energies (Erkelenz. m ␴ . Below. They correspond to the time-odd part of the Skyrme energy functional. No. Although the energy-functional approach relaxes the direct correspondence to hadronic physics. ␮ ⌽ ␻␮ 兲 2 . M⫽ ␴ . This is done either through the nonlinearities of the meson fields. In the energy regime of nuclear structure. which are coupled to the Dirac equations for the nucleons. January 2003 cussion of the Lagrangian can be found in several reviews of the relativistic mean-field method. As in the case of nonrelativistic models. 1987). isospin channel. 1987. (64) only allows us to give a qualitative description of the nuclei. it may be assumed that the nucleons interact only through the exchange of the mesons with the lowest values of spin J and isospin T. (64) 1 1 1 Enonl⫽ b 2 ⌽ ␴3 ⫹ b 3 ⌽ ␴4 ⫹ c 3 共 ⌽ ␻ . however. or in the Hartree-Fock approximation via the exchange terms (Bouyssy et al. density-dependent couplings of nucleons and mesons. Machleidt and Slaus.4. Serot (1992). we shall use this label (as is often. m ␳ . • ␳ field ⌽ ␳␮ . medium-range attraction. see Sec.6. In complete analogy to the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method. one also has a choice in modeling the density dependence. while the scalar density and the zero component of the vector density correspond to the time-even part..0. In finite-range models. Much more often used. In order to describe static nuclei. or a combination of both. In fact. the ␲-meson field with J ␲ ⫽0 ⫺ . but give some references below to published work using other variants employing density-dependent couplings. Motivated by the idea of the nucleus as a system of interacting nucleons and mesons. 2001). Mod. I. the single-particle potentials entering the Dirac equations of point-coupling approaches are functions of the various relativistic densities outlined in Sec. relativistic Hartree-Fock models. I.B. 1996). It appears only in nuclear dynamics. m ␻ . In nearly all cases the contribution from antiparticle states in the Fermi sea to the nucleon densities is neglected (the nosea approximation). one has to specify a reference frame. the fields are commonly denoted as the mesons whose quantum numbers they carry. We shall concentrate here on this model. Vol. and one can equally well formulate the model in terms of the corresponding energy density. There are many practical ways to define relativistic models for nuclear structure calculations. the relativistic Hartree model with nonlinear finite-range meson fields. The lowest-mass and in many other respects most important ␲-meson field does not appear in the list.B. • ␴ field ⌽ ␴ .134 Bender.

the scalar term in the coupling energy functional (64). Haddad and Weigel. I. Heenen. Within the standard relativistic mean-field approach. Shen et al. This propagator is none other than the compact-operator formulation of the Yukawa folding [Eq. 1992.. The most widely used and wellestablished form is a self-coupling of the ␴ field (Boguta and Bodmer. (1993). Cescato and Ring.D. Phys. 1 2 ⯝ ⫺⌬⫹m M 1 2 ⫹ mM ⌬ 4 mM . An independent expansion is required to map the finite range of the meson fields into a zerorange-plus-gradient correction as used in the SHF method. (1988) and Bender et al. (2002). which has to be seen as the relativistic equivalent of the nonrelativistic Skyrme interaction. As a first step. not as large as one would expect. (58). (59)] mentioned in connection with finite-range variants of SHF models. 4. As in the case of the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method. This can be written as an expansion of the meson propagator. 75. Blunden and Iqbal (1987). To do so requires nonlinear terms Enonl which are usually parametrized as self-couplings of the meson fields.135 Bender. 2m * (66) Note that this expansion generates kinetic as well as spin-orbit terms. 1977). possible to map the RMF model to a large extent onto the SHF model by using standard techniques of nonrelativistic expansion (Thies. The need for the latter and its particular advantage is not yet fully worked out. Reinhard. These models are often denoted as densitydependent relativistic mean-field (DDRMF) models.. Madland. Mod. Relativistic Hartree-Fock models of nuclear matter and finite nuclei are described by Brockmann (1978). (1992). The RMF method. It achieves a similar level of quality to that of the standard model. More recently. 1999). look very different. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models by such an ansatz. Bernardos et al. The separation of the energy functional (61) into nucleonic and mesonic parts is not unique. One ought to mention that this choice for the nonlinear form can lead to unstable conditions when solving the meson equations. All these models have in common finite-range meson fields. 1992. ⬃g ␻ ␳ ␮ 0¯␳ ␮0 . which appears in the exchange term. Rusnak and Furnstahl Rev. one with respect to v /c and another one with respect to ⌬/m 2 . and Bu¨rvenich. derivative (tensor) couplings of the vector fields are used by Rufa et al. there is not yet a parametrization of a generalized Lagrangian that approaches the performance of the standard model. most of these studies are motivated by known deficiencies of the model in some particular detail. Ring (1996)]. Vol. both the Skyrme Hartree-Fock (SHF) and the relativistic meanfield (RMF) schemes can be thought of as being derived from a local expansion of an underlying T matrix. on the other hand. the self-coupling of the vector fields has been considered (Gmuca. and Weigel (1994). The differences are. Alternatives to nonlinear couplings in terms of density-dependent coupling constants have been suggested by several people (Brockmann and Toki. and Von-Eiff. It is. while Zimanyi and Moszkowski (1990) introduce derivative couplings of the scalar field. SHF and RMF. This yields the following v /c expansion for the scalar density in terms of nonrelativistic densities (isospin indices are omitted here): ␳ s⫽ ␳ ⫹ 1 共 ␶ ⫺j2 / ␳ ⫹ⵜ•J兲 . e. (1987)... Typel and Wolter. 1993. A stabilized nonlinear functional has been proposed by Reinhard (1988) in connection with the parametrization PL-40. January 2003 (1997). 1997. the sum of the meson and coupling energy densities for each field can be rewritten as a folded bilinear term in local nucleonic densities. While most applications use the standard approach outlined above. for example. Bouyssy et al. (67) where m M is the meson mass. 1989). In analogy to Eq. (1999). Ineichen et al. A local-density approximation to the exchange terms in the linear relativistic mean-field model is discussed by Schmid et al. pars pro toto. is discussed in particular by Horowitz and Serot (1982). 1996.g. Links between relativistic mean-field and Skyrme HartreeFock models Like all self-consistent mean-field models. A point-coupling model. parametrizes the T matrix in terms of meson fields with point coupling to the nucleons. but it becomes more complicated for mesons with selfcoupling. The very involved density dependence of the T matrix is parametrized simply in terms of a power-law density dependence in the zero-range two-body interaction. The zeroth component of the vector density directly becomes the normal density in the nonrelativistic limit. 1998. The spin-orbit coupling is automatically implied in the relativistic kinematics of the nucleons. 1995b). All together. Haddad. however. see. 1. 1994). Nikolaus et al. the nonrelativistic SHF model expands the T matrix in terms of a zero-range effective force with gradient and kinetic corrections. this model. 1986. has been explored by Hoch and Manakos (1990). However. As discussed in Sec. (1995a. . et al. In linear models the folding function is simply of Yukawa form [Eq. The density dependence is described indirectly through a nonlinear self-coupling of the ␴ field. or alternatives to. Relativistic density-functional theory for nuclei is analyzed by Speicher et al. we are dealing with a double expansion. (1991. there are also numerous explorations of extensions of. Now let us consider. At first glance. No. 1993). one eliminates the lower component of the Dirac wave functions for the nucleons. (59). After having eliminated the meson field we expand up to first order. The role of the pion. in fact. the two expansion lines. Sugahara and Toki.

2001) use ␳ ch approximated by Gaussian folding with a finite proton size. proton-neutron pairing probably plays a significant role for nuclei close to the N⫽Z line only. Tondeur et al. the effective mass m * in the denominator of Eq. 75. shifting single-particle energies. (1984.. 2000). 1995). proximations are necessary to calculate the observable charge form factor. In most cases. Pairing between neutrons and protons contributes to both T⫽1 and T⫽0 pairing channels. There is also a contribution from the Coulomb interaction to the pairing interaction which emerges naturally when calculating the HFB expectation value of the twobody Coulomb potential. Pairing between like particles contributes to the T⫽1 channel only and is routinely used in meanfield calculations. which contributes to all nuclei. 1994. 1994).2. However. There are hints from the study of displacement-energy systematics that the Slater exchange term has to be reduced (Brown et al.. Very early SHF models and all relativistic mean-field forces employ the direct Coulomb term only. it was considered in the fit of Gogny forces. ex E Coul ⫽⫺ 43 e 2 冉冊冕 3 ␲ 1/3 4/3 d 3 r ␳ ch 共 r兲 . 1999b). The spin-orbit force comes mainly from the isoscalar spin-orbit current J0 while the isospin mix is different for SHF forces (Lalazissis et al. It has the further advantage that density dependence is mapped in a quite similar way to that in the SHF model. 2000. In the spirit of their local-density approximation.5. I. however. V. Tondeur et al.B. which affects the position of the calculated proton drip line and corrects mass differences of mirror nuclei. The direct term of the Coulomb energy. The Coulomb interaction The energy functionals that model the effective strong interaction have to be accompanied by an energy functional for the Coulomb interaction. Eqs. The next order in ⌬/m 2 yields the gradient corrections. Brown (1998) considers this effect in the fit of SkX by scaling the Slater exchange term. Vol. (70) The next-order term was studied by Titin-Schnaider and Quentin (1974) and found to be small. 2000). Sharma et al. The expansion for the vector mesons yields only the ⌬/m 2 terms.. the differences are not appreciable for stable nuclei which all concentrate about the same equilibrium density. However. 2 dir E Coul ⫽ e 2 冕冕 d 3 rd 3 r ⬘ ␳ ch共 r兲 ␳ ch共 r⬘ 兲 . on the density. Density dependence is basically different for the two models. But it is very cumbersome to calculate. the expression is simplified by employing the point proton density instead of the charge density. is taken into account in some cranked relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov calculations (Afanasjev et al. Phys. (48) and (49).A.. There is an alternative to the RMF model which is formulated as nonlinear spinor theory employing zerorange coupling between the nucleonic currents (Nikolaus et al. It has recently been shown that this relativistic point-coupling model performs as well as traditional SHF and RMF ones (Bu¨rvenich. The Nolen-Schiffer anomaly can be phenomenologically explained by either reducing the Coulomb exchange term or by introducing a charge-symmetry-breaking interaction. so approximations are usually invoked. 5. This is usually neglected. (2001a) in the framework of Gogny–Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov methods. Such a model is then the ideal link for studying effects from the v /c and ⌬/m 2 expansions separately. It mainly gives rise to a state-dependent shift of single-particle energies.. the exchange term is added to Skyrme interactions in the Slater approximation. Reinhard and Flocard. The Coulomb correlation energy has been studied by Bulgac and Shaginyan (1999a.136 Bender. an effect which is absent from standard SHF models. The next order v /c yields the effective mass term and at the same time the spin-orbit force. As shown in Sec. Thus far one can trace back the general structure of SHF terms and that of RMF ones. Moreover. 2002). (68) depends. The lowest order yields the zero-range force. which gives a correction in situations with broken intrinsic time-reversal symmetry. Its largest effect is in the nuclear surface. Unlike like-particle T⫽1 pairing. 1995. We have thus obtained extra density dependence in kinetic and spinorbit terms (Pearson and Farine. It is .. ␳ ch→ ␳ p . See Anguiano et al. The relation between RMF and SHF models is complicated by the fact that one needs a double expansion.. see Sec. 2m * (68) where C ␴ ⫽g ␴2 /m ␴2 . the pairing density matrix contains contributions from T⫽0 as well as T⫽1. Madland. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models ␳s g ␴2 m ␴2 ⫹⌬ ␳ s⬇C ␴ ␳ 2 ⫺ ⫹ C␴ ␳⌬␳ m ␴2 C␴ 共 ␳ ␶ ⫺j2 ⫹ ␳ ⵜ•J兲 . we have already eliminated the tricky density dependence through the nonlinearity of the scalar field while eliminating the meson field at the starting point of the expansion. January 2003 B. differences in detail. However. The magnetic interaction. Note that even more involved apRev. Finally. et al. Pairing interactions A first distinction has to be made concerning the isospin channel of pairing. (70) and the exact Coulomb exchange term has been studied by Skalski (2001) in the framework of Skyrme interactions and by Anguiano et al. Pairing correlations 1. The exact Coulomb exchange term was used in the fit of the Gogny force and in subsequent spherical calculations. These together produce precisely the same terms as are used in the SHF functional. 1992). in principle.. Goriely et al. The difference between Eq. Heenen. 1. (2001a) for a discussion. Mod. There are.. No. 兩 r⫺r⬘ 兩 (69) is a functional of the local density.

Bender, Heenen, and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models

only recently that both pairing channels have been considered simultaneously (Terasaki et al., 1998; Goodman,
1999). The complication introduced by the protonneutron pairing interaction is that it can proceed either
between states of different signatures, as for the likeparticle pairing interaction, or between states of the
same signature. Indeed, the latter possibility is not forbidden by the Pauli principle in this case, since the interacting particles have differing isospin. For this reason,
a treatment of all the pairing channels requires breaking
the signature symmetry. The study by Terasaki et al.
(1998) has been, up to now, the only mean-field calculation (in our terminology) employing T⫽0 pairing. Here
we follow the overwhelming majority of publications
and consider only T⫽1 like-particle pairing correlations.
SHF and relativistic mean-field models require one to
define a separate interaction to determine the pairing
matrix elements. Let us recall that this is not the case for
the Gogny interaction which is also well behaved for the
like-particle T⫽1 pairing.
Several recent applications have shown that the use of
a simple seniority interaction for the pairing is too crude
[see, for example, work on superdeformed rotational
bands (Terasaki et al., 1995), on evolution of charge radii
around magic numbers (Fayans, 1999; Fayans et al.,
2000; Tajima, Bonche, et al., 1993), and on halo nuclei
(Bertsch and Esbensen, 1991)]. Moreover, the HFB
method reduces to the BCS method for a seniority interaction and the lack of localization (see Sec. I.B.2) thus
makes the seniority force inappropriate for a study of
nuclei that are far from stability. More sophisticated interactions have to be used. Two main ways of generalizing the seniority interaction have been investigated. In
the first, the seniority interaction has been viewed as the
first term of a multipole expansion of a more realistic
interaction, and a quadrupole term has been added. This
generalized pairing interaction has been used in mic-mac
calculations (Satuła and Wyss, 1994) with a singleparticle potential parametrized by a Woods-Saxon potential.
Nowadays, a widely used effective pairing interaction
is a zero-range local force, often including a density dependence (Dobaczewski, Flocard, and Treiner, 1984;
Krieger et al., 1990; Tajima, Bonche, et al., 1993;
Terasaki et al., 1995; Dobaczewski, Nazarewicz, Werner,
et al., 1996). This simple form of the interaction was introduced in the 1970s by Tondeur (1979). It is formally
equivalent to a Skyrme interaction [Eq. (56)] with t 0 and
t 3 terms only. A convenient way to write it as an energy
functional is
E pair⫽



冕 冋 冉 ␳␳ 冊 册 ␳
d 3 r 1⫺

共 r兲

˜ q 共 r兲˜␳ q* 共 r兲 , (71)

which corresponds to the density-dependent two-body
pairing force,
v pair⫽

冋 冉 冊册

␳ 共 r1 兲
ˆ ␴ 兲 1⫺
共 1⫺P

␦ 共 r1 ⫺r2 兲 .

Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2003



Depending on the value of the switching density ␳ c ,
pairing is more active in the volume (‘‘volume pairing,’’
␳ c →⬁) of the nucleus or on its surface (‘‘surface pairing,’’ ␳ c ⬇ ␳ 0,eq , where ␳ 0,eq⫽0.16 fm⫺3 is the saturation
density of nuclear matter that approaches the density
inside the nucleus). All pairing models smear out the
occupation of single-particle levels close to the Fermi
surface. Thus the dominant contribution often stems
from the nuclear surface in coordinate space. A pure
two-body force ( ␳ c ⫽⬁) keeps some sensitivity to the
volume while a density dependence with ␳ c ⬇ ␳ 0,eq
pushes the sensitivity towards the outer surface. A recent study by Dobaczewski, Nazarewicz, and Stoitsov
(2002) seems to indicate that the density dependence is
probably intermediate between these two extremes and
is governed by values of ␳ c larger than the saturation
density. The exponent ␤ of the density dependence affects the appearance of neutron skins and halos (Dobaczewski, Nazarewicz, and Reinhard, 2001). It is difficult
to fix using the present data. A widely used value is ␤
The pairing strengths V p,n are adjusted phenomenologically to reproduce the odd-even staggering of energies in selected chains of nuclei (see Sec. V.C). It is important to note that the strengths depend on the
underlying mean-field force, particularly on its isoscalar
effective mass. Low m *
0 /m produces low level density
and requires larger pairing strengths. Moreover, the fits
usually result in V p slightly differently from V n which
breaks the isospin invariance of the pairing energy functional.
More complicated pairing interactions are sometimes
used. Fayans (1999; Fayans et al., 2000) adds several
terms for density derivatives to a density-dependent interaction. A more ambitious attempt is the SkP parametrization of the Skyrme force (Dobaczewski, Flocard,
and Treiner, 1984), which is specifically designed to use
the same force [Eq. (56)] simultaneously in the meanfield and in the pairing channels of the HFB expectation
value. In this way, the interaction is closer to the spirit of
the Gogny interaction although it still requires an energy cutoff since the pairing does not converge as a function of the active space.
Significant progress has been made in the last few
years (Kucharek and Ring, 1991; Ring, 1996; Serra et al.,
2000) in deriving a relativistic theory of pairing. An application to finite nuclei has been published just recently
(Serra and Ring, 2002). In the spirit of most SHF calculations, a covariant point-coupling pairing interaction is
used together with a standard relativistic mean-field
force. In all other practical applications, the effective
mean-field models use a nonrelativistic pairing formalism, often with the matrix elements of the Gogny force
(Gonzalez-Llarena et al., 1996). Note that, in other models, the pairing interaction is adjusted in conjunction
with the mean-field interaction. The coupling constants
of the pairing interaction depend on quantities governed
by the mean field, like the density of single-particle
states around the Fermi surface, which is related to the
effective mass of the mean-field interaction. The consis-


Bender, Heenen, and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models

tent use of a Gogny force in the pairing channel and
relativistic Lagrangians has yet to be studied in detail.
2. Pairing-active space

Pairing interactions usually have strong matrix elements for very high-lying states. It is obvious that calculations using a seniority pairing interaction with constant
matrix elements cannot converge at all. The same holds
for zero-range interactions (Takahara et al., 1994), while
results using a finite-range interaction like the Gogny
force converge, although very slowly, when increasing
the pairing-active space of single-particle states, depending on the range of the interaction in momentum space
(Grasso et al., 2002). Thus, for all applications, pairing
recipes need to be complemented with a prescribed cutoff. The situation is complicated by the fact that unbound single-particle states depend on the actual numerical representation, which prevents a mapping of
cutoff recipes between expansion and grid methods. The
box size in grid methods or the number of shells in a
basis expansion adds an additional hidden cutoff to all
applications (see also Sec. IV.A). In many cases, however, the choice of the actual cutoff is not too critical.
The parameters of effective pairing interactions are fitted phenomenologically anyway. One simply has to do it
in connection with a given cutoff. It is not clear, however, that a cutoff recipe has the same effect for all nuclei throughout the chart of nuclei.
Seniority pairing uses a band of single-particle energies around the Fermi surface. The bandwidth delivers
the cutoff. Simple scaling rules allow us to tune the pairing strength to the actual bandwidth (Reinhard et al.,
Many recent applications consider pairing interactions
as derived from zero-range forces [see Eq. (71)]. They
are usually used in connection with a soft cutoff to avoid
artifacts if single-particle states are crossing the cutoff
line. To this end, one augments each state in the pairingactive space by a pairing weight factor w n . The pair
density, Eq. (33), is thus modified to ˜␳ (r)
⫽⫺2 兺 n⬎0 w n u n v n 兩 ␺ n (r) 兩 2 . The w n are determined by a
Fermi function in single-particle energies. This cutoff is
applied either above the Fermi energy only (Bonche
et al., 1985; Krieger et al., 1990) or above and below
(Duguet et al., 2001). The latter method allows us to use
the same pairing strength for protons and neutrons. A
fixed-width ⑀ cut of the Fermi function might be too rigid
a recipe if one wants to cover a broad range of nuclei,
particularly if one goes for exotic nuclei with their
squeezed density of states. As an alternative, ⑀ cut might
be determined in such a way that the distribution of w n
adds up to a given number of states (Bender, Rutz, et al.,
A different approach has to be taken in connection
with the HFB equations in the quasiparticle basis. To
obtain the correct density matrices, one has to sum up
from all the quasiparticle states corresponding to the
bound particle states. Since these states have energies
close to the depth of the potential well D, one has to set
Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2003

the cutoff parameter at least as large as D, i.e., around
50 MeV (Dobaczewski, Flocard, and Treiner, 1984). This
cutoff is so large that artifacts due to level crossing at the
upper cutoff energy are negligible. There is, furthermore, a subtle difference between cutoff recipes in the
BCS and HFB methods: they are formulated in terms of
single-particle energies in BCS, but in terms of quasiparticle energies in HFB.
Let us note also that Bulgac (2002; Bulgac and Yu,
2002) has recently introduced a renormalization scheme
for the HFB equations which allows us to avoid the divergence of a zero-range interaction as a function of the
pairing-active space.

The static mean-field approach provides the lowestorder nuclear binding energy. It is well adapted to describing nuclear bulk properties throughout the chart of
nuclei. To achieve a higher precision or to describe a
larger set of data, one has to go beyond a strict meanfield approach and consider correlations. The most important correlation effects in nuclear structure stem
from large-amplitude collective motion. Low-lying excited states are mixed into the calculated mean-field
ground state which can be removed by configuration
mixing, i.e., superposition of several mean-field states.
This embraces nuclear surface vibrations related to lowlying excitation spectra and zero-energy modes (translation, rotation, etc.) related to the restoration of symmetries broken by the mean-field ground state. Both
aspects will be discussed in this section. We start in Sec.
III.A.1 with collective motion in general and come to
the more specific case of symmetry restoration in Sec.
There are various concepts dealing with correlations.
The one we follow here is the generator coordinate
method, which relies on a superposition of mean-field
states optimized variationally. This concept is closely related to the multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock method
well known from atomic physics. There are also close
links to the Monte Carlo shell model in nuclear physics,
where often mean-field propagation is used to achieve
appropriate importance sampling (Otsuka et al., 2001).
Alternative concepts are path integrals and diagrammatic methods. The path-integral methods still have
links to the generator coordinate method, and both
methods allow one to deal with large-amplitude collective motion. The diagrammatic techniques follow a different track. They are restricted to small amplitudes associated with collective correlations. In the regime of
low-energy, relatively long-range correlations, one obtains the RPA correlations diagrammatically. For an
overview and comparative discussion see Reinhard and
Toepffer (1994).
There is a subtle conceptual problem when computing
correlations. The energy functionals that we use are designed for SCMF calculations and supposedly embrace
various correlation effects. Using them to compute correlations explicitly looks like double counting. However,

Bender, Heenen, and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models

the procedure is still justified for correlations associated
with low- or zero-energy states. These are strongly varying with shell effects and cannot be hidden in a smooth
energy functional. Moreover they can be derived from a
quasistatic sequence of mean-field states in the spirit of a
Born-Oppenheimer approach. All considerations below
belong to that class. The correlations from highly excited
states, such as giant resonances, are in the dangerous
regime of double counting. The problem is even worse
for the short-range correlations.

1. Generator coordinate method

As has often been emphasized, collective and singleparticle nuclear dynamics are intimately associated. The
generator coordinate method was one of the first attempts to incorporate both seemingly contrary aspects
into one single coherent quantum-mechanical formulation (Hill and Wheeler, 1953; Griffin and Wheeler,
1957). Early nuclear applications are found, for instance,
in the work of Jancovici and Schiff (1964), Brink and
Weiguny (1968), and Wong (1975). A review is given by
Reinhard and Goeke (1987). The generator coordinate
method has many attractive features. It is, formally at
least, a simple and flexible variational method which extends the configuration-mixing formalism to the case of
a continuous collective variable. In principle, it can address a wide range of collective phenomena. It accounts
for long-range ground-state correlations and provides
both excitation spectra and transition matrix elements to
be compared with data. Moreover, all projection methods designed to restore broken symmetries are simply
special forms of the generator coordinate method in
which the weight functions are known a priori. The generator coordinate method has improved our understanding of the connection between phenomenological models of collective motion and microscopic descriptions
such as Hartree-Fock (HF) or HF⫹BCS.
a. Review of the formalism

Given a family of N-body wave functions 兩 ⌽(q) 典 , depending on a collective variable q, the generator coordinate method (GCM) determines approximate eigenstates (hereafter called GCM states) of the Hamiltonian
ˆ , having the form

dq 兩 ⌽ 共 q 兲 典 f k 共 q 兲 .


The weight functions f k (where k is the index of the
ˆ ) are found by requiring
eigenstate of the Hamiltonian H
that the expectation value E k ,
E k⫽

ˆ 兩 ⌿ k典
具 ⌿ k兩 H
具 ⌿ k兩 ⌿ k典


be stationary with respect to an arbitrary variation ␦ f k .
This prescription leads to the Hill-Wheeler integral
equation (Hill and Wheeler, 1953),
Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2003

dq ⬘ 关 H共 q,q ⬘ 兲 ⫺E k I共 q,q ⬘ 兲兴 f k 共 q ⬘ 兲 ⫽0,


in which the Hamiltonian kernel H and the overlap kernel I are defined as
ˆ 兩⌽共 q ⬘ 兲典,
H共 q,q ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽ 共 q 兲 兩 H
I共 q,q ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽ 共 q 兲 兩 ⌽ 共 q ⬘ 兲 典 .


ˆ , we define the kerIn the same way, for any operator O
nel O by
ˆ 兩⌽共 q ⬘ 兲典.
O共 q,q ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽ 共 q 兲 兩 O

A. Configuration mixing

兩 ⌿ k典 ⫽



Since the weight functions f k are not orthonormal, they
cannot be interpreted as collective wave functions for
the variable q. This role is assigned to the orthonormal
set of functions g k related to the f k ’s by the integral
g k共 q 兲 ⫽

dq ⬘ I 1/2共 q,q ⬘ 兲 f k 共 q ⬘ 兲 ,


where I 1/2(q,q ⬘ ) is the Hermitean square root of the
norm operator (see, for example, Reinhard and Goeke,
ˆ be1987), and the matrix element of any operator O
tween two GCM states can be expressed in terms of the
g k ’s as
ˆ 兩 ⌿ l典 ⫽
具 ⌿ k兩 O
˜ 共 q,q ⬘ 兲 ⫽



˜ 共 q,q ⬘ 兲 g l 共 q ⬘ 兲 , (79)
dqdq ⬘ g k* 共 q 兲 O

dq ⬙ dq ⵮ I 1/2共 q,q ⬙ 兲

⫻O共 q ⬙ ,q ⵮ 兲 I 1/2共 q ⵮ ,q ⬘ 兲 .


In particular, the GCM energies E k and functions g k are
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hermitian inte˜,
gral operator with kernel H

˜ 共 q,q ⬘ 兲 g k 共 q ⬘ 兲 ⫽E k g k 共 q 兲 .
dq ⬘ H


This is the starting point of the most commonly used
method for solving the Hill-Wheeler equation.
In practical applications of the generator coordinate
method, the family of states 兩 ⌽(q) 典 is known for only a
discrete set of values 兵 q i 其 , and Eqs. (73)–(81) transform
into a discrete approximation to the GCM, where kernels become matrices and the integral equation a matrix
b. Conservation of the nucleon numbers

Since the inclusion of pairing correlations is essential
for a realistic description of heavy nuclei, BCS or HFB
states appear as a natural choice for the GCM basis.
However, such states are not eigenvectors of the nucleon
number operators and have only expectation values of
ˆ and Z
ˆ equal to the neutron number N 0
the operators N
and the proton number Z 0 . As a consequence, the solutions 兩 ⌿ k 典 of the Hill-Wheeler equation (75) built from

h 共 x. i. The family of the wave functions 兩 ⌽(q) 典 is generated by the symmetry operations: rotation in coordinate space for angular momentum. Eq. In fact. 1978). Collective Schro¨dinger equation In the collective Schro¨dinger equation approximation. In these cases.. The canonical variable x gives a measure of the distance between different wave functions in terms of the overlaps between them. January 2003 ˆ ⫽⫺ H d 1 d B共 x 兲 ⫹V 共 x 兲 .x 兲 ⫽H共 x. one expects that an unconstrained variation of the weight functions f k will generate a ground state (and first excited state) with an average number of neutrons and protons larger than N 0 and Z 0 . the overlap kernel I(q. The collective Schro¨dinger equation is then written ˆ G k ⫽E k G k . since the binding energy increases with the average particle number. and Z c. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models ˆ and Z ˆ . Eq. nothing guarantees that their average nucleon number values will be equal to N 0 and Z 0 . Mod. 2. the Gaussian overlap approximation relies on the validity of an expansion quadratic in (x⫺x ⬘ ) for the reduced Hamiltonian kernel h(x. 1987).. Phys. Eqs.e. using Lagrange multipliers ␭ N and ␭ Z .q ⬘ ).140 Bender.q ⬘ 兲 ⯝IG 共 q. or parity transformation (in which case. defined in such a way that the overlap kernel. (82). cranking) in most cases. (83). ˆ which is a one introduces a collective Hamiltonian H second-order differential operator in the variable x: a. 再 冎 1 I共 q.x ⬘ 兲 I共 x.q ⬘ 兲 ⫽exp ⫺ 关x共q兲⫺x共q⬘兲兴2 . 1. 1980).x 兲 . the generating function f k (q) is determined a priori by the properties of the symmetry operator. they are called adiabatic time-dependent Hartree-Fock (adiabatic TDHF) approaches (Baranger and Ve´ne´roni. The generating function is unknown and determined by diagonalization of the Hill-Wheeler equation (81). These approximations are based on the rapid decrease of the matrix elements between wave functions corresponding to different values of the collective variable. is replaced by a Gaussian function of the form 再 冋 册冎 1 共q⫺q⬘兲 I共 q.x ⬘ 兲 ⫽ H共 x. (82) and (83). Due to their derivation from the time-dependent meanfield approach.x ⬘ ). Canonical collective variable It is sometimes convenient to introduce another collective variable x in the Gaussian overlap approximation. No. becomes a Gaussian function with a constant width (Ring and Schuck. For a review see Reinhard and Goeke (1987). FurtherBCS states are not eigenstates of N more. (85) while the function h 2 (x) can be determined from the second derivatives of the reduced kernel (Reinhard and Goeke. Rev. (96). are equivalent up to terms of the fourth order in q⫺q ⬘ . b. Gaussian overlap approximation It is thanks to approximations of the generator coordinate method that one can make links between microscopic models based on mean-field wave functions and collective models. The second category concerns any kind of shape degree of freedom. (82) whose width a is in general a function of the average GCM coordinate ¯q⫽(q⫹q ⬘ )/2. in which case the collective space is generated by constrained mean-field calculations. The correct average values of the particle numbers can be ˆ restored by means of two constraints involving the N ˆ operators. Heenen. 2 (83) Both approximations. h 0 共 x 兲 ⫽h 共 x. Gaussian overlap Hamiltonian kernel Along with the quadratic approximation for the function log I(x. They have been extensively used to determine simple rotational and vibrational corrections to mean-field results. Eq.x ⬘ 兲 ⯝h G 共 x.q ⬘ 兲 ⫽exp ⫺ 2 a共¯q兲 2 . Vol. 2 (84) The function h 0 (x) is equal to the Hartree-Fock energy along the collective path. respectively.x ⬘ ).x ⬘ 兲 1 ⫽h 0 共 ¯x 兲 ⫺ h 2 共 ¯x 兲共 x⫺x ⬘ 兲 2 . 75. octupole moment. The constraint is chosen intuitively (quadrupole moment. Choice of the collective coordinate Two families of choices can be made for the collective variable. H (87) . rotation in gauge space for particle number.q ⬘ 兲 ⯝IG 共 q. the mixing is discrete). d. Gaussian overlap kernel In the Gaussian overlap approximation. 1978. c. There exist systematic schemes to optimize the constraint variationally. The first category of applications of the generator coordinate method involves the restoration of broken symmetries. 2 dx dx (86) The quantity B(x) is the collective mass parameter and V(x) is the collective potential energy. Goeke and Reinhard.

Relationship between the collective Schro¨dinger equation and the Gaussian overlap approximation In most derivations which attempt a connection between the generator coordinate method and a Schro¨dinger equation. Variation before or after projection Starting from an HFB wave function 兩⌿典 with mixed particle numbers. 1. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models where G(x) is the normalized collective wave function. One must superpose all these equivalent wave functions to restore the symmetry. i. 兰 dx 兩 G(x) 兩 2 ⫽1. the Gaussian overlap approximation is introduced as an intermediate step.Z 兲 兩 H . Altogether. translationally invariant SCMF wave functions can be constructed only from plane waves.. the Gaussian overlap approximation requires a collective coordinate of Cartesian-type spanning the interval (⫺⬁. An alternative method based on the calculation of collective masses to the cranking approximation (Girod and Grammaticos. and the actual details are much simpler than in the general case because several features are determined by the given symmetry. (1990a).Z) 典 ˆ and Z ˆ with N neutrons and Z protons by acting on of N any wave function 兩⌿典 which still spans a variety of particle numbers: ˆ N Pˆ Z 兩 ⌿ 典 . 1987) based on Taylor expansions of the kernels. there are many collective coordinates with different topology.2. they can be treated with the generator coordinate method.141 Bender. Symmetry restoration Symmetries of the many-body state introduce relations between the single-particle wave functions. since the HFB wave function is determined a priori by the resolution of the HFB equations. 1.Z 兲 典 ⫽P (89) It can easily be checked that this operator extracts from 兩⌿典 a wave function with Z protons and N neutrons by writing the expansion of 兩⌿典 on a basis 兩 ⌽(N ⬘ . a rotationally invariRev. 1980. 1980).B. 1978. 具 ⌽ 共 N. b. the Hill-Wheeler equation (75) is formally equivalent to the differential equation (87). one can improve the performance of the approximation by properly implementing the topology of the collective coordinate into the model for the overlap (Reinhard. An appropriate treatment of dynamical features (associated with collective mass) is achieved by an extension to a two-parameter set of conjugate coordinates (q. There is no restoring force for symmetry reasons. Gozdz et al. Phys. 1985). They give the desired particle numbers N and Z only on average due to the constraints explained in Sec. Pˆ N ⫽ 1 2␲ 冕 2␲ 0 ˆ d ␾ N e i ␾ N (N ⫺N) . e. This is not satisfactory from a variational point of view because the PAV solution optimizes the mean field for a spread . Reinhard and Goeke. one introduces instead some approximation schemes (Girod and Gogny. 1989.p). A similar expression holds for proton number Z. 1992). These symmetry modes are a special case of collective motion.⫹⬁). More often. A self-consistent mean-field wave function necessarily breaks several symmetries of the nuclear Hamiltonian. This should not be confused with trivial modifications of the potential term arising from a change of variable in the Schro¨dinger equation (87). which obviously cannot be represented by a single independent-(quasi)particle state. B. As we have seen in the previous section.Z 兲 典 具 ⌽ 共 N. one obtains an eigenstate 兩 ⌽(N. General treatment BCS (or HFB) states are not eigenstates of the particle-number operator..Z 兲 兩 ⌽ 共 N. Ring and Schuck. f.. As a consequence. 1979) is frequently used to study the collective dynamics on top of potential energy surfaces calculated with the Gogny interaction (Girod et al. Mod. Particle-number projection a. A systematic study of this equivalence for one-dimensional problems has been made by Bonche et al. Thus they are associated with zero excitation energy and large-amplitude motion. January 2003 ant one must have spherical symmetry. Practically. 75. an SCMF solution is degenerate with respect to the SCMF wave functions generated by the symmetry operation that is broken.Z ⬘ ) 典 of wave functions with good neutron and proton numbers. Many-body states projected on good particle numbers (i. This allows the incorporation of a dynamical linear response and cranking masses into the approximation framework (Goeke and Reinhard.Z 兲 典 (90) This procedure is called a projection after variation (PAV). eigenstates of the particleˆ for protons and N ˆ for neutrons) number operators Z can be obtained from BCS or Bogoliubov wave functions with projection operators written as integrals over gauge angles.e. Vol. This is not surprising since. (88) where N stands here for the neutron number on which one projects. For such cases. 兩 ⌽ 共 N. However.. I. Extension of the generator coordinate method and the Gaussian overlap approximation There are several refinements of this straightforward method. Heenen. No. such as the rotational angle which is defined on a unit sphere. 1976. It is known that the collective potential V(x) differs from the Hartree-Fock energy h 0 (x) by a quantity called the zero-point-motion correction. one can construct a wave function with well-defined particle numbers by acting with Pˆ N Pˆ Z and calculating the resulting energy: E k⫽ ˆ 兩 ⌽ 共 N.e. For example. within the Gaussian overlap approximation..

. An eigenstate with eigenvalue J is obtained by projecting the mean-field wave function 兩⌿典: 兩 ⌽. This Routhian has the same where 具 ⌬N form as if a constraint on the dispersion in particle number had been introduced. Pradhan et al. This distinction between PAV and VAP applies to any symmetry restoration discussed in this subsection. A widely used scheme is the Lipkin-Nogami approach (Lipkin.. One optimizes. 75. The operator Pˆ MK not a projector in the mathematical sense (Ring and Schuck. ␥ ) are the Euler angles and R ˆ ˆ ˆ ⬅e i ␣ J z e i ␤ J y e i ␥ J z is the rotation operator. 1982b) and Sheikh and Ring (2000) for the general formalism and Anguiano et al. projectors onto angular momentum J with projection M along the laboratory z axis. Egido and Ring (1982a. respectively. Anguiano et al. 1960.. Phys. for example.JM 典 ⫽ J 兩⌿典 兺K g K Pˆ MK 冑兺 K . Heenen. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models of particle numbers. Mod. Rotation tends to align the spin of the nucleons along the rotation axis and therefore to decrease the pairing correlations which favor pairs of nucleons with opposite spins (see. 1980). (93) J ˆ KK 兩 g K兩 具 ⌿ 兩 P 兩⌿典 2 where the projector is given by Ring and Schuck (1980): J ˆ MK ⫽ P 2J⫹1 8␲2 冕 J ˆ 共 ⍀ 兲. (1999). The Lipkin-Nogami prescription Full projection is difficult. For a thorough discussion of the Lipkin-Nogami method and other approximations to VAP see Flocard and Onishi (1997) and Balian et al. January 2003 ␭ 2⫽ ˆ 2 ⫺ 具 ⌬N ˆ 2 典 兲 ‹⫺ 具 H ˆ ⌬N ˆ 典具 ⌬N ˆ 3 典 / 具 ⌬N ˆ 2典 ˆ 共 ⌬N ŠH . Principle of the method Deformed mean-field states are not eigenstates of the total angular momentum. However. (92). c. No. 1. the content of correct particle number ˆ 兩 ⌿ 典 ⫽N and 具 ⌿ 兩 Z ˆ 兩 ⌿ 典 ⫽Z at least on by choosing 具 ⌿ 兩 N ˆ 2兩 ⌿ 典 the average. de Voigt et al. Wave functions with good angular momentum and particle numbers are obtained by restoration of symmetry on 兩 ⌿(q) 典 : 兩 ⌽. one can define kernels for a projected generator coordinate calculation as ˆ 兩 ⌽JMq ⬘ 典 . but with a nonzero dispersion 具 ⌿ 兩 N 2 ⫺N ⬎0. Angular momentum projection a. 2000b). of course. For a given angular frequency. generating a sudden phase transition and sharp peaks in the the moment of inertia incompatible with the data. 2000b.. Zheng et al. Fast rotating nuclei are a clear example of the weakness of a mean-field description.. (96) . neutron J is number N. the pairing breaks down.] The Lipkin-Nogami prescription amounts to modifying the energy E by adding the second-order Kamlah correction (Kamlah. 1980. the coefficient ␭ 2 is not a Lagrange multiplier. namely. Valor et al. The need for VAP is obvious in several practical applications where continuous trends with collective parameters are studied.q ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽JMq 兩 ⌽JMq ⬘ 典 . ˆ 2典 . Rutz. These sudden transitions are a particular feature of mean-field models. The associated equations have been tested to provide a good numerical approximation of the VAP in situations where both the HFB and the BCS equations predict a collapse of the pairing correlations. Casten. The modification of the HFB equations associated with the Lipkin-Nogami prescription is obtained by a restricted ˆ 2 典 . 兺K g JK Pˆ MK (95) J where N is a normalization factor. (76) to projected wave functions. and Pˆ Z are. It is obviously an improvement to perform the variation of the projected HFB wave function.. 1973). Vol. all these components must be mixed and the coefficients g JK determined by a minimization of the energy. et al. 1983. 1992. ␭ 2 is not varied although variation of ␭ 2 具 ⌬N its value is calculated self-consistently using Eq. Thus one often employs approximate schemes for particle-number projection. 2. Pˆ N . and one can show that it depends on the wave function and the Hamiltonian: Rev. and proton number Z. 1961. 1964. including adjacent nuclei. 1968) to the energy. See. 1993).q ⬘ 兲 ⫽ 具 ⌽JMq 兩 H IJM 共 q. HJM 共 q. Such a calculation is called a variation after projection (VAP) calculation. * 共 ⍀ 兲R d⍀D MK (94) ˆ (⍀) where ⍀⬅( ␣ . the best approach is VAP on correct particle number (Ring and Schuck. Szymanski. Since K is not a good quantum number. (2001b) for a recent application using the Gogny force.. ␤ . To cure this deficiency while retaining the quality and the simplicity of a mean-field description. It extracts from an intrinsic wave function the component with a projection K along the intrinsic z axis of the nucleus.. [See the recent studies of model systems without rotation (Dobaczewski and Nazarewicz.142 Bender. 1992) and with rotation (Magierski et al. and the references cited therein. for example. Pˆ MK . E→E⫺␭ 2 具 ⌬N (91) ˆ 2典 ⫽ 具 N ˆ 2典 ⫺ 具 N ˆ 典 2 . Nogami. ˆ 4 典 ⫺ 具 ⌬N ˆ 2 典 2 ⫺ 具 ⌬N ˆ 3 典 2 / 具 ⌬N ˆ 2典 具 ⌬N (92) A consistent application of the Lipkin-Nogami prescription in connection with SCMF methods requires us to take the full effective interaction in the calculation of ␭ 2 (Bender. 1990). 1983. the more so if used in connection with VAP. 2001b).JMq 典 ⫽ 1 N J Pˆ Z Pˆ N 兩 ⌿ 共 q 兲 典 . but are unrealistic in finite systems. Generalizing Eq.

d below. Fink et al. 143 (97) where the indices l (left) and r (right) refer to the meanfield single-particle states of the bra and the ket. 2001). There are many applications using schematic interactions in reduced model spaces (see.*␮ 共 r. 1983.. between projected states. c. Scheid and Greiner. and Bonche. ␯ 共 r. An improved recipe can be drawn from a topologically corrected generator coordinate method. or the recent Hartree-Fock mass formulas (Tondeur et al.. There is a subtle problem with the density dependence of the interaction. The projection of the mean-field state 兩 ⌿ 典 onto good center-of-mass momentum zero reads 兩 ⌽(Pcm⫽0) 典 ⫽ 兰 d 3 R exp关⫺(i/ប)R•Pˆcm兴 兩 ⌿ 典 . after integration on the Euler angles.2 and Reinhard (1978). it is assumed that the singleparticle bases on which 兩 ⌿(q) 典 and 兩 ⌿(q ⬘ ) 典 are expanded are either complete or truncated in such a way that they span the same space. Rotational projection is not needed for spherical nuclei. Therefore.. Hara et al. Calculation of multipole moments and transition probabilities Besides the overlap and Hamiltonian kernels. one has to restore the symmetries on only one of the two wave functions entering in each matrix element like Eq. 75. 1980). This problem can be solved by taking into account that the missing part of the expansion of the left states on the right basis includes empty states that do not affect the structure of the nucleus.A. Phys. Goriely et al. (98) where J is the moment of inertia.. 1982. Heenen.e. Samyn et al. This correction is employed in most deformation energy studies with the Gogny force.Bender. 2002). It is valid for well-developed deformation. No. (2000a. The kernels are obtained by integration on three Euler angles and two gauge angles of the matrix elements between rotated wave functions. This property is not valid when orbitals are discretized on a three-dimensional mesh (Bonche et al. Enami et al. for example. Transition probabilities require the calculation of the M matrix elements of a tensor of order L. restoration of rotational symmetry permits one to calculate spectroscopic quadrupole moments and transition probabilities directly in the laboratory frame of reference. 1996) have also applied this method for the calculation of E3 transition moments employing the Gogny force and collective wave functions obtained from the Gaussian overlap approximation of the generator coordinate method. 1957. 1996). 1968. (1994) and Egido et al. Center-of-mass projection The mean field is localized in space. January 2003 ␳ 共 r兲 ⫽ 兺 ␮ ␯␴ 具 a ⫹ b 典 ␮ ␯ ⌽ l. The energy is then expressed as a functional of left and right wave functions similar to the mean-field functional. Rotational correction as approximate projection Applying a full angular momentum projection as described above is cumbersome. However. but fails for nuclei close to sphericity. It is thus desirable to develop particularly simple schemes for this case. Recent applications for E2 transitions based on complete self-consistent models are those of Valor et al.2. the Hamiltonians kernel can be expressed in terms of the mixed density (Bonche et al.B.. Kamlah. one can show that the mixed density depends only on the relative angles between the principal axes of both wave functions.. VAP is preferable to PAV because VAP restores full Galilean invariance (Ring and Schuck. the energy is real and does not depend on the orientation of the reference frame. They can correspond either to a collective variable like the quadrupole moment or to a rotation for symmetry restoration. 2000c. Density dependence of the effective interactions The density-dependent term of the interaction must be generalized to calculate nondiagonal matrix elements. In the derivation above. Tˆ L . The same dependence on the mixed density can also be chosen when there is no equivalence with a three-body interaction. It .. an exact projection is numerically expensive (Marcos et al. b. The recipe can be derived from Gaussian overlap approximation to rotational projection. for ␣ ⫽1 in the ansatz (50). Various schemes for approximating the full projection have been proposed (see. 2002) using the Gogny force. for example. (1992.. 3. 1984). Vol. It will be addressed in Sec. These states are defined by the condition v ␮ ⫽0 and contribute neither to the overlap nor to the contractions (Valor. This violates translational invariance. Particle-number projection is unnecessary for closed shells. Assuming axial symmetry. 1.. Mod. III. 2000).. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Since the Hamiltonian is rotationally invariant and conserves the number of particles. see Sec. 1968. 2000. ␴ 兲 ⌽ r. Solving the secular equation for the configuration mixing (96) amounts to a VAP in a many-body Hilbert space built on a limited set of states obtained for different values of the collective variables q ⬘ . One can thus restore symmetries on either the left or the right wave function. III. (2000b) using Skyrme interactions and Rodriguez-Guzma´n et al. 1994). A very simple approximation is provided by the rotational correction E rot⫽⫺ 具 Jˆ2 典 2J . For spatial rotations. d. (96). Villars. And this is probably the most important case of symmetry breaking. i. Heenen. 1972). But center-of-mass projection is compulsory under all conditions. In the case of a density dependence equivalent to a three-body interaction. 2001. ␴ 兲 . Sun et al. one has to take into account only the K⫽0 term. 1990a): Rev. and also some recent studies with Skyrme forces done by Baran and Ho¨henberger (1995. which has to be restored by projection onto good center-of-mass momentum. 2000b. 1990a) or expanded on different oscillator bases (Robledo.. 2000.

which is a fit to values of tion E cm the full correction for selected nuclei calculated with the Skyrme interaction Z ␴ . The off2 diagonal matrix elements of Pˆcm . like L1.. An alternative that is often used for Skyrme forces is to consider the diagonal (direct) terms of Eq. This means that the density distribution is folded by a Gaussian of that width and needs to be unfolded to access the intrinsic density [see Reinhard (1989. This scheme is used for most Skyrme interactions like SIII. omiting the center-of-mass correction in the variational equations. dir Therefore E cm overestimates E cm and exhibits an incorrect trend with respect to A. When applied in VAP. E cm contributes an additional term to the equations of motion but the Hartree-Fock equations can be solved as usual. but adding Eq. have nearly the same size as the diagonal ones. Such a formula can be derived analytically for harmonic-oscillator states. NL1. Heenen. et al. (99)] in the variational procedure. one obtains E cm 3 ⫺1/3 ⫽⫺ 4 41 A MeV. C. For HFB states the mean field becomes state dependent. Vol. As a consequence. the difference between the ‘‘exact’’ value of Eq. the Skyrme forces of Tondeur. i. 2000a). Eq. 1991). all forces using simple approximations for E cm have significantly larger surface coefficients than those using the full correction. which complicates the solution of the mean-field equations for Skyrme forces.2 A ⫺1/5 MeV. a similar correction in the second order Gaussian overlap approximation needs to be applied to all other observables too. (99) a posteriori when calculating the binding energy. This leads to differences in the deformation energy which are particularly pronounced for superdeformed states and fission barriers (Bender. This can be used to step to the next mean-field state by the self-consistent one-body Schro¨dinger equation. This may induce in the forces an incorrect trend with respect to A which becomes visible in the nuclear matter properties. Therefore most applications avoid VAP or use simpler approximations. 75. The same expression (99) is obtained by the introduction of ‘‘redundant coordinates’’ when going from the laboratory frame to center-of-mass and intrinsic coordinates. The recipe contains the center-of-mass energy which guarantees consistency with the energy correction. iប ⳵ ˆ 共 t 兲兩 ⌽共 t 兲典 . Results are fair for 16O and quite good above A⬇40 (Schmid and Reinhard.e. This allows us to derive a simple expression for a center-of-mass correction to the energy to second order in Pˆcm . Rev. E cm⫽⫺ 2 具 Pˆcm 典 2mA . The extension to a time-dependent mean-field theory is formally straightforward: a given mean-field state 兩 ⌽(t) 典 at a certain instant of time t uniquely defines a one-body density matrix ␳ˆ (t). (99) only. but opposite sign. (1984) have suggested correcting for this by multiplying Eq. such as the Gogny forces or the Skyrme interactions SLy6 and SLy7 (Chabanat et al. Time-dependent mean-field approaches 1. E cm is positive and has to be subtracted from the energy functional to obtain the total binding energy. however. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models turns out that the overlaps between translated wave functions fall off very quickly and that the Gaussian overlap approximation is particularly well adapted for that case..144 Bender. and TM2. or E cm during the fit of an effective interaction. for example. With an oscillator constant osc taken from the Nilsson model. 1998). (100) The formula is usually applied with VAP. Few effective interactions have been adjusted with the center-of-mass correction [Eq. 1991) and Eq. The Gaussian overlap approximation improves with increasing mass number A. (105)]. Mod. The simplest PAV scheme is to use a fixed formula for E cm . Rutz. see Ring and Schuck (1980) and Dietrich (1996) for details. The (localized) mean-field state contains spurious center-of-mass vibrations with a width ⌬ 2 r cm 2 ⫽1/(4 具 Pˆcm ) 典 ⫽1/(8mAE cm). the relative contribution of the center-of-mass correction to the total binding energy is largest for very small nuclei. This is used for many relativistic mean-field forces like NL-SH. For Hartree-Fock states without pairing. use the approximafit ⬇⫺17. and with it the corresponding mean-field Hamiltonian (see Sec. No. This is done. Time-dependent Hartree-Fock (Bogoliubov) Stationary mean-field models are tuned to describe ground-state properties. The effect on the charge density can be easily explained. It describes the energy of states with spurious center-of-mass vibrations that are contained in the mean-field state. In all a posteriori correction schemes. and that is what densityfunctional theory is designed for. where t⫽( 23 A) 1/3. Phys. or generalized density matrix R(t). Other forces in this family. dir osc fit When using E cm . for the Skyrme forces SkI1SkI5 and the relativistic-mean field forces NL-Z. An alternative is PAV. 兩 ⌽ 共 t 兲 典 ⫽H ⳵t (101) .B). January 2003 dir E cm ⫽ 1 2mA 兺k v k2 p k2 ⫽⫺ ប2 2mA 冕 dr ␶ 0 共 r兲 . and TM1. (99) and the approximation is compensated by the force. E cm . (99) where Pˆcm⫽ 兺 k pˆk is the sum of the single-particle momentum operators. (100) by f(A)⫽2/(t⫹1/3t). I. The center-of-mass correction decreases with A and vanishes for infinite nuclear matter. and SLy4. NL3. (99) automatically corrects all observables. NL-Z2. Since the total binding energy increases with A.. 1. These can be expressed through the isoscalar local kinetic density ␶ 0 . SkP. SkM* .. Butler et al. The contribution from the center-of-mass correction to the (nonrelativistic) equations of motion has the same structure as the kinetic term and leads to a renormalization of the nucleon mass 1/m → (1/m) 关 1⫺ (1/A) 兴 . PL-40.

one is interested mostly in a few key data such as the peak position of a giant resonance. Hagino and Sagawa (2001).e. et al.A. 1992b). There is a large body of literature on this topic and there exist many different notations for the RPA equations and techniques to solve them. No. The ab initio foundation of TDDFT is still a matter of debate (Gross et al. R ˆ ⌿ the genwhere H eralized density matrix. In the end. These are necessarily harmonic oscillations. Mod. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models The solution of this equation conserves the energy E if it ˆ was is evaluated with the same expression from which H derived.. In nuclear dynamics. (12). 1953). Inserting this ansatz into Eq. its practioners are using it heavily for a large variety of applications. Vol. and Cusson. which was discussed in Secs. (1996) for discussions of general aspects of TDHF. and Reinhard and Gambhir (1992) or in the abovementioned books. ␦ H in the last term in Eq. Onida et al. and Abe et al. 1994). one has to replace H commutators in Eq.1 and III. (101) and expanding up to order ␩ 1 yields (Reinhard and Gambhir. and the trace is taken over ˆ and the commutator. Quentin and Flocard (1978). Even simpler and sufficient for first surveys are sum-rule approaches (for a review. As H ond derivative of the energy functional (see. (103) select those two-quasiparticle or one-particle/one-hole states that contribute to a given excitation mode. and Matsuo (2001). 2. for example.. (2002) or Calvayrac et al. (1982). Eq. is usually called the residual interaction and determines the properties of the excited ˆ . We consider here limiting cases which allow us to compute nuclear excitation properties. (1999). This scheme is called time-dependent densityfunctional theory (TDDFT) in the realm of electronic density functionals (Runge and Gross.C ˆ k⫹ 兴 ⫹tr ប ␻ kC 再 ˆ ␦H ˆ ␦R ˆ k⫹ . Bertsch and Tsai. Phys. for example.R ˆ ⌿兴 关C Rev. Ring and Schuck (1980). 1988. Balian and Ve´ne´roni (1986. There is an intriguing conceptual problem in connection with energy functionals. 1979). has been much less often used. The other important limiting case is smallamplitude motion which accesses the regime of the nuclear giant resonances. (1985) and Vretenar et al. Shlomo and Bertsch (1975) and Cavinato et al. Reinhard (1992b). See. See. (103). For recent examples see Engel et al. Stringari (1983). Quasiparticle random-phase approximation The starting point for deriving the quasiparticle random-phase approximation (quasiparticle RPA) is the TDHFB equation (101). Eq. It is closely related to the generator coordinate method and the microscopic derivation of a Bohr Hamiltonian (Goeke and Reinhard. 1992) 冉 ˆ k⫹ 兩 ⌿ 典 ⫽ 关 H ˆ . Equation (103) is an eigenvalue equation for the mode k. i. 1987). Similarly. (12). A first step is a reduction to a fluid dynamics formulation in terms of local densities and currents. (103) 145 ˆ is the HFB Hamiltonian. this boils down to a secˆ ⫽ ␦ E/ ␦ R states. Molitoris. and Flocard (1989). Negele (1982).. 兩 ⌽ k 典 ⫽ 共 1⫹ ␩ e ⫺iប ␻ k t C (102) ˆ k⫹ creates a superposition of two-quasiparticle where C states (one-particle/one-hole states in the case of TDHF) on top of the mean-field ground state 兩⌿典. for example. or TDHFB in the case of pairing.e. 75. It will be discussed in the next section. Heenen. We have chosen here the equations-ofmotion technique of Rowe (1970). Goeke and Reinhard (1982). (1993) for dynamics with the relativistic mean-field method. But most RPA calculations ignore that and discretize the continuum. 1978). 1975. RPA tacitly assumes requantization of linearized TDHF and this requantization generates RPA correlations in the underlying . corresponding to the mean-field ground state. The RPA calculations are usually very involved due to the large one-particle/one-hole spaces required. For more details about the various approaches. (1985) for TDHF with Skyrme forces. Davies et al. Eq. Bertsch and Tsai (1975).. Thus there exist several approaches to simplifying RPA calculations for delivering just these few key quantities. The contribution from the effective inˆ /␦R ˆ teraction to the quasiparticle RPA equation. (8c). and Bertsch and Broglia (1994). Auerbach et al. 1. Reinhard and Goeke. January 2003 冎冊 兩⌿典. for example. while ␩ is a small number. which provides the most compact formulation. Rowe (1970). i. Kerman (1977). III. (1990). (2001). The wave function 兩 ⌽ k 典 of the excited states k can then be written in the form ˆ k⫹ 兲 兩 ⌿ 典 . and Gleissl et al. This linearized TDDFT is called the random-phase approximation (RPA) due to its first derivation with diagrammatic techniques (Bohm and Pines. 1991). The RPA is the basic theory of nuclear excitations in the regime of giant resonances. A thorough discussion of these large-scale applications goes beyond the scope of this review. for example. The pairing. One considers small oscillations about the stationary mean-field ground state 兩⌿典. There also exist schemes in which the continuum is treated correctly. See. see Ripka and Porneuf (1975). Bertsch and Stricker (1976). 1978. the quasiparticle RPA.2. The form is also suggestive as it resembles the commutator algebra of coupled harmonic oscillators. Reinhard. See. there are applications of TDHF in nuclear and heavy-ion dynamics. The generalization of the RPA which includes pairing.Bender. Nonetheless.A. for example. it is known as time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF). see Bohigas et al. Holzwarth and Eckart (1978). Reinhard. In case of TDHF without ⳵/⳵R ˆ by hˆ and R ˆ by ␳ˆ . (2000) for examples from metallic clusters. Further details about an actual numerical implementation of RPA in nuclei can be found in the articles of Bertsch (1991). One should take into account that the excitation energies of giant resonances reach the particle continuum. The lowenergy regime of surface vibrations and fission is reached by adiabatic TDHF (Baranger and Ve´ne´roni. The eigenfrequency of the eigenmode k is ␻ k . 1984).. see.

Higher orders are more efficient in 3D (Bonche et al. The simplest scheme is the gradient step downhill in the energy landscape of the Hilbert space of the single-particle wave functions. Finite differences exist at various orders of approximation. Depending on the symmetry. of which finite elements are a special case. The saturation properties of nuclear matter allow the use of equidistant grid points. 1996). for example. 1994.. The alternative to basis expansions are grid techniques in which the wave functions and fields are represented on a grid in coordinate space. Less simple is the representation of the kinetic energy. Recomputation of the RPA correlation would mean double counting them. a transformed oscillator basis can be tailored to accommodate the proper asymptotic behavior of the density (see Stoitsov et al. IV. an axial 2D. The optimum choice depends on the dimensionality. Gradient techniques are not immediately applicable to the relativistic mean-field models because the solutions would search the minimum energy in the (forbidden) Fermi-sea states. January 2003 to compute overlap matrix elements. Mod. see. Most codes proceed in the quasiparticle basis (see. this can be a radial 1D.. (1992). The technique is particularly advantageous if the nonlocal exchange operator is taken explicitly into account as is done for the Gogny force (Girod and Grammaticos. Terasaki et al. 1970). 1979. No. Ring and Schuck (1980). Coordinate-space grids are well suited for self-consistent mean-field models which employ local densities.. is to ignore the RPA correlations (because they are supposed to be contained in the energy functional) and to consider only RPA excitations. The Fourier technique is best suited to Cartesian 3D grids. 1985).. and Reinhard (1991) for a detailed 1D Skyrme Hartree-Fock code. For a recent detailed example of an application see Dobaczewski and Dudek (2000). Two different schemes are used: basis expansions and grid techniques. for which there are powerful analytical methods to compute all conceivable matrix elements (Wong. It always yields the best possible approximation to momentum and the kinetic-energy operator. 2000 for Skyrme Hartree-Fock applications). Reasonably sized and pertinent correlations for radii have been obtained in RPA calculations using limited spaces of one-particle/one-hole states (Reinhard and Drechsel. Various approximations can be chosen here: Fourier representation or finitedifference formulas at various orders. 1984. The correlation effects become very large and sometimes even diverge when computed in unlimited configuration space. 1982. It is also very expensive to accommodate the extreme shapes which occur during fission. 2000). or a Cartesian 3D grid. Phys. This makes the coding simple and intuitive. This yields a compact representation. 1995). The HFB equation can be solved in any of the three bases introduced in Sec. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models ground state. 1998 for relativistic mean-field methods and Stoitsov et al. For example. There are various options to improve the speed of this scheme: energy-selective step size (equivalent to preconditioning in numerical analysis. On the other hand. Reinhard et al. Dobaczewski et al. There are attempts to cure these defects. Blum et al. Barranco and Broglia. An alternative choice is a basis composed of the natural orbitals. while lower orders are preferable for 1D radial problems... the Hartree-Fock and the canonical bases (Gall et al. 1983). For a discussion see Blum et al. The advantage of this scheme is that basis states are presorted according to their approximate energy. Representations The practical solution of the mean-field equations starts with an appropriate numerical representation of single-particle wave functions. 1996). the energy functional was constructed to incorporate the correlations already. the zero-range nature of the Skyrme force (and the short range of relativistic meanfield and Gogny forces) is badly tuned to that task.B. Basis expansions usually employ harmonicoscillator wave functions. however. B. Vretenar. More efficient are direct iteration schemes. which are particularly simple to handle. where the fast Fourier transformation can be exploited either directly or via resummation in coordinate space (Baye and Heenen.2. for example. Algorithms The actual solution of self-consistent mean-field equations can only proceed iteratively. this generates a density-dependent basis.. which is very efficient (Mu¨hlhans et al.. 75.. 1. 1986). Older schemes solve the mean-field equations for given potentials by diagonalization and update the mean-field potentials according to the new densities from the new wave functions. A scheme well adapted to 3D grid techniques and to the use of different interactions in the mean-field and pairing channels relies on the use of a double basis. 1984).. 1992) or the conjugate gradient step (Egido et al..146 Bender. 1997) but requires a careful tuning of the iteration scheme (Tajima. The densities and potentials are given immediately on the grid without the need Rev.. A further alternative for computing the kinetic energy is a representation using basis splines (Kegley et al. Reinhard and Friedrich. densities. and fields. A particular problem is the computation of the longrange Coulomb potential. The disadvantage is that the oscillator basis is composed of tightly bound states which asymptotically decrease too rapidly. The expansion thus becomes very slowly converging if one has to describe weakly bound states or even continuum states. However. Heenen. 1985). I. The issue is usually attacked . Moreover. The usual practice. Reinhard and Cusson. 1989). A stable iteration can be achieved by mapping the Dirac equation onto an effective Schro¨dinger equation for the upper component of the Dirac wave function (Reinhard. TECHNICALITIES A. 1985. as is required for exotic nuclei. This technique is advantageous in connection with nonequidistant grids and involved boundary conditions. For an example in the relativistic mean-field model see Po¨schl. and Ring (1997). Vol.

PARAMETRIZATIONS A. for example.B. in terms of form factors. V. Such unstable (but physically interesting) regimes can be stabilized by iterative techniques (Cusson. i. For details see Appendix B. The nucleon form factors are taken from nucleon scattering data. the bulk properties of finite nuclei. and G M the magnetic form factor of the nucleons (assumed to be equal for both species). 1982). Energies The total binding energy of a nucleus is the most immediate observable in self-consistent mean-field models. as there is always one direction in which the contribution from the constraint to the single-particle potential becomes negative as r→⬁. We discuss this here in detail for the case of Skyrme Hartree-Fock methods. We do not discuss them here because dynamics is not the main topic of this review. No problem of that sort exists for cranking constraints. ␴⫽ 冉 冊 F box共 k m 兲 2 ln .1. Charge form factor and radii The nuclear charge density is a useful observable for analyzing nuclear structure. Constraints may drive the system towards an unstable solution as. The diffraction radius parametrizes the overall diffraction pattern. It depends only on k⫽ 兩 k兩 for spherical systems.B.q ⫹F ls. (1995). in the calculation of a fission barrier where the potential-energy surface has negative curvature. and the key features of nuclear matter. I. The actual nuclear form factor decreases faster than the box form factor F box . This will be discussed in Sec. (107) which is determined from the first zero of the form factor F ch(k (1) 0 )⫽0. .. with ␮ q being the magnetic moment of the nucleon.. See.493 k (1) 0 . In the case of an oscillator expansion the Coulomb potential can be mapped onto a sum of Gaussian potentials. F ch共 0 兲 k→0 dk (106) the (first) diffraction radius. see. which is similar to that of a sphere of radius R. Additionally. VI where results are discussed. January 2003 2. and a large variety of solution schemes exist for RPA. Further considerations must be taken into account for dynamical mean-field calculations. Both are used as phenomenological input to adjust effective forces.3). The single-particle energies ⑀ k are given by diagonalization of the single-particle Hamiltonian hˆ . 1.B. III. Observables We present in this subsection the most prominent observables that are closely related to mean-field models. Rev. No. and the basic properties of the models are discussed in terms of these observables. Special care has to be taken in dealing with the long-range part. which is then solved with the standard techniques of the basis expansion. which we shall assume for what follows. their interpretation is not trivial. (105) where F ls. G E. km F ch共 k m 兲 (108) See Friedrich and Vo¨gler (1982) for more details. Mod. one has to take into account that the nucleons themselves have an intrinsic electromagnetic structure (Friar and Negele. Most of the information contained in the form factor at low momentum can be described by three parameters. which stabilizes any solution. However. V. r rms⫽ 冑 ⫺ d2 3 lim 2 F ch共 k 兲 . An alternative is to use a quadratic constraint (see Sec. F q 共 k兲 ⫽ 冕 d 3 re ik"r␳ q 共 r兲 . In fact. et al. for example. R⫽ 4. Folding becomes a simple product in Fourier space. but has to be complemented by corrections for spurious motion. Rutz et al.e. Other observables will be introduced as necessary in Sec. the form factor is closer to experiment than the charge density because it represents directly in Born approximation the amplitude for scattering at momentum transfer បk. 1.n 其 . constraints on multipole moments have to be damped at large distances. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models by solving the Poisson equation with similar iterative techniques to those mentioned above. It is naturally provided by the numerical solution of the mean-field equations. such as energy and density distribution. The exponential factor takes into account an unfolding of the spurious vibrations of the nuclear center of mass in harmonic approximation (see Sec. Vol. (104) where again q苸 兵 p.. Reinhard.3). Heenen. In order to compute the charge density from mean-field results. Observables for pairing are a bit more involved and will be discussed separately in Sec. for example.147 Bender.q G M 兲 exp 冉 冊 ប 2k 2 2 8 具 Pˆcm 典 . which still aim at a stable minimum in the cranked potential landscape.B. Phys. Constraints also require special consideration. It provides information about the nuclear shape and is determined by elastic electron scattering (Friedrich and Vo¨gler.q is the electric form factor. This is the so-called ‘‘box equivalent’’ radius. The charge form factor is composed as F ch共 k 兲 ⫽ 兺q 共 F q G E. Strayer.q is the form factor of ⵜ•Jq augmented by a factor ␮ q /(4m 2 ). 1985). Thus one needs to fold the proton and neutron densities in with the intrinsic charge density of the nucleons. 75. (1976) and Lauritsch and Reinhard (1994). 1975). Maruhn et al. the root-mean-square radius r rms . Various propagation techniques are used for full TDHF. VI. and the surface thickness.

eq It corresponds to the curvature at the minimum and is related to breathing modes like the giant monopole resonance (Blaizot.74 fm2 and r n2 ⫽⫺0. One usually ends up with information on the neutron mean-square radius 具 r 2 典 n . The calculation of the charge rms radius from the full charge form factor is very cumbersome for deformed nuclei. Infinite nuclear matter properties at large asymmetry are key ingredients for the description of neutron stars. see Bender. (1997). Haensel et al. 1989).117 fm2 are the charge mean-square radii of the free proton and neutron. 1976). 1998). The actual values of INM properties are given in Table III below. (1972) and Chabanat et al. It describes the leading contributions (volume terms) to nuclear properties. Further INM properties are connected to basic features of the excitations of finite nuclei. Mod. More general systems are asymmetric ( ␳ 1 ⫽0).. et al. No. It couples predominantly to the strong interaction. Many applications simplify this further by considering the first two terms only and then using r p2 ⫽0. The last term gives the contribution from the spin-orbit charge distribution. Useful complementary information is contained in the neutron distribution which. (111) ␳ 0. however. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models F box共 k 兲 ⫽3 j 1共 k mR 兲 with k m ⫽5. 75. See. which are considered as useful pseudo-observables sometimes Rev. The isoscalar density ␳ 0 is then the only remaining degree of freedom...16 fm⫺3 . It can be easily computed theoretically from a given neutron distribution. The charge distribution is mostly sensitive to the proton distribution. Thus all sorts of medium corrections need to be taken into account (Batty et al. A stability criterion for spin-isospin polarized neutron matter. derived by Kutschera and Wo´jcik (1994). Friedrich and Reinhard. is not directly accessible in experiment. Vol. This suggests the introduction of a nuclear halo parameter 冑 35 R 2 ⫹3 ␴ 2 ⫺r rms which is found to be a relevant measure of the outer surface diffuseness (Mizutori et al. 1995.. The Helm model establishes a fixed relation between these three key parameters of the nuclear charge distri2 bution: r rms ⫽ 53 R 2 ⫹3 ␴ 2 . An analysis of the breathing mode data has to take into account the interplay of the incompressibility with the surface and symmetry energy (Yoshida et al. where j 1 is the spherical Bessel function. ␳ 1 ⫽s0 ⫽s1 ⫽0. 1975. (1989) and Chabanat et al.e. and spin-isospin polarized (s1 ⫽0) matter. Dobaczewski. The Helm model assumes that the nuclear surface is obtained by folding the box distribution with a Gaussian. often called the equation of state. (1997): 2 r rms ⫽ 具 r 2 典 p ⫹r p2 ⫹ N 2 1 ប r ⫹ Z n Z mc 兺n v n2 ␮ q.148 Bender. polarized (s0 ⫽0). ␳ 0.e. 1986. has its minimum (E/A) eq ⬇⫺16 MeV at saturation density ␳ 0. Most works on polarized INM rely on the interpretation of the Skyrme functional as the Hartree-Fock expectation value of a two-body force.n共 ␴ˆ •ᐉˆ 兲 n . and r p2 ⫽0. (1997) for a discussion at the mean-field level. exp(⫺ 21 q2␴2) (Helm. (2002). (1995). 1956). The symmetry energy coefficient is related to the isovector curvature at the saturation point by a sym⫽ 1 ␦2 E 2 ␦ ␳ 21 ␳ 0 冏 . 1998) and with anharmonicity effects (Stocker and Chossy. for example. where ␮ q. the change of the mean-square radius relative to a reference nucleus with charge number Z 0 . has even been used by Chabanat et al. 1998). which leads to an axially deformed Fermi surface (Haensel and Da¸browski. Da¸browski and Haensel. January 2003 used to adjust the parameters of effective interactions. Infinite nuclear matter Homogeneous infinite nuclear matter (INM) is a widely used model system for studying and characterizing effective interactions. The more general energy-functional approach permits us to relax many dependencies among the properties of polarized and unpolarized INM. 1. The energy per particle E/A⫽E/ ␳ 0 .. 2 3.eq⬇0. From the theoretical side. i. (1997. It allows us to determine the surface parameter ␴ by comparing the height of the first maximum of the box equivalent form factor and of the mean-field result F ch .eq (113) .eq Isoscalar and isovector effective masses are calculated from the single-particle energies ␧ k in INM as m * (k) ⫽k/( ⳵ k ␧). respectively.. This yields. Phys. Nuclear matter a. K ⬁ is determined by the density dependence of the effective interaction (Blaizot et al. A simple approximation is provided by Bertozzi et al. The incompressibility at the saturation point K ⬁ is given by K ⬁ ⫽9 ␳ 20 ␦2 E ␦ ␳ 20 ␳ 0 冏 . 1980). A very detailed discussion of asymmetric INM in the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method is given by Chabanat et al. (112) ␳ 0. i. see also Blaizot et al. ប2 2m T* ⫽ ប2 ␦ E ⫹ 2m ␦ ␶ T ␳ 0 冏 . for nonrelativistic models.64 fm2 . (110) where 具 r 典 p is the mean-square radius of the pointproton distribution..6/R k mR (109) due to the finite surface thickness of nuclei. Heenen.. A related quantity that is directly accessible by experiment and sometimes used in model fitting is the isotopic 2 shift of charge mean-square radii ␦ r ms (Z)⫽r rms (Z) 2 ⫺r rms(Z 0 ).n is the magneton moment for the nucleon species of a given single-particle state n. 2000). Most studies deal with the simplest case of symmetric INM where all densities of neutrons and protons with spin up and down are the same. Chabanat et al. 1998) to constrain the parameters of the SLyx forces. The isotropy of polarized nuclear matter is broken. 1997. Deviations from the model appear mostly in the outer nuclear surface.

Satpathy et al. One usually refers to the value at k⫽0. in which a semiclassical approximation for the energy is minimized with respect to a parametrization of the density profile. 1974. Modern versions include many corrections.. . the analysis of the correlation between ␳ 0. See Henning and Manakos (1987) for the relativistic mean-field method. while giant isoscalar quadrupole resonances call for m 0* /m⬇0. 1995). Semi-infinite nuclear matter Surface properties can be studied in semi-infinite nuclear matter (SINM). and Von-Eiff. It has to be stressed that the meaning of the effective mass is slightly different in relativistic and nonrelativistic models (Mahaux et al. See. however. They also explore a large range of N/Z asymmetries.. The present form of the effective interaction sometimes leads to strong dependencies between nuclear matter properties. Van Giai and Sagawa (1981). Mod.eq m m 1* ⫺1. 1985). 1979. (117) although a more consistent comparison with selfconsistent models also requires droplet corrections to Eq. but of course it also plays a role for ground-state properties. No. et al. Chang (1975). (1994) for relativistic mean-field studies. (2002) for Skyrme energy-density functionals. for example. Important SINM properties are the surface and surface asymmetry coefficients and the surface thickness. In its simplest form.. b. There are a few fully self-consistent calculations. (116). Sometimes such instabilities are even properties of the parametrization of the SCMF interactions. 2 2 2 (114) with S T denoting the scalar mean field. but it still might be a saddle point. although the connection is not trivial (see. (1994) for the relativistic mean-field model. a sym⫽a vol␬ vol . the binding energy is given as E LDM⫽a vol共 1⫹ ␬ volI 2 兲 A⫹a surf共 1⫹ ␬ surfI 2 兲 A 2/3 (115) where m T* are isoscalar and isovector effective masses in symmetric INM. A mean-field state is unstable as soon as one finds an imaginary excitation energy. These two variants of the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method differ in the expressions for the Landau parameters in the spin channels. Relation to liquid-drop models Nuclear matter properties are usually identified with the coefficients of the liquid-drop model. for which. m 0* . 4. for example..Bender.8 (Bohigas et al. Vol. Myers. While the latter quantify the actual mean-field models. which characterize the strength of the residual interaction for the basic excitation channels of INM. 1980). c. Most calculations invoke the simpler extended Thomas-Fermi approximation (Brack et al.. et al. 1997). Eqs. et al. but may possibly be resolved with the help of generalized density dependencies (Farine et al. Jaminon and Mahaux. 1997). See the recent attempt by Pearson and Goriely (2001) to extract its value from a Skyrme Hartree-Fock mass fit. Often one identifies a vol⫽ 共 E/A 兲 eq . This conflict cannot be resolved within the standard energy functionals. does not guarantee stability in finite nuclei. Chabanat et al. January 2003 149 ⫹E Coul⫹E Pair⫹¯ . 1985.. The effective mass in the Dirac equation depends on momentum and cannot be simply identified with the nonrelativistic effective mass. (1977). however. and Bender. Note that values obtained from the extended Thomas-Fermi method differ significantly from those calculated self-consistently. the former are safer to compare with values from mic-mac models. and Centelles et al. Skyrme Hartree-Fock and relativistic mean-field models for asymmetric SINM. Note that m * still depends on k in relativistic models. (1983) for twobody Skyrme forces. Eq. and the exponent ␣ of the density dependence of the Skyrme interaction (Chabanat et al. (56). such as finite-range effects on the surface term (Mo¨ller et al. because the density profile of the surface depends on the effective interaction. See. Heenen. The isovector effective mass is usually expressed as the enhancement factor of the Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule (Ring and Schuck. 1990). Ba¨ckman et al. Stability in saturated INM. Pearson. Stability The variational principle guarantees that solution of an unconstrained mean-field calculation is an extremum for given symmetries. (1991). (1994) for Gogny forces. (48) and (49). Stocker. Skyrme HartreeFock mass fits require isoscalar effective masses around m* 0 /m⬇1. (1975). 2001). since their densities vary from center to surface. Cote and Pearson (1978) for the Gogny force. This equation relates m 1* /m to the isovector dipole giant resonance. Phys. (1986) and of correlations between K ⬁ . while physically more relevant is the value at the Fermi surface k F . (116) Refinements to the droplet model also take compressibility effects into account (Myers and Swiatecki... (1998) for a comparison of Rev. 1997. 1977). Liu et al.eq and K ⬁ by Tondeur et al. Ventura et al. This and other deficiencies may be cured by generalized density dependencies. A first and simple check can be made for nuclear matter in terms of the Landau-Migdal parameters. The stability of a calculated state has to be checked a posteriori. This can be done by looking at the RPA excitations. for example that of Ko¨hler (1976) using Skyrme interactions. This is not as trivial to compute as INM. which reads 1 ␦ m ␬ TRK⫽ ⫹ m 0* 2 ␦ ␳ 1 m * m 冏 ⫺1⫽ ␳ 0. Krewald et al. 1. See Von-Eiff.. and Waroquier et al. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models and for relativistic models m T* ⫽ 冑共 m⫹S T 兲 ⫹ប k . conclusive answers have yet to come.. 75. 1999). Dobaczewski.

and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 5. The pairing gap and odd-even staggering of masses The most prominent observable for like-particle. for example. There are several measures for odd-even staggering which are proposed in the literature. This problem was examined by Rutz et al.. which. Vol.B.e ⬘ ) or (d. Mod. In most cases the unavoidable complications from the mean field in odd nuclei are simply neglected when adjusting the pairing strength. and particle number). and fission. (2002a). The gross properties of the local density distribution ␳(r) are usually reliable observables. and five-point mass-difference formulas ⌬ q(n) . The binding energy should be the safest observable in density-functional theory. which again will affect the odd-even staggering of all observables.B. Magierski. See the example of a center-of-mass correction later on. These need to be restored (see Sec. VI. occasionally rotation.2).. where this is discussed in the context of singleparticle energies.150 Bender.F. which is the Fourier transform of ␳(r). 2002b). see. those discussed in Sec. Phys. B. It can also be expected that correlations beyond the mean-field level. The only ones accessible by experiment and calculation are three-. But the nuclear mean field breaks basic symmetries (translation. and that creates corrections to the energy as well as to other observables. Kohn and Sham. while finer properties are not. however. pairing correlations on the mean-field level is the odd-even staggering of nuclear masses. energy functionals are deduced at best by an additional local-density approximation. all corrections to the energy have to be applied similarly to the density. III). VI. (1999). 1. While this can be done in simple model systems (Dobaczewski. We shall sketch here briefly the known limitations and necessary corrections. The structure of odd nuclei differs from that of even nuclei in several respects. III. are only consistent if accompanied by the corresponding low-energy vibrational corrections (Reinhard.2. No. one has to think of the appropriate experimental approach. (2000). Incorporating these complications in an effective manner. As they usually decrease the odd-even staggering. which adds a contribution from the mean field to odd-even staggering. This has consequences for the fit of pairing interactions. See. (1999) in the framework of the relativistic mean-field model looking at global trends. The form factor F(k).g. 1984) and corroborated by a systematic test of the localdensity approximation (Reinhard. combined with a careful analysis of final-state interactions. Madland and Nix..4. The unpaired nucleon’s contribution to all densities is not just half the contribution of a pair. These are the minimum correlation effects which need to be taken into account. 75. surface vibrations. January 2003 tion of nuclear giant resonances.5 (Jensen and Miranda. Kohn. Grabmayr et al. More direct access may be given by fast separation processes. et al. The analysis of single-particle energies from the spectra of adjacent odd nuclei is discussed in Sec. e. as will be discussed in Sec. all other nucleons rearrange themselves to these changes. for example. Deformed calculations additionally call for angular momentum projection (see Sec.B. They are known to be plagued by a selfinteraction error which can be removed by a selfinteraction correction (Perdew and Zunger. 2001). 1986. In practice. The situation is complicated by the fact that the mean-field contribution is dominated by the time-odd part. although they are often looked at in electronic systems as well as in nuclei. and Sec. This is hinted at by systematic deviations between mean-field models and experiment at large k (Reinhard et al. Single-particle energies do not belong to the guaranteed observables of density-functional theory. Besides this open question. VI. the pairing strength thus obtained will also be too small. Several studies have tried to disentangle the meanfield and pairing contributions to the ⌬ q(n) . 1980). it also breaks intrinsic time-reversal invariance.3). often identified with the pairing gap appearing in schematic models (Ring and Schuck. (1994). however. 1992a). Phenomenological fits to data are reviewed by Mo¨ller and Nix (1992). 3 He) reactions. But modern developments of a time-dependent version suggest the optimistic view that these can be reliable observables. Excitaton energies go beyond the safe grounds of conventional density-functional theory. four-. This view is supported by successes in the mean-field descripRev. . Rutz et al.1. Duguet et al. 1999).B. Another line is followed in the Hartree-Fock mass formula by Tondeur et al. and by Xu et al.. Reality is more complicated. Owing to self-consistency. 1988). It is reliable for k below the Fermi momentum and should be modified by short-range correlation effects for larger k. A thorough discussion of self-interaction corrections in nuclei has yet to be done. VI. Even so. are different for even and odd nuclei. T ⫽1. (1999) with emphasis on rotational bands. the Gogny force D1S was adjusted with a simplified description for odd nuclei but artificially reducing experimental pairing gaps by 300 keV. III.. which also employs a simplified description of odd nuclei and puts the remaining differences in the structure of even and odd nuclei into different pairing strengths for the two types of nuclei. 1981). The basic theorems of density-functional theory also state that the local density distribution is well described if one uses the ‘‘exact’’ energy functional (Hohenberg and Kohn. 1965. such as (e. Heenen. it is impossible in full unrestricted HFB calculations (Duguet et al. n⫽3. 1964. Thus the range of validity for the various observables is a point of concern. Some words of caution Effective energy-density functionals are designed for a pertinent description of the binding energy of a manybody system. For spherical calculations the center-of-mass correction suffices (see Sec. 1978). allows a clear distinction. which is not completely fixed in the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method and which was never carefully explored for Gogny or relativistic mean-field models.

which avoid the calculation of several nuclei. The fits here again include bulk properties (E and r rms) and. Table II provides a summary for the selection of forces used in this review. e. Vol. which reads in the canonical basis 具 v 2 ⌬ 典 q ⫽ 兺 k v k2 ⌬ k / 兺 k v k2 . A traditional choice is e 2 ⫽1.4.. as was done by Fayens et al. as a particular feature. An average that is more sensitive to states at the Fermi surface is provided by Sauvage-Letessier et al. its contribution to fitted nuclei with N⫽Z like 16O and 40 Ca is missing. The bias on single-particle energies is related to the aim of this force.. When using this. Pairing correlations also give significant corrections to other observables.Bender.’’ The underlying fitting strategy was initiated for the force Z ␴ (Friedrich and Reinhard. A measure that is also defined for even-even nuclei is the average matrix element of the pair potential (Dobaczewski et al. in which all forces share a common set of basic nuclear properties (E and r rms). and more basic. early adjustments used less. 2002)..... The case is a bit more involved for the family ‘‘SkI1-5. This might cause some incorrect trends in the effective forces as the T⫽0 pairing effect has to be simulated by other terms in the effective interaction. (2002). A more recent alternative is the SkX force (Brown. see also the extensive discussion of this effect for deformed nuclei on the Hartree-Fock level by Satuła et al. This spurious peak is caused by the discontinuity of the mean-field energy at shell closures (Bender.. including the key references for each strategy. Rutz.g. 1988). to the dynamical moment of inertia J2 . 1. 75. Terasaki et al. 1988) and PL-40 (Reinhard. 1984). NL-Z2. v k are the BCS occupation amplitudes. 1999). Measures for T⫽0 pairing are less well understood. as done by Duguet et al. Phys. choice of spin-orbit model. to provide selfconsistent input for shell-model calculations.8 MeV. (2000) and Samyn et al. 1998).B. No. Rutz. 1998). and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Note that all n-point formulas are peaked at magic numbers. the HFB ground states of the fully paired odd-A nucleus should be used as reference state (Duguet et al. Very recently a new family of forces has shown up which relies on fits of binding energies for a huge selection of nuclei. The table is self-explanatory. (1994. There is a large variety of conceivable choices for Rev. 1997.. (118) The quantities u k .44 MeV fm. including deformed ones. For completeness. Mod. the adjustement of nuclear effective energy functionals relies on fits to phenomenological input. 2000. Table I aims to summarize the phenomenological input for a selection of the most widely used forces at present. Fit strategies As argued above. while the most recent BSk1 employs HFB methods throughout (Samyn et al. See Bender. Most of these options have been discussed in previous sections. Amongst the earlier adjustments. Rufa. This puts too much weight on deeply bound states. There is also the possibility of avoiding the calculation of odd-mass nuclei completely and adjusting the pairing functional solely to observables for eveneven nuclei. 1986) and used for NL1 (Reinhard. C. detailed information on single-particle levels in various nuclei. et al. 2000b.. data. This larger set is shown in the table. 1996) using isotopic shifts of mean-square charge radii. To avoid this problem a correction for the Wigner energy as used in mic-mac models was introduced in the Hartree-Fock and HFB mass formulas by Tondeur et al. as well as NL-Z (Rufa et al.. However. Thus we shall skip a lengthy discussion of the differences in bias. These forces demonstrate that it is very possible to reproduce binding energies with a root-mean square error of less than 0. Some authors use more digits. Last but not least. et al. These concern the various options which are open in Skyrme Hartree-Fock and relativistic mean-field models: choice of center-of-mass correction. there also exists a whole set of SkT1-9 forces developed by Tondeur et al. et al. namely.. 2001). One criterion is the lowest quasiparticle energy in an odd nucleus. More data have been taken into account for the later fits of SkI1-5 (Reinhard and Flocard. As T⫽0. The family of forces MSk1-MSk7 uses BCS pairing in the fits (Tondeur et al. just at the point where pairing breaks down. et al. one has to be aware of slightly different values for the Coulomb strength e 2 . 1998. 1986). and the nucleon mass used in the calculations. (2000b) and Duguet et al. See the text of the previous sections for discussion of other forces.. (2001). Heenen. The fitting strategies as listed in Table I show the bias on phenomenological data which went into the various forces. Satuła and Wyss. one has to be aware that these forces may not describe other properties of nuclei so well. while more recent parametrizations include larger sets of information on finite nuclei and employ systematic least-squares fits to cope with the amount of data. 2002a). 2001b). Fayens and Zawischa. 2001a. To compare theoretical models. There are subtle differences at an even more basic level. pairing is neglected in all fits of mean-field models. (2002b) for a more detailed discussion. .. The aim is to develop Skyrme functionals which describe energies with the same high precision as the systematics fitted within mic-mac models. and a systematic variation of additional features has been added on top. The Wigner energy in nuclei close to the N⫽Z line is usually associated with T⫽0 pair correlations (Satuła and Wyss. (1981): 具 u v ⌬ 典 q⫽ 兺k u k v k ⌬ k 兺k u k v k . These can be used to determine the parameters of more complicated pairing interactions.. 1997). As a general trend. simpler measures for pairing correlations can be used. see Sect. (1984). treatment of the Coulomb interaction. but there is still a lot of controversy about other unique signatures (Satuła et al. I. 2000. Rutz. 1995) and NL-Z2 (Bender. January 2003 151 this input. Goriely et al. we mention here a few further families of forces and their fitting strategies.

V. 116 Sn. 208 Pb r: 16 40 Ca. 90 Zr O(1p n .1p p ) equilibrium symmetric INM even-odd E in Sn isotopes (quenched) SI-SVI (Beiner et al. 40 Ca. 40Ca. ␳ 0. 48Ca. O(1p n . 112 Zr. 48 Ca. Sn.. 1998) %E: 16 40 %r: 16 40 ᐉ•s INM 208 O. 48 Ca.1p p ) Pb.eq . m 0* /m⫽1. No.A. Ni.1p p ) Additionally for SkM (Krivine et al.. The basic references are given in the heading lines together with the names of the corresponding forces. K ⬁ . ␳ 0. 140 Ce. D1S (Decharge´ and Gogny. 208 Pb ᐉ•s 16 O(1p n . ␦ r 2 ⫽isotopic shift of charge m. 208 rn : INM Rev. 40Ca. 56Ni. 208Pb. a sym . 48 Ca.. 144Gd. 48 Ca. 208Pb. R⫽charge diffraction radius.eq . 208 Pb Sn. 90 Zr. 56 78 Ca. 124Sn. 48Ca. 88Sr. 1. a sym . Ni. 132Sn. INM⫽infinite nuclear matter properties as defined in Sec. 56 90 Zr. 208Pb 88 Sr. Pb. 40Ca. 1997) E: 16 O. K ⬁ . K ⬁ . 1980) INM K ⬁ . 58Ni. 1975) E: 16 40 Ca. Ca. O. Ni.208Pb 90 Zr. radius.152 Bender.. Z␴ ) %E: %R: 16 90 120 O. . Pb 112 Sn. ␬ TRK . Sn. 56 90 Zr. a surf (↔ fission barriers) SkP (Dobaczewski et al. Compilation of phenomenological input for various parametrizations: E⫽binding energy. 48Ca. a sym( ␳ /2) average gaps SLy1-10 (Chabanat et al. 48 Ca. Heenen. 124Sn. 58Ni. a sym (↔ resonances in 208Pb) Additionally for SkM* (Bartel et al. (NL-Z. 40Ca. Phys. 132 r: 16 O. January 2003 40 Ca.s. 208 Pb (E/A) 0.eq . ␳ 0. Vol.. NL1.eq . 214Pb 58 Ni. Sn.eq . 124 Sn. PL-40. a sym 124 Sn. 132 Sn. 208 Pb Pb Pb(3p n ) (E/A) 0. 124 Sn. 90 Zr. ␬ TRK . NL-Z2. Gogny D1. Mod. r n ⫽neutron rms radius. 48Ca. 56 208 Ni. 116 Sn. 90 Zr. O. 140 Ce. 1982) INM O. 120 %␴ : 16 ᐉ•s 16 ␦r2 214 INM ␬ TRK O. 208 Pb (only SHF) (only SHF) (only SHF) NL3 (Lalazissis et al. 75. 214 16 O. r⫽charge rms radius. 48 Ca. 58 Ni. 116 Sn. 214Pb 90 Zr. 58Ni. (E/A) 0. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models TABLE I. 1984) E: 16 ᐉ•s INM differences E Pairing O.eq . 1980) E&r: 16 ᐉ•s INM Pairing 16 O. ␴ ⫽charge surface thickness. Ni... EoSneut SkI1-5.

73 SkP SLy1-10 SkI1-5 ␦ 20.3). Phys.m. NL-Z2 938. LDA indicates that the Slater approximation to exchange was used. The relativistic mean-field method delivers much lower values than Skyrme Hartree-Fock models (the SIII interaction does not count here. VI. January 2003 (dir) E Coul (ex) E Coul JT2 T⫽1 ␳p exact – no ␳p LDA no no ␳p LDA yes no ␳p LDA var var ␳p LDA no var ␳C LDA yes no (dir) E Coul (ex) E Coul ␳p none ␳p none ␳p none 2mA 2mA MSk1 . A few comments are in order. Numerical values are given in nuclear units..3).153 Bender. Force E cm D1. The second column indicates whether the isovector term of the spin-orbit force is considered as a separate degree of freedom.0 NL-Z. There are also large and systematic differences concerning the effective mass m * 0 /m and the sum-rule enhanceRev.3. as it does not perform well for radii. (48)] is taken into account. Conventional Skyrme ⵜJ forces are identified by 3C ⵜJ 1 ⫽C 0 in Eq. that the effective mass from this model has a different meaning from that in nonrelativistic models (see Sec. The relativistic mean-field model uses very small m 0* /m and large ␬ TRK .B.3. But the relativistic meanfield model with large ␬ TRK and also large ␬ sym yields similar resonance energies to the Skyrme Hartree-Fock. Global results 1. The asterisk in the case of MSk1-7 & BSk1 is a reminder that a correction for nondiagonal terms has been included. For the Coulomb energies see Sec.3). 2002).9 ␦ 冓兺 冔 i pˆ i2 2mA E cm 30.A. Vol. et al. The first column indicates whether the JT2 term [see Eq. II.73553 2 具Pˆcm 典 20. A ␦ indicates that the correction is included variationally. It is to be noted that the features of the (finite-range) relativistic mean-field model also persist for the pointcoupling model PC-F1 (Bu¨rvenich. BSk1 ᐉ•s Coulomb ប2 2m . .eq . and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models TABLE II. . and lengths in fm. The differences are thus due to relativistic kinematics and not due to the finite range of the interaction.) Both discrepancies are larger than the estimated extrapolation errors from leastsquares fits. No. ␳ p . We encounter here a deep-rooted difference between the two models which has yet to be understood.A. charge density. It is related to the giant dipole resonance. Madland. . III.7219 Force mc 2 NL1 939. The relativistic mean-field method tends to larger volume energy coefficients a vol than the nonrelativistic models. correction options see Sec.7505 20. The sumrule enhancement is not so easily fixed.* ment factor ␬ TRK .B.F. ␳ C . It should be remembered. Nuclear matter properties Key features of symmetric nuclear matter are summarized in Table III. The entity ‘‘var’’ means that various options (‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’) have been used within the family of forces. 75. see Sec. V. 1.SkM* 20. . The isoscalar effective mass is directly related to the giant quadrupole resonance.75 A 1/3 2 具Pˆcm 典 2mA NL3 939. with both quantities being smaller (see Sec. however.0 30.73 ␦ 2 具Pˆcm 典 2mA 冓兺 冔 冓兺 冔 i pˆi2 i pˆi2 2mA var 20.5.75 A 1/3 D. .D1S ␦ SI.F.. III. VI. Heenen. For c. energies in MeV. The options used in the definition of the various forces from Table I (as well as the MSk1-7 and BSk1 family). . and m 0* /m⬇0. Mod.7525 20. . (48). There are two options for the spin-orbit field. Even more pronounced is the difference in saturation density ␳ 0. proton density.8 is required for a proper reproduction (see Sec.

Rev.7 – – – 3. Within the standard relativistic mean-field model (represented here by the NL3 and NL-Z2 parametrizations) all three key quantities of the charge form factor are not simultaneously well described.A.1 18. There are large differences in the incompressibility modulus K ⬁ . This suggests that mean-field interactions have enough versatility to describe charge form factors. But the SLy6 interaction demonstrates that neutron data can easily be accommodated FIG. 75.61 0.34 – 17.eq .80 ⫺16.61 2.43 – 2. Systematic differences appear for the charge form factor. 1998) or density-dependent coupling constants (Typel and Wolter. Average quality of bulk observables As outlined in Sec. m * 0 /m.74 1.89 1.. Energy per particle in pure neutron matter (at zero temperature) calculated with the effective interactions as indicated: Filled diamonds connected by a thin solid line denote results from a variational many-body calculation (Friedmann and Pandharipande.30 – 2.161 0.g.76 – 2.34 – – – 0. Experimental access is provided by the monopole resonance (see Sec. often to very different sets of experimental data.148 – 0.159 0.22 2.00 0.67 0. (116): ␳ 0.76 0.67 0.07 ⫺16.03 ⫺15. V. K ⬁ . This is well known and much discussed.85 1.53 0.54 0. nonlinearities of the vector fields (Oyamatsu et al. Heenen.160 0. 1995). but their predictions are not completely constrained by the other ground-state data. This seems to be a deficiency of the current .5 – 17. VI.151 – 0. Table IV shows the relative rms errors on the binding energies and the three parameters describing the charge form factor (see Sec. saturation density.69 0.7 19.C. Pure neutron matter constitutes the extreme end of isotopic trends and is relevant for astrophysical applications (Pethick and Ravenhall.160 0. 1981) which are widely used as reference data for neutron matter.05 – 0. 1.01 2.35 0.68 0.145 0. ␬ TRK .01 1.3 16. 2. Eq.2)..77 1. computed for the set of data used to adjust the Skyrme interactions SkI1-6 and the relativistic mean-field force NL-Z2 (see Table I). All parametrizations reproduce the binding energies well. sum-rule enhancement factor.6 18. V.53 0. A smaller a surf tends to allow shape transitions more easily. The data are simply not very well fixed by finite-nuclei information.0 18.79 1. Vol. 1999).87 2.eq (fm⫺3 ) K⬁ m 0* /m ␬ TRK SIII SkM* SkT6 SkP SLy6 SkI4 BSk1 D1S NL3 – NL-Z2 – PC-F1 – ⫺15.. Predictions for the equation of state of neutron matter are compared in Fig.05 0.151 – 356 218 237 202 230 248 231 209 272 – 172 – 270 – 0.25 0.07 – ⫺16.25 ⫺0.157 0.0 17. The second line for the relativistic mean-field forces shows m * 0 /m and ␬ TRK at the Fermi surface k F rather than at k⫽0. isoscalar effective mass.58 0. 1997)..00 1. Even if it does not do justice to all parametrizations. Force a vol (MeV) ␬ vol a surf (MeV) ␬ surf ␳ 0. Mod.39 – 1. 2.59 0. the various parametrizations of the models have been adjusted.92 ⫺15.154 Bender.02 ⫺16. Phys. The situation is different for the relativistic mean-field interactions.55 1.0 17.4 17.24 – ⫺16. January 2003 by Skyrme forces (Chabanat et al.65 1. Nuclear matter properties according to the liquid-drop model formula. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models TABLE III. Not all values are predictions of the forces as some infinite nuclear matter properties might have been constrained during the fit.45 1.64 0. There is a broad span of predictions from Skyrme interactions. There is no way to fit these neutron matter pseudodata with standard relativistic mean-field functionals. incompressibility modulus.72 0.86 1. No. e.163 0.65 0.93 ⫺15.3).161 0.92 ⫺15. 2.45 – 1.17 – 1.00 0. There is a systematic difference between Skyrme interactions and relativistic mean-field forces. As expected. it is instructive to compare them with respect to a common quality measure. those data which are explicitly fitted are described better. Extensions of the models are needed.F.86 ⫺16. The shape of the curve is quite different from those of the Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces and from the Friedmann and Pandharipande results.55 – – The differences in the surface energy coefficient a surf look small but make a crucial difference for the shape of deformation potential-energy surfaces.

␦ R. one has to be careful with that interpretation since the range of known masses in I is rather small.38 0.. The force BSk1 with its extreme 155 bias on energies performs visibly better than all others here. but give references wherever it is known that results are sensitive to details of pairing. all forces (perhaps with the exception of BSk1) show slopes that point to unresolved trends in the isovector channel. and the relativistic mean-field parametrizations NL3 (Lalazissis et al. et al.36 0. 3. negative ⌬E correspond to overbound nuclei.33 0. The experimental data included are those taken from the fits of the SkI1-5 and NL-Z2 interactions (see Table I) Numbers in italics indicate data that were also included in the force fitting. We omit a comparison of the various choices for pairing models and forces. The problem is that binding energies are overlaid with strong shell fluctuations.20 0.. i. Results were obtained from spherical mean-field calculations. and wrong trends in the ‘‘macroscopic part’’ of the models interfere with local FIG.e. APPLICATIONS We shall now compare results obtained with the various models presented here for a broad selection of observables. 1999). 1995). The relativistic pointcoupling model PC-F1 (Bu¨rvenich.85 0... 75.738 MeV for all currently known binding energies reaches nearly the quality of the best current mic-mac models. (2001) for the Skyrme interaction MSk7 and Lalazissis. before looking for trends. Mod. This value is quite close to the lower limit for the rms error in a mean-field approach estimated by Bohigas and Leboeuf (2002).24 0. setting a typical error margin of about ⫾2 MeV. as was done by Kleban et al.57 1. the Skyrme-HFB mass fit BSk1 (Samyn et al. charge diffraction radius. charge rms radius in %.69 0.3 1..84 0.. A systematic difference between relativistic mean-field and Skyrme Hartree-Fock interactions develops where the latter tend to underbinding. Another feature is noteworthy: the errors are not distributed statistically but show a pronounced trend to underbinding in the midshell regions.4 1. When the binding is plotted versus mass number A. et al. while there is a small but visible slope for the relativistic mean-field forces that points to an unresolved isoscalar trend. and ␦ r. the experimental binding energy.34 0. 1. 1998). Figure 4 extends the comparison to the available superheavy elements.8 2.’’ Force ␦E ␦R ␦␴ ␦r SIII SkM* SLy6 SkI4 MSk7 NL-Z2 NL3 PC-F1 0.64 0. 2002).18 0. We have chosen a few representative parametrizations for each model.44 0. Positive ⌬E denote underbound nuclei with respect to the experiment.22 0. The reason is that this force produces deformed nuclei more easily than the other forces and that we have compared only spherical calculations in this figure. The errors for nonfitted nuclei usually also stay within the typical error bands. When plotted versus the relative neutron excess I. the Skyrme interaction with generalized spin-orbit interaction SkI3 (Reinhard and Flocard.Bender. ␦␴..92 0. Relative error ␦ O⫽(O calc⫺O expt)/Oexpt calculated for ␦ E. Complete mass tables have been published by Goriely et al. the Skyrme interactions SLy4 or SLy6 (Chabanat et al. This is true even for modern forces like NL3 or SLy6 fitted with bias on good isovector properties. Madland. SkI3 is sometimes an exception. Eq.50 standard finite-range model. charge surface thickness. 3 cannot be trivially related to the nuclear matter properties that enter the liquid-drop modal formula (116). No. the rms error of 0. 1984). However.8 5.34 0.38 0. Rutz.88 0. This is probably related to the significant binding differences seen in Table III. 2002) performs as well as the nonrelativistic Skyrme interactions in that respect. the Gogny force D1S (Berger et al.44 1. VI.12 0. This is either an effect of underestimated pairing interaction or of missing correlation energy. Note that trends visible in Fig.5 1. Rev.27 0.5 1. (36).48 4. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models TABLE IV. Phys. January 2003 . A. and Ring (1999) for the relativistic mean-field force NL3. Error on the total binding energy for the isotopic chains and forces indicated. For the recent mass fit MSk7. It is gratifying to see that the extrapolations work very well for the selection of (recent) forces shown here. Raman. Vol. (2002) for the Gogny force. 1997) and NL-Z2 (Bender.8 4. one obtains flat curves for all Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces. 3. Binding energies A detailed look at the reproduction of binding energies is given in Fig. The performance is very good for the fitted nuclei (see Table I).27 2. Heenen.9 5. while numbers in roman type show ‘‘predictions. The comparison becomes more instructive if one subtracts the shell correction energy..

A magnifying glass is provided by energy differences. One would have expected that the trends in long isotopic chains would reflect the isovector properties of the effective interactions. All levels above the 9/2⫺ or below the 1/2⫹ state correspond to excited configurations of 209Bi or 207Tl. (1998) for doubly magic nuclei within the relativistic mean-field method. Heenen.C. Mod. The 9/2⫺ single-particle state corresponds to the ground state of 209Bi and the 1/2⫹ to the 207Tl ground state.. Figure 5 demonstrates that these are overlaid by shell structure. They correspond to various stages of refinement as explained in the caption. in the fits . All forces agree nicely with data in the regime of stable nuclei. Vol. The direction of the shift will be in opposite for particle and hole states. No. (119) Figure 5 shows the evolution of S 2n along the chain of Sn isotopes. respectively. This jump is a typical shell effect. They are predicted at different N and with different amplitudes. Figure 6 shows the example of proton states in 208Pb.N⫺2 兲 .N 兲 ⫽E 共 Z. 1. have different detailed shell structure. More direct access to isovector forces is provided by the neutron skin (see Sec. Error on the binding energy ⌬E for the heaviest nuclei where the mass is known. The inset on the upper right shows results for N ⭐82. Each polarization effect contributes in a similar way. and Samyn et al. The last column gives the experimental removal energies relative to the doubly magic nucleus. This can also be seen from the small jumps following for larger N.156 Bender. a sym as given in Table III. The effect is even larger for lighter nuclei. for example. 4.5 MeV for 208Pb. The first column shows the eigenvalues of the single-particle Hamiltonian in 208Pb. Calculations are taken from Bender (2001). Single-particle energies on an absolute scale [as used. Columns 2 through 4 are drawn from one-proton removal energies as in the experimental data.g. 6 show relativistic mean-field results. i. Looking at singleparticle spectra around doubly magic nuclei permits us to limit the modifications on the mean field to polarization effects. Significant differences develop FIG. The 9/2⫺ -1/2⫹ gap is strongly affected by polarization. shell effects are crucial for almost all observables. the existence of superheavy nuclei relies only on shell effects. and the results indicate that the various forces. VI. the nuclear level scheme and shell closures. kinks of the shell structure. To separate trends in the isoscalar and isovector channels of the effective interactions. (1998). 5. ⌬E is plotted in the upper panel against total mass number A⫽N⫹Z for chains of nuclei with the same neutorn excess I⫽N⫺Z.2). One reason for this is that the jump in the S 2n at the shell closure is predicted differently. For example. Identification of an even nucleus with calculated single-particle energies works only if the modifications of the mean fields induced by the extra nucleon (or hole) are small. although similar in bulk properties. while all together build up a substantial shift of the ‘‘single-particle energies’’ of the order of 0. e. The calculations include quadrupole axial deformations. such as the two-neutron separation energy S 2n 共 Z. In this section. Shell structure FIG. Phys. Two-neutron separation energy S 2n for the chain of tin isotopes. 3 around all shell closures. as found in Fig. January 2003 Global trends of nuclear observables are relatively well described by the analogy between nuclei and droplets. The other columns of Fig. B.. 75. 1. namely. (2002).e. Rev. S p( 208Pb)⫽E( 208Pb) ⫺E( 207Tl) for hole states and S p( 209Pb)⫽E( 209Bi) ⫺E( 208Pb) for particle states.. and vice versa in the lower panel.N 兲 ⫺E 共 Z. However. The magnitude of these effects has been investigated by Rutz et al. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models from 132Sn on. Single-particle energies Experimental information on single-particle energies of even-even nuclei is drawn from the single-nucleon removal energies into or out of the low-lying excited states of adjacent odd-A nuclei. Bu¨rvenich et al. we discuss those observables most directly related to shell structure.

The upper part of Fig. The splittings in 16O are included in the fit of most Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces and are well reproduced. the structure of odd nuclei is also affected by changes in the pairing field due to the unpaired nucleon and by the breaking of timereversal invariance (Duguet et al. 1997. The last column shows the experimental values calculated from excitation energies taken from Kinsey et al. however. All forces predict the same ordering of hole levels.q) 2 . Column 1 shows the ⑀ k spectrum of the eigenvalues of the mean-field Hamiltonian for 208 Pb. which affects their average position or their spinorbit splitting. m q* the effective mass. spin-orbit splittings are a robust observable as long as they do not cross the shell gap.Bender. Rutz. The experimental ground state of 131Sn has spin 3/2⫹ while all mean-field models. which is generally too low and is predicted differently by the various interactions. and relativistic meanfield.. Proton spectra of 208Pb calculated with the relativistic mean-field model and the force PL-40. 75. The pattern looks at first glance very similar to that of 208Pb.q)⬇(3/4)N q 2m q* /(បk F. which is remarkable in view of the fact that the . Vol. (1997) and masses given by Audi and Wapstra (1995). in disagreement with the experimental data. Skyrme Hartree-Fock. Different parametrizations predict different shell closures. However. in agreement with data with the exception of the 2 f 5/2⫺ . However. For example. which are. These differences are caused by changes in the spin-orbit splitting of the 2 f shell and the development of ‘‘semibubble’’ shapes around 292120 (see Bender.2. (1985)]. All forces predict similar level orderings. and the relativistic mean-field forces NL3 and NLZ2. The spin-orbit splitting predictions made for stable nuclei with the same interactions are compared with the data in Fig. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models FIG. Mod. Phys. 6. there is no clear relation to the density of states amongst the hole or particle states.. 7. 9.. of the Skyrme parametrization SkX by Brown (1998)] are not reliable either. taken separately. The spectra of superheavy nuclei are particularly sensitive to subtle details of the shell structure. Moving away from magic shells. Kruppa et al. 1999). however. Decharge´ et al. It is known that the average level density at the Fermi surface scales with the effective mass as g q ( ⑀ F. or 126 (see Rutz et al. Experimental values as in Fig.F. 6. 2002a. (1998).. the Gogny force D1S.. Z⫽114. Heenen. Large differences show up for heavier nuclei. and k F. It may be related to a peculiarity of the high l states. The level density increases with mass number A. All these effects have to be taken into account. The lower part of Fig. 7 shows neutron spectra for 208 Pb obtained with a representative set of interactions. 7 a correlation between m * 0 /m (see Table III) and the 9/2⫺ -1/2⫹ gap. et al. Figure 8 shows as an example the proton spectra in 292 120. SLy6. VI. Data taken from Rutz et al. One can indeed see in Fig. that the splittings are not included for SLy6 and BSk1 without noticeable loss of quality. Gogny. Columns 2–4 show the one-proton separation energies S p from and to the adjacent nuclei as indicated. No. The impact of ground-state correlations is discussed in Sec. Similar results were obtained by Bernard and Van Giai (1980) with a Skyrme interaction using linear response theory in the particle-core coupling model [see also Hamamoto (1974) and Mahaux et al. the relative energies amongst the particle states and the hole states.. 120. 1999. 7 shows neutron spectra in the doubly magic 132Sn. and small differences between the forces are magnified in this mass region. Thus information on energy differences can be taken from the experimental spectra of odd nuclei and safely compared with differences of ⑀ k . column 3 from axially symmetric deformed calculations with timereversal invariance. The relativistic mean-field interactions agree nicely with the data. and column 4 from deformed calculations allowing for broken time-reversal symmetry. Eigenvalues ⑀ n of the single-particle Hamiltonian for neutrons in 208Pb (upper panel) and 132Sn (lower panel) calculated with the Skyrme forces BSk1. 2000). where N q is the particle number. and SkI3. Column 2 results from spherical calculations of the odd nuclei. not clear. are more robust. predict spin 11/2⫺ . The origin of this discrepancy is Rev. 1. 2002b). January 2003 157 FIG.q the Fermi momentum for a given nucleon species. Note. Results obtained with the folded Yukawa model (FY) used in mic-mac models are shown for comparison.

Data taken from Bender et al. Peaks in the systematics of the lowest 2 ⫹ states in even-even nuclei reflect the stiffness of the potentialenergy surface. (36)]. The stabilized region is even broader because deformation effects (not included in the calculations for Fig. Signatures for shell closures When discussing the stability of shell closures far from stability. Proton spectra of 292120172 at spherical shape. Around the stability line. The first indications of shell closures were derived from isotopic and mass abundances as well as from the number of stable isotones (Go¨ppert-Mayer.. Another measure for shell effects is the shellcorrection energy ␦ E shell [see Eq. Compared to binding-energy differences. for example. (36)] into a smooth part and ␦ E shell provides a powerful tool for analyzing all phenomena related to quantal shell effects. and Reinhard. as can be deduced from Fig. VI.N 兲 ⫽E 共 Z. It is large and negative at shell closures because the discrete sum has a particularly low value there while the smoothed expression extends over the shell gap. (124). No. Mod. The concept of magicity thus dissolves (for details see Bender. Vol. Heenen. which reflects the large change in the Fermi energy when crossing the gap in the single-particle spectrum at a magic number (see Sec. At the present stage.B. predicting substantial stabilization by shell effects in a large area around the shell closures. January 2003 and similarly for protons. which quantifies the ‘‘bunchyness’’ of the ⑀ k . Nazarewicz. (1999). This suggests that a FIG. there is a possible pitfall.3. 8. The shell-correction energy has minima at some proton numbers. The disadvantage is on the theoretical side. The gap in the single-particle spectrum sets the scale for the lowest excitations. 3. This signature is usually simple to compute and also to determine experimentally from mass tables. (120) FIG. However. The situation becomes less clear in the region of superheavy nuclei. That is not always the case in exotic nuclei (see. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models simple signature of shell closures is the two-nucleon shell gap. one needs signatures to identify them. Cornelius. VI. shell closures are associated with a jump in nucleon separation energies (see Fig.. (1999). Bender. 5). Reliable computations of excitation spectra are not easy (see Sec. et al. which for neutrons is given by ␦ 2n 共 Z.1). yield well distinguished peaks at shell closures along and near the valley of stability. and 126. 21 below).F).N⫹2 兲 . The ␦ E shell measures the deviation of the actual level density at the Fermi energy from the averaged level density. 1948). 2002) and the discussion of shell quenching in Sec. The relative error on spin-orbit splittings in several doubly magic nuclei as indicated for a variety of forces. 2. one has to be aware that these uncertainties plague detailed predictions for the level scheme of superheavy elements. Rev. 1. Data taken from Bender et al. The reasons for this weakness are still under investigation. as illustrated in Fig. even for SkI3.N⫹2 兲 ⫺S 2n 共 Z. the data on vibrational states have the advantage that they do not mix information from different nuclei. Nonetheless it is a purely theoretical measure without experimental access. The numbers in circles indicate the (magic) proton numbers corresponding to the gap. which is largest in closed-shell nuclei (see also Fig. The Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces show larger deviations.N 兲 ⫹E 共 Z. This quantity represents a signature of shell closure only if no dramatic rearrangements of the mean field take place between the three adjacent nuclei. spin-orbit force needs no adjustment at all in this method.158 Bender. The two-proton shell gap ␦ 2p has shrunk to at most 2 MeV at the shell closures Z⫽120. 5. VI. Phys. The separation of the binding energy [Eq. like the stabilization of superheavy nuclei or the structure of fission barriers of heavy nuclei.B. 75. which is tailored to map the isospin mix of the spin-orbit force from the standard relativistic mean-field model. 2001). There is one further experimental signature for magic numbers: the excitation energy of vibrational states and the associated electric transition rates. The findings could be related to the systematics of binding energies. 10.N 兲 ⫽S 2n 共 Z.N⫺2 兲 ⫺2E 共 Z. Shell quenching The weakening or ‘‘quenching’’ of spherical shell closures when going away from the valley of stability to . the two-nucleon shell gap and the shellcorrection energy. Both criteria. but they are broad and soft. 9. 10) also enhance the stabilization.

Vretenar. one finds an increased destabilization of the spherical shape for light neutron-rich N⫽28 isotones which can even lead to a stable quadrupole deformation.. The proton drip line has been reached experimentally up to large charge number. The agreement with experimental data is generally very good. 4. The discrepancy is resolved when considering the deformation softness of Hg and Po isotopes. (1997a). as it influences the r-process path (Chen et al. Ring. C. 1999b).. A more satisfacory approach is to use mathematical tools to generalize the mean-field equation for positive Fermi energy. Kleban et al. Upper panel: shell correction energy (36). Stoitsov. 10. weakly bound nuclei is a phenomenon of great current interest. 1997). No. Vol. (2000) and Rutz et al. However. The relativistic mean-field interaction NL-Z2 tends to show the largest deviations. The deformation effect remains at the level of pure mean-field models (Bender. VI. Shell quenching in neutron-rich systems has far-reaching consequences for astrophysics. Data taken from Kruppa et al. Proton emitters FIG.. Lalazissis. see. although this feature can sometimes be neglected due to the large Coulomb barrier. The Z⫽82 shell gap in the single-proton spectra ⑀ k is predicted to be stable by all mean-field models.N)⫺2E(Z. In principle standard mean-field equations do not converge when the Fermi level is in the continuum (see Sec. 11. and a large number of proton emitters are known experimentally (Woods and Davids. 1994). The smaller asymmetry and the stabilizing Coulomb potential hinder large proton skins and prevent the formation of proton halos. This has been done using the complex scaling method for spherical Skyrme calculations without pairing correlations (Kruppa et al. for example. the closeness of the particle continuum (Dobaczewski et al. 1996). Mod. et al. in which the spectrum of ⑀ k is quenched. (1999). Signatures for (spherical) proton shell closures along two isotonic chains of superheavy elements (N⫽184 and N ⫽172). Systematics of charge radii A detailed comparison of the charge radii obtained with several models is given in Fig. and changes in the spin-orbit splitting (VonEiff et al. Peru et al.Bender. 1997) and with them (Kruppa et al.. 2000). 1995.. It is often accompanied by deformation softness whose quantitative description requires configuration mixing. The actual sequence of magic numbers in neutron-rich nuclei is strongly affected by various nonstandard features: an increased diffuseness of the neutron density. January 2003 The properties of proton-rich nuclei around the drip line differ in many respects from those of their neutronrich counterparts.N)..2. For whatever reason. and there is now a wealth of available data. while recent mass measurements show a significant quenching of the twoproton shell gap ␦ 2p ⫽E(Z⫹2.. Cornelius. and the disappearance of certain indirect signatures for shell closures which might be independent of the underlying shell structure of magic nuclei. Nuclei that are unstable with respect to the emission of a proton may have siz˚ berg able lifetimes due to the large Coulomb barrier (A et al.N)⫹E(Z Rev. (2000).2).. The description of unbound nuclei by mean-field methods is a challenge. 1995. and the example discussed in Sec. For the Ca isotopes all forces show a significant deviation from the data in the isotopic trends.B. 2001).. (2001) for examples from the neutrondeficient Pb region. Werner et al. Lower panel: two-proton shell gap ␦ 2p ⫽E(Z⫺2. which hints again at the problem of covering all at once the key features of the charge form factor with finite-range meson fields (see also Sec. Bonche et al. 1. for example.2). (1990a. there are cases where the signatures for shell quenching are ambiguous. 1998a).N). 1997). and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 159 ⫺2. Observables of the density distribution 1. It is now well established for neutron-rich N ⫽20 and N⫽28 isotones. (2002) for Gogny forces. V. Terasaki et al. Lalazissis et al. 75.N) ⫹E(Z⫹2. Pfeiffer et al.D. (1997). I.. An example is the neutron-deficient Pb isotopes. Reinhard et al. See the semiphenomenological discussions of Barranco . (2001) for Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces. See. computed for spherical configurations with the SLy4 interaction. and there are first hints that it may apply for the N⫽50 and N⫽82 shells (see the compilation of data by Kautzsch et al. 2002). 1991) and Chasman et al.. and Buchinger et al. Heenen. (1994). (1997) for the relativistic mean-field method. 1999a. and Robledo (1999). Phys. This clearly points to an effect of ground-state correlations.D. More extensive plots may be found in the articles of Pomorski et al. as done in some recent relativistic mean-field calculations (Lalazissis et al. The additional deformation energy of Po and Hg reduces ␦ 2p and thus masks the spherical Z⫽82 shell effect for Pb. One has to distinguish between real shell quenching..N)⫺2E(Z. An interesting phenomenon in proton-rich nuclei is the occurrence of proton emitters.

(71) (see Fayans et al. et al. (2001) for an analysis using shell-model calculations. 1987). (1994). a feature that is absent in mic-mac approaches and limits their use for neutron-rich systems. The relativistic mean-field calculations reproduce this nicely.2) in the forces SkI3 and SkI4. Reiss. Unfortunately. 2000.. Their description takes advantage of the variational principle that self-consistently optimizes the density profile (separately for neutrons and protons). Hansen et al. the case is not yet settled. as there exist arguments that the kink could equally well be due to a density-dependent pairing interaction like that in Eq. 21. Neutron radii Neutron radii would provide very valuable information complementing the rich pool of data from charge radii. 1996) far from ␤ stability. No. The effect is qualitatively provided by all mean-field models although quantitative predictions about the transition point differ (Reinhard. 1989).. Amongst the prominent effects in this regime is the huge even-odd staggering in proton-rich Hg isotopes which can be related to a prolate-oblate shape isomerism (Bengtsson et al.. 1979. 1992. II. Flocard. their experimental determination has so far been model dependent because the strong interaction is involved (Batty et al. Dobaczewski. 1. isotopic shifts. This technique also allows us to deal with unstable isotopes. and Werner. Filled diamonds denote results from direct radius measurements. isotopic shifts can be measured directly and with high precision by laser spectroscopy. Other interesting phenomena related to the neutron density are the presence of neutron skins (Hamamoto and Zhang. 2002). Horowitz et al. From the experimental side. 1982a).. Comparison of rms radii of the charge distributions from spherical mean-field calculations. 2000 and Tajima. See Brown (2000) for the Skyrme Hartree-Fock method and Typel and Brown (2001) for the relativistic mean-field model. while the radii obtained with most Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces crosses N⫽126 without any kink. A more recent example will be given in connection with low-energy excitations in Fig. Figure 12 shows the skin in Sn isotopes predicted by various forces. often makes effects more visible. 1999. 2000). there is a close connection between the equation of state of neutron matter and the neutron rms radius of 208Pb. (1995) that this hints at a difference in isovector spin-orbit force. and Ring. 1993). for a review see Otten (1989). et al. Phys. Experimental data are taken from Nadjakov et al. The experimental trend exhibits a kink at the doubly magic 208Pb. January 2003 (Girod and Reinhard. As for energies. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models FIG.160 Bender. Mod. 2001).. i. It is argued by Reinhard and Flocard (1995) and Sharma et al. Lalazissis.. 2.A. For example.. Heenen. Vol. Tanihata. 75. defined as the difference between neutron and proton radii (Reinhard..e. These correlations have been considered in early microscopic generator coordinate calculations using the Gaussian overlap approximation Rev. Sagawa. Lalazissis et al. Thus there exists a rich pool of data and a large body of literature. Nazarewicz. while open diamonds are obtained from measurements of isotopic shifts. One can establish a direct relation between isovector forces and the neutron skin.. This is a nice example of how a comparison between different models has improved our understanding of each model. looking at differences between radii in an isotopic chain. Most data on isotope shifts give indirect information about collective ground-state correlations (Reinhard and Drechsel. which better reproduce this kink at 208 Pb. and Broglia (1985) and Caurier et al. More thorough variations of a sym confirm that there is a unique relation between skin and asymmetry energy within the current standard form of the Skyrme Hartree-Fock interactions . Reliable data on neutron radii will improve models in several respects. see also the above example of Ca isotopes). The mismatch has been cured by extending the spin-orbit force in the Skyrme parametrization (see Sec. 1996. However. There is also a significant deviation in the trends for Pb isotopes. 1995. 11. There is hope that a clean tool will be available soon from parityviolating electron-nucleus scattering experiments (Vretenar. 1995. 1998b) or of neutron halos (Sagawa.. It hints that larger skins are produced by forces with large symmetry energy and smaller skins by those with low a sym .

To compare deformations across different system sizes. The consequences of this assumption were explored by Berger and Pomorski (2000). 1998. assume that protons and neutrons have the same deformation. 1990).. There is a world of test cases for nuclear deformation and a large variety of related phenomena. Barranco et al. Phys. Grasso et al. diffraction radius. 2001). which are re˚ berg et al. 1998). Nazarewicz. and relativistic mean-field Lagrangians (Po¨schl.. Vol.A. for example. Note also that self-consistent calculations produce deformed ground states by straightforward variation. for example. 12. 1999). We shall sketch a few selected examples in the subsequent sections. Stoitsov et al.Bender.2 A 1/3 fm. 1996.. like 11Li and 14Be. otherwise artifacts from BCS pairing might produce spurious halos (see discussions by Dobaczewski et al. from measurements of lifetimes or of static quadrupole moments. 1997. 2000). for instance. Note that these ␤ ᐉ are computed from the expectation values of the actual densities and need to be distinguished from the generating moments used in the multipole expansion of the nuclear shape in mic-mac models (Hasse and Myers.2. In fact. 1984. 75. in particular. Nazarewicz. 2001). a nuclear JahnRev. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models FIG. Except for these constraints. Nazarewicz. Heenen. and Reinhard (2001). Lulazissis. Experimental data are available so far only for small systems. The effect is particularly pronounced for neutron-rich exotic nuclei. 1. Pairing plays a crucial role for halo nuclei (Bertsch and Esbensen. 1. The potential-energy surfaces illustrate nicely the transition from a spherical to a well-deformed minimum. one with low and one with high asymmetry energy. the selfconsistency optimizes all other multipole moments for protons and neutrons. A simple and robust measure can be obtained from a combination of rms radius. for a thorough discussion see Mizutori et al. A typical example is given by the isotopes of Gd above the neutron shell at N⫽82. 1991). The presence of a halo is due to the very weak binding of the outermost neutron. by the appearance of rotational bands and the sequence of vibrational states in the low-energy spectrum of many nuclei (Casten. and surface thickness. which need to parametrize a large number of higher multipole moments and which. Neutron skin R n ⫺R p along the chain of Sn isotopes. Nuclei that exhibit experimentally a neutron halo are light neutron-rich nuclei. 1984. (2000) and the sensitivity to model details of the density dependence of the pairing interaction. Medium-mass nuclei Particularly interesting are isotopic chains along which one observes a transition from spherical to deformed shapes. There are several ways to access deformation experimentally. in principle. No. A careful description of the coupling to loosely bound or even continuum states is unavoidable and requires the HFB method. Deformation Nuclei with closed or nearly closed shells are well described by a mean field with spherical symmetry. quantifying the deviation from the Helm model (see Sec. Figure 13 shows the potential-energy surfaces for the chain of Gd isotopes at and above 146Gd together with the systematics of the ground-state deformations. and Ring. 1993). it is better to deal with dimensionless multipole deformations defined as ␤ ᐉ⫽ 4␲ 3AR ᐉ0 具 r ᐉ Y ᐉ0 典 with R 0 ⫽1. Direct information can be obtained by Coulomb excitation cross sections. There is no consensus in the literature on how to define and parametrize halos. and Werner. see also the pairing antihalo effect discussed by Bennaceur et al. in which the number of nucleons is not large enough to justify a pure mean-field approach (see. 2000). There have been several HFB studies using Skyrme interactions (Mizutori et al. a measure for deformation is given by multipole moments of the ground-state density.. Dobaczewski. V.. Gogny forces (NerloPomorska et al. by A wicz and Ragnarsson (1996). The potential-energy surfaces for collective motion are computed by constraint Hartree-Fock calculations. Deformation is related to shell filling and is. 2000). A reliable description of neutron halos requires careful modeling. 1988). January 2003 161 Teller effect (Reinhard and Otten. Far from closed shells... we encounter a dynamical Jahn-Teller effect as the pairing interaction tends to restore spherical shapes. This chain has been studied by Baran and Ho¨henberger (1996) with Skyrme interactions and by Blum et al. Indirect evidence can be deduced through rotational and vibrational spectra. (121) where Y ᐉ0 is the spherical harmonic.. Results are shown for two groups of forces. (Reinhard. Mod. with vibrationally soft intermediate nuclei. as discussed by Dobaczewski. This is to be contrasted with micmac models. (1990) and Nazareviewed. At the mean-field level of approximation. and shown to enhance fission barriers by about 1 MeV for actinides. (1989) with the relativistic mean-field method. The rms deformation in the intrinsic system of reference of the nucleus can be related to quadrupole transition moments. Although the de- . D. in which one or two (usually isoscalar) multipole moments are fixed. This necessity is illustrated. the incomplete filling of a shell triggers deformation and one has to allow the mean-field potential to be deformed. Meng and Ring. Vretenar.

5. The lower panel shows how these deformations are predicted by different forces. Lower panel: neutron single-particle energies ⑀ n at spherical shape for the N⫽28 isotones. A conclusive answer has yet to be found. 14. 2000a). Shell quenching in light nuclei Due to the small number of nucleons. No.. Heenen. the deformation obtained by the BSk1 interaction is systematically lower. The upper panel shows the potential-energy surfaces for quadrupole deformation relative to the energy of the spherical configuration. one can discuss the evolution of shapes by looking only to the minima of the potential-energy surfaces. It corresponds to a magic neutron number N⫽20 and its ground state is predicted to be spherical. and 28). (2001). A possible source for this difference may be its larger effective mass (see Table III). The deviation from the experimental deformation could be a hint that this large m * 0 /m is inappropriate. They extend over three supposedly magic neutron numbers (N⫽8. For this reason. though with a rather soft potential-energy surface. 1. dotted lines states with negative parity. Transition from spherical to deformed shapes in the chain of Gd isotopes. Upper panel: HF⫹BCS potential-energy surfaces calculated with the SLy6 interaction for neutron numbers ranging from 82 to 90. (1992) for reviews] is even more abundant here than it is in heavy nuclei (Reinhard et al. 75. Let us first discuss the case of 32Mg. but the way the transition takes place shows significant differences. 2. Vol. Solid lines denote states with positive parity. to take into account fluctuations of shapes. Disappearance of the sperical N⫽28 shell in neutonrich nuclei. there are several other possible sources for this discrepancy. 1997a. Z⫽12 corresponds to a deformed-shell effect and the stable isotope 24Mg is a good example of a nucleus with deformed ground state. 20. the phenomenon of shape coexistence [see Heyde et al. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models FIG. However. 1999). Upper panel: Deformation energy of neutron-rich Mg isotopes computed with the HFB method and the SLy6 interaction. On the other hand.162 Bender. (1983) and Wood et al. The deformation deduced from the experimental data is around ␤ 2 ⫽0.. Mod. the mean-field approximation is less valid for light nuclei than it is for heavy ones.and deformed-shell effects. Figure 14 illustrates the situation for the heavy isotopes. in principle. In particular. Experimental values are taken from Raman et al. This result is in contradiction with the experimental spectrum of 32Mg: its first 2 ⫹ state is at low excitation energy and has a strong B(E2) transition probability to the ground state. No effective interaction predicts a deformation like that for 32Mg (Terasaki et al. The Mg isotopes are a good example of the problems encountered in a mean-field description of light nuclei. Rodriguez-Guzma´n et al. The shape transition from N⫽82 to N⫽90 is similarly obtained by all the forces. January 2003 FIG. scription of these intermediate isotopes requires one. Lower panel: Ground-state deformation of Gd isotopes for several forces.. mainly the pairing correlations and the approximate rotational correction that is incorporated in BSk1. Pairing is treated with the BCS method except for BSk1 for which the HFB method is used.. mean-field calculations give at most a potential-energy surface presenting an excited shallow . 13. Phys. Fluctuations beyond the mean field play a larger role and there is stronger competition between spherical. Rev. 32Mg up to 40Mg.

75. multidimensional landscape (see. Mod. since the path connects minima with low level density and barriers with high level density. The two steep lines correspond to the symmetric (dotted line) and asymmetric (solid line) fusion paths.g. as they probe the surface tension of the parametrizations (see also Tondeur. The actual size of the shell effects depends strongly on the shapes that are involved in the calculation. 1984). The two approaching nuclei have to . The paths with steep slopes at large ␤ 2 correspond to symmetric and asymmetric entrance channels for fusion. An unambiguous self-consistent definition of the path is given by the adiabatic TDHF equations (Baranger and Ve´ne´roni. Heenen.Bender. 1980a.. The description of the double-humped fission barrier of actinides was one of the first prominent successes of the shell-correction method. The way pairing correlations are described also has a critical influence. The effect is demonstrated in the lower panel of Fig. we consider the fission barrier of 240Pu. it might not be sufficient to compute only the potential-energy surfaces along the fission path.3). N⫽28. the dotted line to axial quadrupole constraint only. Phys. There are usually two (or more) separate valleys in the Rev.. for example.g.07 fm⫺3 .A. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models minimum or an inflexion point at a ␤ 2 value around 0. For this reason. Fission paths explore many shape degrees of freedom including triaxiality and reflection-asymmetric shapes. 1974. As a test case.. Goeke and Reinhard. 1.F. Rutz. 1953). 1979. The deformation energy increases further for N⫽26. Sec. From Bender (1998). fission barriers are often used as a benchmark for meanfield models (Bartel et al. 1978). 1994.. Relaxing symmetries often decreases the barriers. and a deformed minimum appears for N⫽24. 2000a). 1987). 1980b). the next nucleus 38 10Ne28 has a positive neutron Fermi energy).2. It is clear that fission studies are a very complex task and many technical improvements are still required. 1985. III. 14.. Paths in the deformation energy landscape of 240Pu calculated with the SkI4 interaction. Fission barriers Fission has been one of the major motivations for developing models of nuclear collective motion (Bohr and Wheeler. 15. A typical vibrational zero-point energy here would be around 3 MeV and this corresponds to fluctuations ⌬ ␤ 2 ⬃⫾0. Finally. VI. correlation corrections play a role in fission. the Gogny force (Berger et al. 1995). for example. 1984). 1982. 1939. We shall come back to this point in Sec. the gap at N⫽28 is too small to counterbalance the deformation induced by the nonmagic proton number Z⫽16 and to drive the nucleus to spherical symmetry (as is the case for N⫽20).. Shapes along the paths are indicated by the density contours at ␳ 0 ⫽0.4. while the liquid-drop-model energy would give one broad smooth barrier.. Berger et al. there exists a large pool of information on fission barriers deduced by model analysis from spontaneous and induced fission (Specht. January 2003 163 FIG. and the relativistic mean-field method (Blum et al. Berger et al. 1984). The 48 N⫽28 gap shrinks when going from 20 Ca28 towards the neutron drip line (at spherical shape. Strong variations in the collective masses can cause the fission path to deviate from the minimum-potential line (see. see the example given by Bender. 1978. On the experimental side. Figure 15 shows as a typical example the potentialenergy surfaces for 240Pu computed with the SkI4 interaction. Giannoni and Quentin. et al. as can be seen from the axial and triaxial paths at the first barrier and the (axial) reflection-symmetric and reflection-asymmetric paths at the second barrier.1). 1973) as an intuitive approximation. The fission paths are special collective paths which evolve from the ground-state deformation to the outer barrier and then slide asymptotically down the Coulomb valley. Most practical calculations use quadrupole constrained mean-field calculations (Flocard et al.. VI. showing the evolution of neutron levels along the N ⫽28 chain as a function of the number of protons..5. On the theoretical side. The zero-point energies for vibration and rotation modify the barriers by about 2 MeV (Reinhard and Goeke. Rutz et al. it is generally assumed that vibrational and rotational corrections have to be included to describe nuclei in this mass region. Hill and Wheeler. Vol. Already for Z⫽16. triaxially). for example. The solid line corresponds to axial quadrupole and octupole (reflection asymmetric) constraints. Bjørnholm and Lynn. 1974). Furthermore... A typical example is given by the distinction of fusion and fission paths which differ in their hexadecapole moment. axial) and merge if computed more generally (e. 3. Bender et al.B. No. As with any collective path. It is also a critical test case for mean-field models as a microscopic picture of collectivity (see. This tendency to deformation for nuclei far from stability may be related to the shell quenching that is likely to appear towards drip lines (see also Sec. the dashed line to triaxial quadrupole constraints. 1980). and the next magic number. they are represented by a succession of deformed mean-field states 兵 兩 ⌽ q 典 其 . by no means restores sphericity. (1998). The softness of the potential-energy surfaces increases for N⫽22. It also became one of the first applications of constrained self-consistent calculations with Skyrme interactions (Flocard et al. which has been the traditional benchmark for the performance of mean-field models. An additional difficulty arises from the fact that separate valleys found in a calculation might be an artifact from an overly restricted symmetry (e. The oscillations of the surfaces are due to shell fluctuations..

Depending on the interaction. the experimental data have up to now been too limited to permit conclusive studies. 1998. one obtains either a shallow minimum or a very flat octupole potential-energy surface. Deloncle et al. we also show in Fig.3. (1986). while the relativistic mean-field forces show only shallow barriers. 75.. 1. The Gogny force D1S produces rather high barriers. However. Bender.6.. while all Skyrme Hartree-Fock forces fall in between.. 1989. on the other hand. Theoretical lifetimes agree with experimental ones within two orders of magnitude. 16. The relativistic mean-field forces. the comparison is a bit touchy for the Gogny force D1S. Figure 16 shows the potential-energy surfaces of 240Pu for a variety of forces. It was found that octupole deformations do not yield a large gain in energies. Berger et al.. Soon after the pioneering calculations of 222Ra with the Skyrme interaction SIII by Bonche et al. These are not yet available for the relativistic Rev. 1982.. the intrinsic octupole deformation of Ra isotopes was investigated by Robledo et al. which is not constrained in the calculation here.. overcome the barrier between the fusion path and the fission path before this can form a neck and fuse. Delaroche et al. Octupole instability was first analyzed in terms of shell effects within the framework of mic-mac models (Leander et al. 16. et al. Butler and Nazarewicz have given both a short introduction to the subject (1991) and an extensive review (1996). At present the most consistent way is to compare just the uncorrected potential-energy surfaces. Takahara et al. see Bonche et al. These provide information on the magnitude of shell effects in the second well. 4. The mean-field result overestimates the barriers a bit. One has to remember that this force has been adjusted on the fission barrier of 240Pu to include a correction for rotation. Thus one needs configuration mixing and parity . Vibrational and rotational corrections will probably help to come closer to the data.. No. 1991. Mod. In fact. A test of several Skyrme interactions (Heenen et al. There are some experimental data on the absolute excitation energies of superdeformed minima at zero spin. Examples are 20Ne and nuclei around 146Ba and 222Th. indicate the empirical barriers and minima. (1987) with the Gogny interaction D1S. Krieger et al. Transition probabilities from fission isomers to the ground state have been measured experimentally for 236. Therefore. Libert et al. Extensive investigations have led to the conclusion that these shapes are not as stable as quadrupole deformations. The points with error bars. 5. 1982b. This suggests that configuration mixing (for examples. 1994. Vol.. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models mean-field model. Nazarewicz et al. Heenen. where Skyrme forces strongly stabilize against fission.164 Bender. several other zero-point corrections also had to be included. 1989.8 U. which is located around ␤ 2 ⬃1. which are drawn at arbitrary deformations. These differences between the interactions are even more pronounced for superheavy elements around Z⬇116. A similar correction should then be applied to all other forces as well. There are now a few examples of nuclei exhibiting negative-parity bands at low excitation energy. which gives us some confidence in the ability of meanfield calculations to describe the topology of the first barrier correctly. which can be related to intrinsic shapes with paritybreaking multipole moments. 1992. 1998.. 1994. The typical pattern of a doublehumped barrier is reproduced by every mean-field model. predict low barriers and a low second minimum.. 1996) and symmetry restoration or at least dynamical zero-point energy corrections (see Girod and Reinhard. 1990a. However. 1994. Shapes are triaxial and reflection symmetric at the first barrier around ␤ 2 ⬇0. This comes closer to the data. 1989. Phys. such as a pear shape. This happens only for smaller deformations.. 2001). Their determination by a generator-coordinatemethod calculation including mean-field states in the two wells allows us to test the topology of the barrier because quantum tunneling is extremely sensitive to the height and thickness of the barrier (Chinn et al. 1990b.. 16 the potential-energy surfaces for D1S where the rotational correction has been taken into account. 1984). There are quantitative differences in the barrier height and depth of the second minimum. they are axial and reflection asymmetric at the second barrier.. Octupole deformation Observation of negative-parity states at very low excitation energies was the first evidence that nuclei might have a shape that is reflection asymmetric. 1998) has shown that they reproduce particle separation energies within a well much better than absolute excitation energies.. Superdeformed states and fission isomers FIG. which ´ wiok increase again towards the next shell closures (C et al. Note that both paths are connected in a landscape of varying hexadecapole moment. as is done in Fig. 1996). January 2003 Fission isomers are a special case of superdeformed minima which appear very often in heavy elements. 1999) have to be taken into account. 1996. Deformation energy along the fission path of 240Pu calculated with the mean-field forces as indicated. Rutz.

(1994). 2001) have demonstrated the extreme softness of these nuclei against nonaxial octupole deformations in several excited states. (1997. They showed that the low-energy states of negative parity are well described without the inclusion of the dipole degree of freedom. 1996) that some superdeformed rotational bands are generated by the rotation of reflectionasymmetric intrinsic states. and Flocard (2001). The meanfield potential-energy surface of 208Pb is flat as a function of octupole deformations and presents a minimum at spherical shape.. Flocard. The nonaxial octupole modes were calculated by Skalski. The generator-coordinate method mixes mean-field states corresponding to different octupole moments.. Symmetry-unrestricted Skyrme HFB calculations of N ⫽Z nuclei from 64Ge to 84Mo (Yamagami et al. Valor. Octupole deformation properties in 208Pb computed with SLy4. 17. a shallow well develops for the positive parity. (1995). and Meyer (1993). Heenen. was performed by Meyer et al.. (1991).Bender. The ground-state shapes of Ra and Th isotopes have been investigated within the relativistic mean-field method by Rutz et al. et al. A symmetry-unrestricted cranked Skyrme Hartree-Fock calculation of high-spin states in 32S was performed by Yamagami and Matsuyanagi (2000). This enabled these authors to determine octupole-phonon states in both wells. Conversely. There is indeed experimental evidence (Wilson et al..A. Reflection-asymmetric shapes have been much less studied for rotating nuclei. Parity projected calculations of octupole deformations in the superdeformed well in 194 Pb were investigated by Bonche et al. et al. Vol. No. nonzero value of the octupole moment. The same formalism was used by Heenen and Skalski (1996) to describe the coupling between the octupole and isovector dipole modes in the normally deformed nucleus 152Sm and in the superdeformed 190Hg. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models FIG. 1992). the maximum of the lowest GCM state of negative parity corresponds to the minimum of the potential-energy surface with negative parity. Inclusion of isovector dipole deformations permits a satisfactory description of the giant dipole resonance simultaneously with the low energy octupole excitations. (78). Figure 17 illustrates for the case of 208Pb (Heenen.d) with either adiabatic TDHF or generator-coordinate method masses (Robledo et al. Skalski. Mod. January 2003 165 difference between the first states of both parities is rather close to the energy difference between the minima of the wells of both parity. who showed that nonaxial deformations of Y 31 type play a role above spin 5.. One must note that the positive-parity wave function has a maximum value in the spherical shape and spreads approximately like a Gaussian over octupole deformations. with a minimum for a small. Full parity projection after variation was subsequently performed for studies of octupole groundstate correlations in several regions of the nuclear chart with the Gogny interaction by Egido and Robledo (1991) and with the Skyrme interaction including configuration mixing by the generator coordinate method by Skalski. showing. . Data taken from Heenen. that nonaxial modes are not energetically favored. (1995). 1. Several studies have also been devoted to the investigation of octupole deformations in the superdeformed well of nuclei in the Hg-Pb mass region. Since there is no energy gain by projection for the spherical configuration. including all the quadrupole deformations from the spherical ground state to the superdeformed intrinsic state. Egido and Robledo. A coupled quadrupole-octupole generator-coordinatemethod study of 194Pb. The upper panel shows the collective wave functions g k ( ␤ 3 ).2. The minimum of the curve projected on negative parity appears for a much larger octupole deformation. E. Bonche. 1989. 1990. Eq. for ground state and first excitation. This interest is motivated by the general interest in extending the table of elements up to the limits of stability and finding new shell closures. The energy Rev. Phys. Q ␣ values in superheavy elements Superheavy elements have attracted much interest in the past and continue to do so. 1998) in a cranking approach using the Gogny interaction. 1988. Bonche. This was first done in the framework of a collective Schro¨dinger equation approximation to the generator-coordinate method (see Sec. 75. 2001) how octupole deformations develop due to the inclusion of correlations. in particular for E1 transition probabilities determined with the Gogny interaction. one obtains a different potential-energy surface for each parity. When projecting on parity for each value of the octupole moment. The lower panel shows the potential-energy surfaces from mean-field and parity projected calculations as indicated. This yields a spectrum of states. The transition to octupole deformations at high spin for N⫽88 isotopes around 144Ba is discussed by Garrote et al. Valor. Heenen. Heenen. Bender. Bender. Superheavy elements provide a testing ground for nuclear models as they probe the interplay of the collective effects triggered by the strong repulsive Coulomb field and details of the stabilizing shell structure. in contrast to non-self-consistent calculations. projection. III. and Bonche (1993) and Heenen. Good agreement with the experimental data was obtained.

which is a differential observable similar to the two-nucleon separation energies. in particular for nuclei in which superdeformed rotational bands have been detected experimentally (Garett et al. Janssens and Khoo. VI. mean-field calculations were performed either with simple interactions in a restricted space (see.Z) ⫽E(N.. No. 2000. respectively. with the consequence that one cannot treat pairing correlations in the BCS approximation. 1995). Hofmann and Mu¨nzenberg. Rotational bands FIG. VI. Experimental values are taken from Audi and Wapstra (1995). All forces reproduce the overall pattern of the Q ␣ . 2000). Large gaps between the curves and kinks within the curves are related to deformed proton and neutron shells. and Oganessian et al. (2000). and with the relativistic mean-field method (Afanasjev and Ring. but their modeling is as involved as the calculation of separation energies discussed in Sec. (2002). 1995.. 1988. But pairing correlations are inevitably needed because superdeformed bands have been detected down to very low spin. where the moment of inertia of the bands varies strongly as a function of spin. 2000.. 1996. (119).. including long-range correlations will alter the systematics of Q ␣ similarly to the findings for S 2n discussed in Sec. 1979. Figure 18 compares calculated and experimental systematics of Q ␣ in the regime of the heaviest observed elements. F. Very recently. 2000). with the Gogny force (Girod et al. for instance. January 2003 The 1990s saw a significant breakthrough for meanfield methods in the calculation of rotational bands in several regions of the nuclear chart.2).. 2000) and there are experiments underway to measure bands in superheavy odd-A isotopes. Afanasjev et al. All the variants of the mean-field methods discussed here have now been applied to the study of superdeformed bands and usually have shown surprisingly good agreement with the experimental data. as well as in the appearance or position of kinks in the trends with respect to N. 8). but there are differences among the forces in the shift between experimental and calculated curves for a given Z.. 1980a. 114. even smoother than the data. Valor et al..2. 1. 1991. A major numerical difficulty in handling rotating nuclei is that time-reversal invariance is broken. 75. which is reflected in an increased softness of the deformation energy surfaces with increased Z. Eq. none of the parametrizations is to be preferred. although we see clear differences among them. Results in Fig. 18 are for even nuclei only.. Q ␣ values of even-even superheavy elements as predicted by self-consistent mean-field models.. and BSk1 values are from Samyn et al.. Recent references include studies of superdeformed bands in the A ⬇190 mass region with the Skyrme Hartree-FockBogoliubov method (Terasaki et al. Baktash et al. This will provide a unique opportunity to test the quasiparticle spectra of the pairing correlations in very heavy nuclei and the validity of mean-field interactions for extrapola- . The parametrizations differ in their predictions for the next spherical shell closures (see Fig. Figure 18 covers a transition from well-deformed nuclei at the lower end up to transitional nuclei close to the ´ wiok et al. Phys. 18. SLy4 values are from C´wiok et al..Z⫺2)⫺E(2. 2000b). 1987). 1980b) or within a pure Hartree-Fock framework (Passler and Mosel. It is by no means guaranteed that experimental data refer to transitions between the lowest quasiparticle states.1. There are more data for odd nuclei. 1976. Fleckner et al. Armbruster. Experimental values at the upper right corner are for Z⫽116. (2001). Bu¨rvenich et al.166 Bender. Heenen. Before that time. 1994. 2000a.F.Z)⫺E(N⫺2. Egido et al. rotational bands were detected in 252No (Reiter et al. Hofmann et al. 1998. 1986. next shell closures (C 1998). in most cases the only available observable is the ␣-decay energy release Q ␣ (N. Mod. (1999). (1999) and Bender (2000). Excitations 1. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models On the basis of the currently available data for Q ␣ (for even nuclei). Keep in mind that BSk1 with its large m 0* /m has the smoothest trends. This is particularly true around A⬇190. and 112. a clear sign of varying pairing correlations. Selected decay chains are investigated by C´wiok et al... NL-Z2 values are from Bender (2000). Vol. Bonche et al. 1997b). Nolan and Twin.B. Experimental data on superheavy nuclei are still sparse (Hofmann. Rev. The heaviest nuclei shown cannot be safely described on the mean-field level.

(1995) have compared spherical shell-model calculations with cranked HFB using the Gogny interaction for 48Cr. in particular. 1. Phys. which is equal to the second derivative of the energy with respect to the rotational frequency ␻. Up to now. January 2003 FIG.. 19. Let us look first at the effect of these correlations for the stable nucleus 24Mg. The first three energies obtained for each J in the configuration-mixing calculation are represented by horizontal bars centered at the value of q 0 where the respective collective wave functions have their largest value. and Bonche (2000). Dynamical moment of inertia J( 2 ) . at this level of approximation. This hints at a deficiency in the treatment of pairing correlations. It shows a backbend which is reproduced by both calculations. However. Indeed. Light nuclei We have seen in Sec. tion to superheavy nuclei. These bands correspond to two different one-quasiparticle excitations on an even vacuum. the mean-field moment of inertia is too large. Experimental data are taken from Han and Wu (1999). VI. Skyrme HartreeFock-Bogoliubov calculations (Duguet et al. leading to an unphysical phase transition (Gall et al. which is well deformed in its ground state. et al. Mod. the relative magnitudes of the moments of inertia is well reproduced. The study of rotational bands has also initiated investigations of the importance of time-odd terms in Skyrme interactions (Dobaczewski and Dudek. In particular.. rier et al. However. and of time-odd fields in relativistic Lagrangians (Afanasjev and Ring. The dashed curve is the mean-field result. Heenen. as a function of the axial quadrupole moment q 0 of the state that is projected. for two rotational bands in 192 Tl calculated with density-dependent pairing and the SLy4 interaction (Heenen and Janssens.2 that the description of light nuclei requires the introduction of correlations beyond a mean-field approach. As expected from the usual estimates of zero-point energy motion. The rotational band of this nucleus is known up to spin 16.D. pairing correlations collapse abruptly as a function of the rotational frequency. while the shell-model result agrees with the experimental data. calculations of the large number of oneand two-quasiparticle bands that have been detected have increased our confidence in the quasiparticle spectra predicted by the mean-field interactions. Vol. Rotational bands might be the appropriate tool to constrain these time-odd components (Bender. The axial quadrupole potential-energy surfaces presented in Fig. the restoration of each mode brings a gain of energy of around 2 MeV. 2000). Potential-energy surfaces for angular momenta values ranging from 0 to 10 are obtained by projecting the mean-field wave functions for each quadrupole moment onto good angular momentum and particle numbers. Dobaczewski. 20. Recent progress in realistic shell-model calculations allows the calculation of medium-mass nuclei by these methods. Heenen. Up to now. no neutron-proton T⫽0 pairing is taken into account in the mean-field calculations. more systematic studies remain to be done. CauRev. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 167 FIG. 2001) and calculations with the Gogny interaction (Egido and Robledo. Taken from Valor. 1998).Bender. Projected potential-energy surfaces of 24Mg for angular momentum J⫽0 to 10. The agreement between data and theory is very nice. 2002). 1995). Thus medium-mass nuclei are a good place to compare mean-field and shell-model calculations. The best way to cure this deficiency would be to perform a variation after projection (VAP) on particle numbers. No. 2. all applications have used an approximate VAP by means of the Lipkin-Nogami method which has proven sufficient to avoid an abrupt pairing collapse. The study of rotational bands extending up to very high spins has shown the necessity of treating pairing correlations beyond the HFB method.. 1994). Low-energy spectra a. 75. Several similar results have allowed us to assign the excited bands to specific quasiparticle excitations.. The mean-field wave function corresponding to the minimum of the J ⫽0 projected curve has a quadrupole moment slightly . 20 (obtained with SLy4 and a density-dependent delta pairing) show a mean-field minimum for a quadrupole moment around 2 b. 2000) nicely reproduce the experimental data. Besides the nice reproduction of moments of inertia of even nuclei. Figure 19 compares two bands calculated with the SLy4 Skyrme force with the data for an odd-odd isotope 192Tl.

2000c). Valor. The decrease in the excitation energy of the first 2 ⫹ from N⫽50 to N⫽40 is a consequence of the gradual appearance of deformations. who use the Gogny force]. (1997). et al. c. (1990). and from generator-coordinate method calculations on triaxial quadrupole mean-field wave functions projected on particle number (Heenen et al. Vol. due to the neutron shell closure at N⫽50. 88Sr is a spherical nucleus. Bender. An exact restoration of angular momentum would favor an increase of deformations and its lack is probably the major source of discrepancy in the present example. (2002). Mod. while 78Sr is strongly deformed. together with the experimental data. This has been done by Heenen. The isotopic shifts are greatly affected by the mixing of configurations.. Many of these studies focus on the phenomenon of shape coexistence (see Heyde et al. and for the isotopic shifts. Calculations along these lines have been done for several light nuclei.. Configuration-mixing calculations of angular momentum projected wave functions using the Gogny force have been performed for some Mg and Si isotopes (Rodriguez-Guzma´n et al. 1992 for reviews) or on the evolution of the N⫽20 and N⫽28 shell closures in neutron-rich nuclei. Phys. In both cases. and Bonche (2001). In all these applications. respectively. The potential-energy surfaces of the intermediate isotopes are extremely soft against triaxial quadrupole deformations. Reinhard et al. Bonche. No. (1993). The ambiguities of the mean-field calculation are removed thanks to configuration mixing. 1. who use Skyrme interactions or Peru et al. Ground-state correlations and mass systematics Figure 22 shows. Deformation effects in medium-mass nuclei The light Sr isotopes are a good example of nuclei whose shape varies rapidly with changing neutron number. Bonche. Experimental values for ␦ r ms are taken from Buchinger et al.. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models larger than the minimum of the intrinsic curve. 2000a) and for a possible superdeformed band in 32S (RodriguezGuzma´n et al. These first explorations demonstrate the need for correlations and better mean-field models in light nuclei.. 75.168 Bender. Bender. and Flocard. their radii are quite different. They were mixed by a generator-coordinate method calculation after particle-number projection.. Finally. (1999). The theoretical results are obtained from HF⫹BCS⫹LN calculations with the Skyrme force SIII and a schematic seniority pairing interaction.. but much smaller than the restoration of symmetry. the two-neutron separation energies calculated around 68 Ni (Reinhard. Thanks to the symmetry restoration. 2000) and around 208Pb (Heenen. They also confirm the result based on simpler models that magic numbers like N⫽28 are not preserved far from stability. for example.. Some of the calculations rely on the Bohr Hamiltonian approximation of the generator-coordinate method [see. the mean-field results are obtained from . the increase of the isotopic shift with decreasing neutron number is not reproduced for the intermediate isotopes. transition probabilities between the different states can be calculated directly in the laboratory frame of reference and compared to the experimental data without having to introduce approximations. 21 for the excitation energies of the lowest 2 ⫹ and 3 ⫹ states obtained after the approximate angular momentum projection. Results are shown in Fig. It agrees qualitatively with experiment. b. the correlations beyond the mean field provided by the symmetry restorations and the configuration mixing significantly improve the agreement with experimental data. projected onto angular momentum and particle number. Valor. The position of this minimum does not vary significantly with angular momentum. 2001) with the SkI4 and SLy4 parametrizations. it slightly decreases the mean quadrupole moment of the mixing and brings it back to the value of the intrinsic curve. January 2003 FIG. 21. As expected for a vibrational correlation as well. The mean-field wave functions for a grid of triRev. has been performed for 32S with a Skyrme interaction and a density-dependent delta pairing force by Heenen. and N⬇28 nuclei by Rodriguez-Guzma´n et al. Configuration mixing with respect to the quadrupole moment of the mean-field states still brings a small gain in energy. while excitation energies are taken from Kinsey et al. axial quadrupole moments were generated by HartreeFock⫹BCS⫹Lipkin-Nogami (HF⫹BCX⫹LN) calculations with the SIII Skyrme interaction and a seniority pairing. This prevents a meaningful comparison of the charge radii with experiment. The quadrupole collectivity has been investigated with the same model for N⬇20 nuclei by Rodriguez-Guzma´n et al. (2000b). with several minima of very different shapes but similar energies. Isotopic shifts (bottom) and excitation energies of the first 2 ⫹ and 3 ⫹ states (top) for light Sr isotopes. However. Such a deficiency can be corrected by performing a configuration mixing by the generator-coordinate method. a configuration mixing of many-body states with different quadrupole moments. 1983 and Wood et al. et al. 1993). Partial restoration of angular momentum was also performed by mixing the six possible orientations of the principle axes of the nucleus along the axes of the intrinsic frame of reference. Although the minima have similar energies. Heenen. (2000).

1986). 23. 1983). and Flocard (2001) ( 208Pb). et al. Yadav.. No. and pair vibrations.. 1. 2001. Skyrme-HF⫹BCS⫹LN calculations employing a density-dependent delta force. Influence of ground-state correlations on the S 2n around 68Ni (left panel) and 208Pb (right panel). The resonance in 208Pb shows a nicely dominating peak. This mode appears in almost any multipolarity and isospin channel. The most prominent resonances are the isovector dipole. and Toepffer. 1998). The picture looks quite differ- . Wandelt. and the isoscalar quadrupole. 2001. For 208Pb the Landau fragmentation (included in the RPA) is the dominant contribution (about 2/3) while the escape (included in the continuum RPA) and collisional widths are responsible for about 1/3 of the width (Reinhard. Bender. Data taken from Reinhard. Bortignon et al. These modes show up in an energy range of 10–30 MeV. The first RPA results based on the relativistic mean-field approach were published recently (Vretenar. which means that collective quadrupole vibrations are much softer in 68 Ni than in 208Pb. 22. and Ring 2000. calculated with three different Skyrme forces. In Fig. several collective variables have been explored but none of them allows us to obtain the same quality of agreement with the data as that for Ni. Ma et al. T⫽0). the isovector dipole (L⫽1. The discrete RPA spectra have been folded with a Lorentzian of width 1 MeV to account roughly for escape width and collisional broadening. Mod. Vretenar et al. January 2003 FIG. 3. Speth and Wambach 1991. Bender. There is also a large body of RPA calculations based on selfconsistent mean-field models with Skyrme interactions [for recent compilations see Colo et al. (1995) and Reinhard (1999)]. Vol. T⫽1). which corresponds to small collective quadrupole oscillations.Bender. 1991. There is a long-standing history of microscopic calculations of giant resonances. the isoscalar monopole. Experimental photoneutron cross sections are taken from Dietrich and Bermann (1988). octupole. The mode that most strongly affects the Pb results is pairing vibration. We shall give here a brief overview of the three most important resonances: the isoscalar monopole (L ⫽0. respectively. 1982. T⫽0). Correlations beyond the mean field are included in both cases.. 1981. which is in lowest order a collective oscillation of the proton against the neutron density. Giant resonances An important characteristic of nuclear excitation spectra is the presence of giant resonances (Speth and van der Woude. For Pb isotopes. Phys. Ring et al. 1977). but the coupling to other modes (escape width and nucleon-nucleon collisions) smooths the detailed structure in such a way that one broad peak remains visible. is compared to photoneutron experiments. They explore only small-amplitude oscillations around the nuclear ground state and are thus ideally suited for a description in terms of the RPA. the dipole strength distribution in 16O and in 208Pb.. The inclusion of quadrupole correlations in the Ni case significantly modifies the mean-field S 2n and brings them close to the experimental data. for reviews see Goeke and Speth (1982) and Speth and Wambach (1991).. and the Gogny force (Blaizot et al. for Ni with the Gaussian overlap approximation of the generatorcoordinate method and for Pb with particle-number projected generator-coordinate method calculations. 1976. Heenen. Bonche. Q 20 . All three theoretical results for 208Pb are close to the experimental curve. (2000) ( 68Ni) and Heenen.. tive residual interactions. In fact. 2001a. Q 30 . Valor. where a large fraction of the multipole sum rules are exhausted. in experiment as well as in calculations. and the isoscalar quadrupole (L⫽2. 75. Random-phase approximation results for the dipole strength distributions in 16O (upper panel) and 208Pb (lower panel for various forces indicated. 2002). The difference between Ni and Pb is probably related to their different ‘‘magicity’’: the N⫽126 gap in 208Pb is much larger than the N⫽40 gap in 68Ni. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 169 FIG. and ‘‘pair’’ denote quadrupole. Bertsch and Broglia. which is a radial vibration of the nucleus as a whole (‘‘breathing mode’’). Goeke and Speth.. this peak is strongly fragmented by interference with one-particle/ one-hole states (Landau fragmentation). A thorough treatment of all contributions to the width goes beyond the RPA (Bertsch et al. Blaizot and Gogny. 2001b. 23. Several of them rely on phenomenologically adjusted model potentials with effecRev. van der Woude. 1994.

0 10.3 12.7 13. even more when taking into account isotopic trends and trends in system size. SIII. (50) and Krivine et al. II. The resonance energy increases with increasing ␬ TKR . The latter trend is unexpected. The results for the isoscalar quadrupole resonance gather nicely around the experimental value. The position of the dipole resonance is determined by bulk parameters: the symmetry energy coefficient a sym . All forces systematically produce too low a resonance energy.A. 1992). The lower density of one-particle/one-hole states leaves a detailed fragmentation pattern apparent in the smoothed strengths. 1991.1 14. SkI4.g. Hamamoto and Sagawa (1993). was one of the motivations for extending the model by allowing ␣ ⬍1 in the exponent of the density dependence [see Eq. see. Hamamoto (1999).2 L⫽0.5 15.8 ent for a light nucleus such as 16O. 1999). 1999). 2002). Thus the position of the maximum depends slightly on the folding width of the Lorentzian used on the discrete RPA results. 1985). we see that there is a world of valuable information in the resonance excitation spectra. We have to assume an uncertainty of about ⫾0..170 Bender. Hamamoto and Sagawa (2000).T⫽0 11. Excitations of unnatural parity and ␤ decay The previous section dealt with giant resonances of natural parity. The dominant isoscalar modes have magnetic dipole (M1) structure and spin and orbital current contributions. Heenen. No. Figure 23 shows that the spectral distribution is asymmetric.. The peak positions of the most important giant resonances in 208Pb computed with the RPA for various forces and compared with experimental values. (1995).. Other modes carry further information. is the only one to underestimate the energy of the resonance significantly. and Suzuki and Sagawa (2000) for M1 strength and by Colo et al. Orbital M1 strength is related to the nuclear scissors mode which has been observed by Bohle et al. which are still in the early stages of exploration. 75. The interaction MSk5.0 13.. The far too high value obtained from the early parametrizations. Only models based on Skyrme interactions have been used so far. These seem to go in the right direction once ␣ has been allowed to take on values less than 1. Here. in qualitative agreement with the data.4 11. Table III. 1997 for more details).8 12.5 12.e. etc. (1984. It stems from a strong link to ⳵ ␳ a sym in the ground-state fits (Reinhard. Note that the monopole resonance has not been fitted but comes out as a prediction from the force.7 12. Table V shows results for the three major resonances computed with a broad selection of forces.9 13.1 9. There are two possible choices for Eodd in the Skyrme interaction (see Sec. This leads to the conclusion that the A dependence of the asymmetry energy is underestimated by present-day mean-field interactions. J ␲ ⫽0 ⫺ . Phys.3 15. Standard Skyrme Hartree-Fock parametrizations with m * 0 /m ⫽0. It is clear that parametrizations with m 0* /m⫽1 (here SkP and Rev.0 11.6 10. All energies are given in MeV. January 2003 MSk5) yield values that are too low while forces with low effective mass (SkI3. See also Sec...A. We see that most forces perform very well for the dipole resonance.3.2). and the density dependence of the symmetry energy coefficient ⳵ ␳ a sym .7 11.8 fit the resonance best (Reinhard. which has been exclusively adjusted to all known masses. all major giant resonances show a clear single-peak structure and comparisons can be made on the grounds of peak positions.5 13. This introduces a small ambiguity in comparison with the experimental data. It is well known that the resonance position is uniquely related to the isoscalar effective mass (Brack et al. the sum-rule enhancement factor ␬ TKR . Mod. although the precise reasons for this mismatch are not yet fully understood. see Gaarde et al. e. Blaizot et al.5 14.2 14. The more recent forces perform fairly well for this component. SLy6) predict resonance energies that are too large.2 SIII SkM* SkP SLy6 SkI3 SkI4 MSk5 SkT6 NL3 14. are reported by Auerbach and Klein (1984).3 17. 1 ⫹ . 4. (1980)]. 1980. cf. Vol. One finds a large scattering of predictions among the various Skyrme in- .5 MeV for the resonance energy.T⫽1 13. Bender. Nuclear surface properties and trends with respect to mass number also carry a lot of (indirect) information on the incompressibility. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models TABLE V. In sum. Osterfeld. which has yet to be thoroughly examined.. i. Expt. The most prominent isovector mode is the Gamov-Teller spin-isospin resonance which is observed in charge-exchange reactions (for reviews. (55). 2 ⫺ . 1998) using Skyrme interactions (see also Sagawa and Esbensen.4 14. 2001). The various influences on the peak position inhibit direct access to a sym by these data. (1997a. which differ significantly when modeling unnatural parity states.. We confine further considerations to the safe case of 208 Pb. et al. Sagawa et al.5 12. 1997b.1 13. Here we look briefly at excitations with unnatural parity. RPA calculations using the two-body Skyrme force. L⫽1. 1997c. (1994). Van Giai and Sagawa (1981). 1995). Most calculations discuss strength distibutions or simply the peak energies of the corresponding giant resonances obtained in quasiparticle RPA.6 L⫽2.3 12.9 12. Eq. 1. The extrapolation of giant resonance properties to nuclei far from stability has been extensively discussed by Hamamoto et al. see Iudice. Dobaczewski. and Suzuki and Sagawa (2000) for Gamov-Teller resonances (though the calculations are not always done in a fully self-consistent way. 1981. The position of the isoscalar monopole resonance is closely related to the incompressibility (Blaizot. V. while it decreases with increasing a sym .0 12.T⫽0 14.

the coupling constants of the time-odd terms determined from Eq. Heenen. Typical results are shown in Fig. 1995). Mod. *. Very few calculations consider proton-neutron pairing. who found that the available data do not uniquely determine all coupling constants. 2002). Within the two-body Skyrme force framework. et al. Dobaczewski. (1996) for nuclei around 132Sn based on the Fayans energy functional.2) to unnatural parity states stems from the time-odd part Eodd of the effective interaction. Nothing is known about the performance of those mean-field models that do not have any freedom in their time-odd part. The T⫽0 pairing interaction redistributes the low-energy tail of the Gamov-Teller strength distribution (therefore it can be safely neglected in GamovTeller resonance studies) that determines the ␤ transition rates. (49). one has to remember that the dominant contribution from the residual interaction (see Sec. using a phenomenological spin-spin residual interaction. VII. (A1)]. 1982) for a generalized model including ⌬-hole excitations (see also Towner. Data taken from Engel et al. Phys. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models teractions. the T⫽0 pairing strength is fitted to ␤-decay data and so introduces an adjustable parameter into the modeling. 24. and VI. It seems that Eq. (2001). Including T⫽0 pairing shortens half-lives by a factor of 2 to 5 times that of models without T⫽0 pairing. which is very sensitive to the energy release Q ␤ . 1. The energy-functional framework for the Skyrme interaction offers the freedom to adjust Eodd to M1 or Gamov-Teller data without affecting Eeven . II.¯␯ e ) pair.. which is computed from the matrix element of ␴ ˆ ␶ˆ augmented by a kinematic factor for the outgoing (e ⫺ . the usual fitting strategies do not constrain Eodd as it does not contribute to the ground states of even-even nuclei and gives a small correction only when calculating odd-A nuclei or rotating nuclei (see Secs. HFB⫹SkO’ results are shown with T⫽0 pairing. 24.. quires us to take into account intrinsic degrees of freedom of the nucleon (see Sagawa and Van Giai. The formal basis is in every case the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov scheme. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK We have reviewed self-consistent models for nuclear structure and low-energy excitations.. The coupling constant ␬ GT has to be a function of A. the simplest approach is to use only the isovector spin2 spin term Eodd⬃s1t (note that only the off-diagonal t 3 3 ⫽⫾1 terms contribute here). No.e. (1994.C. Eq. January 2003 171 FIG. The resulting dependence of Eodd on Eeven imposes. The actual models differ in their ansatz for parametrizing the effective forces or the energy-density functionals. i. VI. This is because the schematic interaction thus obtained is not equivalent to the Landau interaction (Gaarde et al. v ⫽ ␬ GT ␴ ˆ •␴ ˆ ⬘ ␶ˆ • ␶ˆ ⬘ for Gamov-Teller studies.2. and the . 75.A. The shorter half-lives alter predictions for the abundance distribution of r-process elements and for the time it takes to synthesize them. for example. the Gogny force or the standard relativistic mean field (in the standard Lagrangian there are neither mesons nor couplings nor exchange terms which directly access the spin distribution). (55) does not offer enough versatility to describe the usual bulk properties and the Gamov-Teller response data at the same time. e. Examples are the study of M1 resonances by Sarriguren et al. Furthermore. 䊐.B. It is to be noted that for a complete description of Gamov-Teller properties the strength distribution reRev. Owing to the lack of other data. et al. The modeling of ␤ decay is complicated by the fact that proton-neutron T⫽0 pairing also contributes. The low-energy tail of the Gamov-Teller strength distribution is explored by ␤ ⫺ decay. An attempt to adjust all the relevant parameters of the time-odd Skyrme energy functional to Gamov-Teller response data was undertaken by Bender. This is equivalent to a Landau-Migdal s-wave interaction with strength g ⬘0 (Bertsch.. or the study of neutron-rich nuclei by Engel et al. the quality of this approximation to a fully self-consistent calculation is unclear. Dobaczewski. some parametrizations are even unstable with respect to certain spin-excitation modes. Although in both cases the coupling constant ␬ is estimated from the Landau parameters of the two-body Skyrme force. (2002). (1997) and the Gamov-Teller and ␤-decay studies of deformed nuclei by Sarriguren et al. (HFB⫹SkO’. The three most widely used forms have been considered: the Gogny force. Vol. (1999) in which the same Skyrme force SkO’ is used everywhere for the particle-hole channel. (1999) and Martı´nez-Pinedo and Langanke (1999) (shell model). a relation between Gamov-Teller properties and the isobaric analog state discussed by Colo et al. nor is the Landau interaction in infinite nuclear matter equivalent to the original Skyrme interaction in finite nuclei (Bender.Bender. The key observable here is the decay rate.g.V 0 ⫽0) without T⫽0 pairing. To understand this deficiency of Skyrme interactions. 1981). III. (55) are a function of the time-even ones [see also Eq. Excitation modes with unnatural parity deliver the only available data that are dominated by Eodd . Some applications use an even simpler separable schematic residual interaction. Predictions for the half-lives of closed neutron-shell nuclei along the r-process path from quasiparticle RPA calculations. the Skyrme energy functional.1.. 1981). as does the ␤ ⫺ -decay calculation of Borzov et al. When constructing a timeodd Skyrme energy functional for Gamov-Teller studies.1). This led to the parametrization SGII of Van Giai and Sagawa (1981) tailored for this particular purpose. 1987).F.

rotations. M.A. (A2) using the notation introduced by Reinhard and Flocard (1995). Dobaczewski. The b s.4 E.0050 15.7190 ⫺0. Project No.172 Bender.2263 0. Brack.7923 ⫺0. P. 1 C ⵜJ 1 ⫽⫺ 2 b ⬘ 4. Phys. S. 1 C ⵜJ 1 ⫽⫺ 4 W 0 . Thus the assessment is mixed. 75. J.6777 1. T.2 a s. APPENDIX A: ENERGY-DENSITY FUNCTIONAL FROM THE TWO-BODY SKYRME FORCE Calculating the Hartree-Fock expectation value 具 HF兩 vˆ Sk兩 HF典 of the standard Skyrme force [Eq.6316 ⫺0. They are given as the so-called Sachs form factors for isospin 0 and 1 in the form of a dipole fit (Simon et al. Vretenar. On the other hand.1793 0. II.08 44. 1 1 1 1 C sT 0 ⫽ ␩ J 关 ⫺ 8 t 1 共 2 ⫺x 1 兲 ⫹ 8 t 2 共 2 ⫹x 2 兲兴 . 06 ER 808. one has additionally C Ts . The magnetic form factors are taken from Simon et al. C ⌬1 ␳ ⫽ 323 t 1 共 21 ⫹x 1 兲 ⫹ 321 t 2 共 21 ⫹x 2 兲 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the many colleagues who have helped with advice and with material for this article. On the one hand. A.I⫽0 E. 3 C ⵜJ 0 ⫽⫺ 4 W 0 . C ␶0 ⫽ 163 t 1 ⫹ 41 t 2 共 45 ⫹x 2 兲 .2907 0. Probably the most important next step is a proper and highly efficient inclusion of ground-state correlations. C ⌬0 ␳ ⫽⫺ 649 t 1 ⫹ 161 t 2 共 45 ⫹x 2 兲 . This work has been supported in part by Bundesministerium fu¨r Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).6940 ⫺0. M. On the other hand.3 b s. many parametrizations of the Skyrme interaction set ␩ J ⫽0. S a s. C ␶1 ⫽⫺ 81 t 1 共 21 ⫹x 1 兲 ⫹ 81 t 2 共 21 ⫹x 2 兲 .3681 0. the electric form factors from Walther (1986).68 15. acknowledges support through a European Community Marie Curie Fellowship.4 b s. No. The precision of the meanfield description has reached such a high level that correlation effects can no longer be neglected.0372 0. TABLE VI. For interactions with generalized spin-orbit interaction one obtains 1 C ⵜJ 0 ⫽⫺b 4 ⫺ 2 b 4⬘ . 1 1 C sT 1 ⫽ ␩ J 共 ⫺ 16 t 1 ⫹ 16 t 2 兲 . In the energy-density functional approach. Of course. ␯ are given in units of fm⫺2 . and the PAI-P5-07 of the Belgian Office for Scientific Policy.2 b s. (A1) C ␳1 ⫽⫺ 41 t 0 共 21 ⫹x 0 兲 ⫺ 241 t 3 共 21 ⫹x 3 兲 ␳ ␣0 .04 44. 1.1 a s. Bu¨rvenich.2 154. J.3 a s. Although in this approach ␩ J ⫽1.02 41. Mod. For generalized Skyrme forces with more involved density dependencies. 3 1 1 1 C ⌬s 0 ⫽ 32 t 1 共 2 ⫺x 1 兲 ⫹ 32 t 2 共 2 ⫹x 2 兲 .B. see the references on density dependence cited in Sec. thanks to experimental progress related to the construction of exotic-beam facilities. many new data on nuclei far from stability should be available.2. The coefficients of the isospin-coupled Sachs form factors of the nucleons. W.2 355. C TsT ⫽⫺C TJ . differences in performance show up when looking at more subtle observables and when extrapolating far into the realm of exotic nuclei. 1980). and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models relativistic mean-field model. (1980). (105) requires a folding with the intrinsic nucleon form factors. They will constitute a great challenge for self-consistent meanfield methods and should allow us to specify more precisely the key ingredient of these models: the effective interaction. one can also accommodate very well excitation properties such as fission. J. C ⵜs 0 ⫽0.75 5. More than that. there are many open problems calling for further investigation. and C ⵜs as independent coupling constants.I⫽1 M 2. and various giant resonances. (B1).00 8.50 26. (56)] yields the energy functionals (48) and (49) with coupling constants given by C ␳0 ⫽ 83 t 0 ⫹ 483 t 3 ␳ 0␣ . and D. C s1 ⫽⫺ 81 t 0 ⫺ 481 t 3 ␳ ␣0 . In each case parametrizations exist which provide an excellent description of nuclear bulk properties..-F. self-consistent mean-field models have reached a high descriptive and predictive power in many respects. nine of which are independent.4180 0.02 15.08 134. Heenen. it provides interesting and helpful hints for further developments and a deeper understanding of the models. Vol. These are taken from electron scattering on protons and deuterons. Nazarewicz. Goriely. January 2003 .. APPENDIX B: THE NUCLEON FORM FACTOR The computation of the charge density following Eq. Bartel.1 b s. This points to weaknesses in the existing models. Berger. C ⵜs 1 ⫽0. 3 1 C ⌬s 1 ⫽ 64 t 1 ⫹ 64 t 2 .4 Rev. Eq. C ⌬s . J. Bonche. Maruhn. C s0 ⫽⫺ 41 t 0 共 21 ⫺x 0 兲 ⫺ 241 t 3 共 21 ⫺x 3 兲 ␳ ␣0 . At the same time. vibrational states.

Bengtsson. A 348. and K. 2000b. Phys. W. 2000.. Koonin (Springer. Bender. M. Dutta.) 164. Phys. Robledo. 1.-H. Lett. Nucl. S. M. J.. and P. 1992. 485. Bitaud. edited by K. Flocard. Phys. Flocard. 031302(R). Phys. N. Rev. Y. Marcos. 75. V. Nucl. Greiner. A 8. 1995.. Phys. H. Ann.I⫽1). C 53. M. and the relativistic Darwin correction (see.-F. P. and J. Part. M.-G. K. Egido. 031302. M. Fomenko. Nucl. England). Lett. J.. E. Phys.. K.. S. J. 2001a. Nucl. Rebel. C. and M. J. C 65. Phys.Y. 467. E.Y. 30. for example. Nucl.. Heisenberg. 2001. A. Phys. Bortignon. Phys. 1984.. M. Colo. Eur. A. 1978. A 14. Bender. N. Aboussir. Phys. For details see Reinhard (1989). Phys. Maruhn. K. 2001. Nucl. F. and R. 2001.. and Nguyen Van Giai. R. W. Mod. Baye. 63. Phys. A 7. Guet. Russia. F. 2665. J. Nucl. Phys.. H. 1986. A 683. Nazarewicz. and L. 1762. J. Maruhn. Phys. Pomorski. Rev. and W. Suraud.. Nucl. and T. and L. C 52. Ayik. and M. A. Baktash. A Nucl. Frankfurt am Main). M. 40. and R. A. Phys. Płoszajczak. Berger. M. Phys. M. Broglia..I⫽0 ⫾G E. Phys.. P. J. Batty..-F.. Ve´ne´roni. Quentin. Zhang. J. Rep. Phys. M. H. and J. Dubna.-G. Ann. Beiner. Dietrich. Wapstra. K.. J. A. S. M.) 187.-F. 2001b. J. A. Nazarewicz. Berlin). and D. Phys. 1972. Phys. Bassichis. And the spin-orbit densities are computed from the tensor densities ⵜ• 兺 n v n2 ¯␺ n ␴ ˆ ␺ n . Phys. Ann. 275. P. N. and S. W. Phys. A. Rutz. and E. Reinhard. 79. P. 2000. Bertsch. and P.. Leander. 29. J. 227. 29. F. Singapore). Barranco. Commun. (B1) s. 1956. J. Ve´ne´roni. Gogny. Lett. 411. 054322. M. Nucl. Egido.. K. C 61. Phys. Armbruster.Y. 1995. A 595.-G.. Part. M. 2126. P. Data Tables 61. Rutz. and M. S. Rev.D.(E. Negele. Quentin. B. C 62. 409. 1. Philos.. 50. Ve´ne´roni. 034304. Savushkin.-B. C 58. Auerbach. W.. Mod. Broglia. finally yielding 冉 1 ប 2k 2 G E. L. 1996. 42.. Anguiano. Broglia. G. Ring. Phys. Bortignon. REFERENCES Abe. A 386. and J. M. thus neglecting medium effects and the off-shell effects of the nucleon. Bencheikh. A. Rutz. Dobaczewski. J. Gils. L. 19. At.. Reinhard. 1c. and M. B 183. 1984. J. not needed. 1996.-G. 317. Reinhard. 2000a. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Fusion Dynamics at the Extremes. C 30. Cambridge. J. F. Rev. A. M. B 515. A 238. Dobaczewski. 154. 1975) has to be added. P. 1981. 2002. B.Y. (N. Anguiano. A. Annu. Phys. 41B.. R. 2041. 1991. Brack. A 549. Rev. P. 2001. The charge density ␳ ch(r) is finally obtained from the charge form factor by the Fourier back transformation. Phys.. V. Rev. 127. Colo. J. and W. Phys. 334. Bertozzi. and W.. G... A. Ba¨ckman.. The relativistic Darwin corrections is. A. R. Phys. 179. Nucl. Broglia.. M. Friedman. C. L. and J. and P. ␯ 兺 2 ␯ ⫽1 1⫹k /b . P. J. 23. 439. A. Volpe. Nucl. 85. Afanasjev. 123. 1975. Skyrme. Decharge. and W. 365. 1964. thesis (Johann Wolfgang GoetheUniversita¨t. V. Phys. Nazarewicz. Ve´ne´roni. G. and K. Reinhard. Eur. Balian. F. Balian. 1967. 1990. and J. 51.Bender. Haas. 1. R. 2002.. W. Cornelius. Reinhard. 746. 2000. A 687. Y. 1571. Bender. Phys. 1988. J. Reinhard.-O. S. Ve´ne´roni. A C 56. P. Bjorken and Drell. F.. p. Rutz. Nazarewicz. Girod. D.-G. H. 1991. 55. H. M. Phys. M. A 696. P. Jackson... and W. J. Bender. Berger. Rev. 1995. Phys. J. Lalazissis. Comput. Speth. Phys. 1994. and W. Maruhn. Auerbach. 209.I⫽1 兲 1⫹ 2 2m q 冊 ⫺1/2 . Pearson. D. 1991. Zagrabaev (World Scientific. J. 1995. and A. S. Svenne. Phys. 2001... 23c. Phys. 467. Maruhn. Nazarewicz. C. Maruhn. Rev. and H. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models 4 G s⫽ a s. 1983. M. The isospin-coupled form factors are recoupled for our purposes to proton and neutron form factors. J.. G. and L. 1055. Greiner. Pearson. Nguyen Van Giai.-F. 1975. Oscillations in Finite Quantum Systems (Cambridge University.q ⫽ 共 G E.. A.. But all other information is usually drawn directly from the form factor. Nazarewicz. Bender. G. 45. T.I⫽0). 2242. A 676. Sci. A 19. Phys. and J. and J. 1985. Girod. Heenen. Phys. H. Lett.M 其 . Adv. 1986. No. Heenen. A 354. (N. Robledo. Aboussir. Ann. p. K. 56B. Vol. 90. Bengtsson. Phys. ␯ for s苸 兵 (E. 1997. Data Nucl. 1982... Lett. J. 1998. G. A similar procedure applies for the relativistic meanfield method. J. Maruhn. J. A. Phys. 58. Nucl. Tondeur.-G. Part. M. 155. 289c.. T.. Bertsch. A. and A. Balian. and M. Y. Rev. Rep. V. Bender. . Bernardos. G. Niembro. Semmes. 351. Nucl. LopezQuelle. T. 1. edited by Y. 75. (N.. C 48. January 2003 173 Baranger. Phys. A 11. 160. Lett. Rev. Rev. P. Eur. and P. Bartel. Bender. Bender. 251. Dutta. F. 196. Nazarewicz. Phys. 1989. M. Ko¨nig. Rev. Bender. J. 2000. 75. Berger.. and Nguyen Van Giai. 59. Hohenberger. Tondeur. Balian. Phys. 1999. Phys. Gogny. Bertsch. Annu. 2000.. Engel. 1999. 287. of course. Bell. 3011(E). A 14. Nucl. J. M. 1998. Eur. Dudek. 2002. in Computational Nuclear Physics 1—Nuclear Structure. Phys. Rev. Phys.-G. A 685. 1987. Audi. Rev. and H. T. 151B. Bennaceur. Ring. R. J. H.. J.. and P. I. and M.. Rev. 1993. Klein. Oganessian and V. Phys. A. Rev. Ha˚kansson. Bernard. 1032. Vigezzi. (N. (B2) Note that the nucleon structure is taken into account only approximately because we are folding with the free form factors of the nucleons. R..) 114. and W. 408. Rev. Girod. 2000. Eur. ˚ berg. A 428. Baran. M. and R. and F. J. Nguyen Van Giai. Baran. Sci. Flocard. B 496. Langanke. Sci. Friar. and W.. Hohenberger. A. F. Nucl. N. Bender. Barranco. Kerman. Annu. K. Bartel. The actual coefficients are displayed in Table VI. 157c. and D. and E. Reinhard. ˚ berg. Mag. 49. P. 1980. Ph. Lett. Bertsch. Afanasjev. Berger. Suzuki. C 60. and F.. W. K. and K.) 216.. G.. P.. G. 385. R. Friar and Negele. C. R.

G. 157. Maruhn. and J.174 Bender. J. P. Rev. Rev. B 223. M. Bodmer. and P. Phys. J.) 209. 275. V. E. 1939. S. P. Lett. Heenen. S. P. 75. Heenen. 52. Phys. Langanke. Bulgac. Phys. Chang. V. Brown. F. Blaizot. J. C 18. Flocard. and W. 1976.. D. Haensel. M. and A. L. Rev. Blunden. Quantum Theory of Finite Systems (MIT. B. Lauritsch. (N. Chabanat. F. Meyer.. A. Weiguny. Poves.-H. P.-G. A 91. 1992. and A. K. Krieger. A. Chen. P.. D. Flocard. Bonche. W. 231. Nguyen Van Giai. Phys. Gogny. 1980. Nucl. 92. R. Rev. Jensen. 115. Lett.. Nucl. Nucl. Phys. Mod. A.-F. Blum. Bengtsson. Phys. Phys. A 422. 1967. Phys. Lett. Phys. Caurier. M. Phys. New York). M. Pines. Berger. Bulgac. P.Y. Casten. Estal. Chasman. Ha˚kansson. Meyer. Rev. 1998. 1990. and H. and H. A. 429. Phys. Rev.. Phys. Nazarewicz (World Scientific. 171. F. 1510.. M. G. 349. C 13. O. J. Reinhard.. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill. Nucl.. 49. Nazarewicz. 704. 2001. J. 1978. Bonche.-H. Rev. H. Phys. Calvayrac. Damga˚rd. Lett. 59. Nucl. Rev. and P. Giant Resonances: Nuclear Structure at Finite Temperature.. and F. K. 1972. Phys. 387. Annu. H. and B.-H. 73B. S. Bu¨rvenich. N. 51. W... and W. Acta Phys. 220. Phys. Girod. and B. Bonche. 426. Leboeuf. C 58. 1991. Z. A 467. 56. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Bertsch. Phys. Dieperink. A... N. R.. Nucl. A 591. Brack. No. and M. 56B. P... Phys. B. 39. Maruhn. 27.. Phys. and R. J.. S. D. Rev. 445. 1964. Krieger. and J.-H. Reinhard. Phys. F. 1985.. Iqbal. 1976. Rev. Nucl. Butler. 413. 1977. Lane. 1990a. 337. Drell. C 42. Part. Flocard. 1975. 710. 315. Contemporary Concepts in Physics Series No. Blaizot. J. Vin 635. Bonche. 1968. Singapore). 2002. Nucl. Bloch. A 120. 325.. Lett. Cavinato.-H. Quentin. J.. Bonche.. P.. Heenen. A. 139. H.-F. P. Lett. E. M. . Nucl. and L. Flocard. M. 240. 051305(R). 092502. Nucl. Bertsch. D.-G. 2000. 38. Lett. Phys. J. B. 56B. H. R. Rev. F. Bracco. Phys. Nucl. Heenen. New York).. Ripka. A. 1226. A 373. A. Guet. in International Workshop on Nuclear Structure Models. Phys. Bertsch. Nazarewicz. Stricker.. 123. A 5. J. Buchinger. J. Dobaczewski. Nowacki. D. Broglia. B 196. M. Rev. Ullrich. C.. Ring. J. and J. J. Meyer. Richter. Schaeffer. Richter. Phys. J. 1976. and S. Meyer. Phys. 1992. 249.. P.. Meyer. C 57. P. A. Retamosa. B 522. Mod. and M. 262.. J. A. P. 75. 1996. D. Phys. B 30. 2002. and S. Phys. CIP-IPNE. Phys. Blaizot. and X. Schaeffer. Nucl. and P. Reinhard. 1988. 1995. Lett. Koonin. Bonche. Bonche. M. Bonche. J. Robledo. Flocard. and O. Rev. A. Machleidt. and M. Cescato. A. Dobaczewski. S. S. Pearson. 68. J.. Scholten. 1979. Phys.. 1992. E. and H. Heenen. Rev. Lett. Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspective (Oxford University. Rev.. J.-G. and C. Brockmann.. A 355. A 500. p. A 533. 88. Messiah. R. Lett. Pauli. P. Lett. P. 1996. Brockmann. 267. A. 18. Phys. P. 66. A 519. Lett. 2000. Rep. Marangoni. N. C. Brack. Phys. ˜ as. M. J. A 574. M. Rep. L.. A. J. 85. T.. and M. 1962. A Centelles. P. Brack. 466. 193. Phys.. L. I. Gall. Borzov. G. Martı´nez-Pinedo. X. Gogny. 1985. B 513. J. S. J. and E. E. Wildenthal. A. 1. N. Steffen. Rev. Nucl. and J. 1978. 1975. J. 5296. P. Negele.. Phys.. Weiss. Butler. 509. preprint FT-194-1980. R. L. S. M.. Heenen. Bjørnholm. W. 2001. and K. Phys. and R. and P. 29. A 598. 1982. Ottaviani. A. and V. Nucl. D. Haensel. Phys.. Bortignon.. Q. H. P. D. A 292.. Rev. Boguta. Wheeler. and P. 1999b. R. A 443. E. Bohigas. 1995. Nucl. Chabanat. Bonche. Shaginyan. Blum. 123.. Brown. P. J. B. and D. Goriely. 1991. Phys. C 13. B 323. 1. Eur. Phys. Flocard.-H. and V. 308. Krieger. 2002. C. J. J. New York). Toki. E. Flocard. and S. D. G.. Reinhard. P.. Phys. M.-B. Brink. Dobaczewski.. and W. edited by R. 1998. 205. Redon. Y. 1984. Phys.. 165. and Y. M. 185c. 609. Bohm. Rep. S. Bender. M. P. Robledo. G.-G. 2001. Phys. 2002. Esbensen. M. Mathiot. MA). Phys. P. W. 1965.. Brockmann. Maruhn. Bucharest. Oak Ridge. C 36. J. P. 1987. Phys. Tsai. L. Tennessee. 2883. Phys. and A. Nucl. B 175. 2466. Draayer. Lett. 1999. Rev. January 2003 Brack. Rev. 134. H.. E. H. C 64. Phys. Madland. 125. 1990.. Phys. V.. J. Vautherin. Reinhard. Phys. and J.. 044308. 1977. B. and G. B. 1987. M. 1994. Bohr. Lett. T. A. A 510. F. A 635.. H. and W. J. A. 643.. J. E. J. Flocard. Phys. nucl-th/9907088. J. Weiss.. Maruhn. Krieger. and P. N. J. Cambridge. Lynn. G.. E. Grammaticos. 042504. Pol. Caurier. P.. Sprung. Comput. Flocard. Maruhn. 247. C 65. Phys. L. Martı´nez-Pinedo. 44. Iudice. P. Zawischa. F..-H. Bonche. A. and W. R.. Lett. A. 3408. Lett. P. 876. and A. 1999a. Bouyssy. Egido. 39.. Boeker. 067303. A. 1986. and R. F. Reinhard. Nucl. Ann. Rev. and P.-P. 1998. H. A 284. Phys. 1990. Phys. Phys. 1990b. Mod. B 137.. B. P. and C. and P.-G.. E. 1996. Egido. Wong. Tajima. Rev. F. Greiner. 68. Phys.. Bulgac.. and R. 1975. M. and D. R. Campi. P. M. J. J. Rep. 295. Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov approximation for finite systems. A 627. Phys. Phys.. Nowacki. 1980. Bulgac. P. Heenen. Quentin. Weiss. P. J. 1991. V. and P. Blum. P. Blaizot.. and J. Lett. G.. Heenen. F.. Meyer. Phys. Meyer. Lindsay. Greiner. 117. J. Caurier. O. Fink. and M. C 65. Mod. 725. 421. 1998. Rev. and W. Phys. Greiner. P. Fayans. Bulgac. Strutinsky. Kro¨mer. Vol. Sci. Buchinger. Phys. 327. 435. and P.-G. 380. Brink.. 1998. 1984. Romania. A. Bonche. Chabanat. 364. Suraud. Phys. 1312. Nucl. S. 1. Martorell.. and A. Bouyssy. 1997. Phys. E. 64. 1985. P. Bu¨rvenich.-H. B 483. S. 263. Nucl. Phys. Brown. Yu.. Vogel. 493. 1989. Rutz. A. H. Bonche. 1987.. and D. 1994. Zuker. F. 441(E). C 41. A. Heenen. A. Decharge´. S. Bohle. R. Weiss. Phys. Bohigas. A 265. H. Phys. Dobaczewski. and A. 88. A. L. Martorell. et al. Bjorken. Rev. D. 1953. and S. 2000. M. 320. J. Phys. and R. 1989. Shaginyan. Rev. A. Butler. 169. and D. Nucl. B 469. Marcos. Nucl. Palumbo. N. 2754(E). Phys. A 3. 42. J. 1980. Phys. Eur. Weiss. Saruis.. Brown. M.. Phys. Rep. Blaizot. D. 95. S. 100. 10 (Taylor & Francis. 1998. Lett. A.

2002a. Dobaczewski. C 61. Nucl. Yoshinaga. S.-H. 1996. 1. Strayer. Rev. Pis’ma Zh. Rev. and L.. Weiss.. H. and Z. Zawischa... M. J. J.. Farine.. Dobaczewski. Egido. 1978. R. 1994.. 215. J. Phys. 433. 1997. Phys. Dietrich. M. Rev. J. L. Lett. and M. Egido. 1827. W. 1983. Tanabe. C´wiok.. Kerman. L. Phys. Koonin. Lett. M. Vogel. L. 49. 1993. F. Comput. Enami. Erkelenz. Greiner. 1996. Berger. J. Phys.. and P. Berger. Rev. Phys. C 62. Colo. Phys.. D. J. S. 1966. Chinn. 2000. 1985. 55. B 232. I. L. Fiz. and N. 211. A 334. Egido. Lett. B 383. W.-G. P. Meyer. K.-J. Robledo. B. S. R. Dobaczewski. Data Nucl. C 50. Nazarewicz. Robledo.. J. 85. Phys. C 65. W. J. Werner. A 515. Phys. Lett. J. 1985. D. Robledo.Y. J. Ring. Phys. A 693. Greiner.-F. M. Colo. Lett. Prog. P. P. Sagawa. W. C 62. Dobaczewski. Rev. Phys.. and P. Egido. Phys. W. 981. L. L. G. J. Berlin). U. 1947. Rev. 469. J. Tanabe. 1996.. 3177(E). 1975. Weiss.-K. Phys.. 1979. 2855. Stoitsov. 70. L. 1996. 427. At.. and Z. M. Bortignon... and F. Nucl. and M. 024308. 014310.. J. K. Rev.. Decharge´.-F. A 331. 1992. No. J.. Mang. Onishi. Heenen. Rev. M. p. Zawischa. Bonche. J. J. M. H. 2001. C. K. and B. 2001. 027301. B 27. Nazarewicz. Devi. Satuła. Flocard. Kerman. Pearson.) 191.. C 60.. H. S. Nucl. U. Sun. Decharge´. M. R.. Fayens. Dudek. C 63.) 254. M. Z. and R. 70. and P.. Mang. Lett.. Pearson.. A 339. 1198. A 518. (N. Phys. R. 396. Dobaczewski. D. J.. Robledo. Phys. Phys. Heenen. Rev. Phys. and D. 452. K. Mu¨ther. 131. 1989. Tolokonnikov. January 2003 175 Dobaczewski. 1700.. Phys. Phys. Phys. J. Sun. Scheid. 589. J. Nucl. Dobaczewski. Phys. and J. I. 2418. Dobaczewski. Vol. Egido. Phys. 199.. Phys. S. Libert. 1994. 375. Bennour. K. Phys. 1989. and J. Phys. Heenen. 2000. 1973. T. 5. S. Flocard. 191. H. Dudek. Gross. et al. Ring. (N. Fayans. S. Delaroche. J. L. J. 164. Cusson. Davies. P. Duguet. A 696. and H. Ann. Molitoris. 715. Rev. C 65. Martin. Lett. and D. Goeke. M.Y.Y. H. B 338. M. A 15. 1999. Phys. Phys. 84. Mod. A. 16. 1985.-H. Reinhard. Lett.. P. F. and H. S. Nucl. Nucl. 1999. in Proc. and Y. Krieger. and W. Phys. A 203. Kratz. Sto¨cker. 2002b. A. Phys... J. Trybov. 1994. Phys. Lett. Trykov. Rev. 145. Egido. Dobaczewski. C 21. Martin. Nazarewicz. 1972. 1989. 1991. Nguyen Van Giai. Rep. Z. A 320. C´wiok. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Chen. W. and J. Meyer. 135. Libert. and F. B 233. 475. J. Cusson. 1496.. M. Fink. Acta Phys. Phys. Szyman´ski. 72. Rev. 253. P. de Voigt. Dobaczewski.. 55. 014311. P. Y. Robledo. 1999.. 014310. 1990. Phys. 1992. C 52. 1108. 103. J.. Phys. H. 2001.. Vautherin. S. Rev.. Duerr. M. Nucl. Tondeur. H. and P. and E. Phys. Egido. Phys. Fayens. C 53. 288. Cote. Rev. Phys.. Engel. A 545. 014311.. 1956. A 494. C 64. K. Nucl.. Rev. Thielemann. H. Dietrich. G. and P. Dudek. T. 1996. and T. M. 2786. Nucl. E. P. and J. B. Tolokonnikov. Greiner. Flocard. 2000. Dickhoff. 2001. and P. and T. Baranger.. 275. Nucl. H. M. and D. 1982b. Quentin. 45. Fleckner. Mang. J. W. W. 55. Nazarewicz.. K. Pol. J. Nazarewicz. T. V. Nucl. 949. 1980b. S. Nucl.. Krieger. Ring. 85. P. 13. J. S. Nucl. Mosel. 1974. Deloncle. A 606.Bender. Werner. T. 2002. Rev. 104. R. Ring. E. 1976.. Yoshinaga. and D. B 363.. Haensel. Ring. Phys. Langanke. 1995. Dobaczewski. edited by D. and J.. V.. L. Rev.-H. 2332. Density Functional Theory (Springer. and A. Dreizler. J. Vol.-P.. Strayer. C 45. Magierski. Phys. R. A 249. Phys. 1974. and W. L. and D. Rev. 1996. A 679. 2000. A 594. Maruhn. 1. Heenen.. J. R.Y. Phys. Dietrich. M. of the 3rd International Conference on Exotic Nuclei and Atomic Masses. Heenen. B 355. Nucl. and L. 3 Compound System Phenomena.. 2000b. Bender. Pearson. and N. Pfeiffer. R.. 1992. Phys. Ve´ne´roni. Ann. H. 1999. A 383. W. and P. and N. Nazarewicz. Broglia. Dudek. M. P.. Lett. R. J. S. Phys.. L. Reinhard. Werner. Phys. and M. W.-G. L. R. 1. Dobaczewski. and J. Egido. J. Phys. Nucl. Hameenlinna. Rev. Eksp. P. Dabrowski. and L. S. Egido. P. Phys. Finland (Eur. 1984. Phys. Lett.) 97. and T. 235 (1999)]. T. 1990.-L. Enami. K. Surman. 1996. Dobaczewski. 65. Nazarewicz. 275. Phys. Davies. W.. C 50. Brink. 103. Teor. Nucl. K. Y. and P. P. Dobaczewski. C 47. Strayer. Mu¨ther. Bermann. V.-G. Phys. Egido. and I. Kolb. J. 1995. 70. Duguet. T. 63. 1980a. Phys. Gogny. 475. A 676. Phys.. Nazarewicz.. L.. 390. A. Heenen. Magierski. J. J. (N. K. 37. 1994. A 304. J. A. C. Phys. Lessing. 189. A. 1982a... J.) 69. Robledo. A. R. Robledo.-H. Zawischa. New York).. J. 361. L. Y. 240 [JETP Lett. Phys. F.. 044305. Phys. 014302. and L. and M. Phys. and R. H. K. Sheikh. Elsenhans. 545. and M. Werner. Commun. J. J. Engel. and J. 21). J.. Bonche. Dobaczewski... J. A 231. 2809. R. P. M.. 1990. and P.. Vautherin. and Y. P. Phys. K. 176. A. and J. Nucl. (N. E. and P. J. Dudek. Mod. Flocard. . Phys. Phys. 2001. Gogny. J. 1988. J. R. P. Dobaczewski. K. A 524. Rohozinski. R. Egido. and W. Tondeur. Quentin. Rohozinski. and H. C 53. Nucl. Duguet. A 422. Machleidt. L. M. H. 1568. K. 1989. Bromley (Plenum. P. Decharge´.. S. V. Phys. K. A. and L. S. J. Phys. Phys. Nazarewicz. Flocard. J. A 611. 3. A 354. Rev. Vautherin.-H. Berger. 19. Nucl. Chinn. 2000a. A. Rev. J. 55. J. Data Tables 38. J. S. A 388. V. M. 1997. 75. L. R. J. 83. 382. Nucl. Rep.. Nucl. and W. J. Fayans. D. L. Nguyen Van Giai. L. J. Dudek. Phys. Nazarewicz. Nucl. Phys. M. G. A 560. Ann. 1980. Treiner. 19. Nucl. Farine. Ann. Phys. 27. G. K. Reinhard.. Deloncle. J. Hamamoto. A 615. 1992. M. J. Szymanski. Phys. Egido. S. Quentin.. Phys. J. Phys. S. and D. J. 1995. A. Rev. Delaroche. Nucl. Robledo. B 451. Bonche. and J. Girod. Rev. and W. 1995. and R. Nucl. in Treatise on Heavy-Ion Physics. and L.

Phys. in Density Functional Theory. and J. Vo¨gler. Tondeur. 1957. Phys.Y. W. Phys. Zhang. Quentin. 639. 1998. C 64. M. L. Z. 2000. B. H. Goeke. 1993. K. 1995. Phys. 1998.. and E.. J. Osnes. Manakos. Reinhard. Rev. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Friar. and P. Antalic. 235. and H. C. C 62. 4398. D. M. Liotta. Sagawa. Sagawa. E. 1993. Stephenson. C 48. Phys. J. M. Phys. L. J. J. Sci. Gogny. 36. Phys. Hamamoto. Kindler. A 384. Pomorski. E. Rev. and M. A 626. 192. 2971. Jensen. Nucl. 1987. J. R... Phys.-H. Lisantti. 108. 5. J. Geometrical Relationships of Macroscopic Nuclear Physics (Springer. and X. edited by E. S. L. A 337. D. Phys.. 335. Brack. Nucl. Reinhard. Phys.-G Reinhard. 1979. A 348. P. 481. 1990. 222. 45. 13. Series: B: Physics. Phys. I. Friedrich. 82. 2001. 333. P. Sci. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Physics. J. P. M. Nucl. Dreizler (Plenum. p. M..-G. Phys. S. Goeke. Ann. A 230. 65. T. M. C. 1980. and B.176 Bender. Rev. Gru¨mmer. Hill. Henning. Robledo.. Zhang. L. D.. Ann. 1990. Kojouharova. Rev. P. K. K. At. H. Hamamoto.. Phys. and V. Berger. A. Helm.. I. Haddad. H.. Rep. Phys. Phys. 1948. Phys. M. M. C 49. 1983. Bender. Lecture Notes in Physics No.) 150.. Friedrich. 2002.-H.. Herskind. P. M.. R. Goodman. Gmuca. Z. I. Phys. M. 1992. Grasso. Scr. Goeke. A. Nucl. A. Phys. Skalski. 2740. 1. A 330.. J.. p. Skalski. and P.-G. Gleissl. M.... Nguyen Van Giai. J.. Hamamoto. 183. Bonche. 213. E. 1982. Lett. C 33. 1466. Rev. C 55. J. Nucl. Heenen. Phys. P. 2452. Rev. Gogny. P. Garrote. and H. Nann. Sagawa. Bonche. and P. P. S.. P. N. Ann. I. Giannoni. C R. J. and P.. and V. Robledo. No. P... 1956.-H. H. Hofmann.. Phys. Nucl. and H.. 11. Ann. Lommel. A. 1.. Nucl. Dobaczewski. F. Foster. 1982. J. At. I. 179. Berlin). 205.. Phys. 1995. Nucl. Wood. A 466. and H. 2000. T. A. Rev. Annu. U. 1986.. and B. Wagner. Rev. Rev. M. 263.. P. and J. F. 1. Hara.. M. and P. Nucl. and P. Z. Goeke. D. I. Phys. Dobaczewski. Phys. 383. Eur.-H. 337 of NATO Advanced Study Institute. Grammaticos. Data Nucl. (N. H. C. Eur. 2076. Nazarewicz. Garrote. Haensel. Rev. E. Mann.. Rev. C 45. R1420. Mu¨nzenberg. 2001. Amsterdam). 26. and U. Deloncle. D. G. 2060. Weigel. Hamamoto. Griffin. M.. Myers. Goodman. Wheeler. Lett. G. L. Gall. 1953. Nucl.. 1997. Nucl. Valor. 1999. Delaroche.-G. K.. Khoo. C 27. Lett. K. 1997b. 89.. A 442. Hagemann. P. 502. Nucl. and C. 393. 1999.. and P. J. Phys. 1982. A. Werner. Hamamoto. Zhang. 2361. 1988. Goulding. Pol. Negele. Manakos. W. and R. 1980a. B 535. L. A 695. and D. P. Data Tables 77. Reinhard. 311. P.. A. G. and H. Rev. Valor. 1981.. A 373. C 57. Horen. Rev. Hayashi. Heenen. B.. Egido. 1974. Girod. Rev.. edited by J. J. Prog. 1. 1980b. B. 40. Bonche. 014311. 211. Porneuf (North-Holland. Annu.Y. Phys.. 1975. 353. Phys. A. L. C 56. P.. 1985. C 60. 80. 50. and P. Speth. A. Lett. A. Zhang.. Meyer. Quentin. P. 1982. New York). 1997c. and B. Gross. and J. Phys. and J. 117B. Astron. P. R1064. 1719. and N. B 381. 1993. Hamamoto. 591. Pandharipande. 32. A.-H. 1996. P. Heenen. W. C. K. Goodman.. 159. Rev. Gaarde. S. and H. A 547. and P. Phys. and J.. ´ wiok. Bonche. 669. Part. 1992. Phys. Rev. R. Rev. 1978. 487. Phys. B 379. edited by G. Berger. J. Girod. and N. Phys. Delaroche. 2001.. Reinhard. C 57. A. 1994. and W. C 52. 1976. B 410. Gogny. K. and X. 1996. F. Gonzalez-Llarena. Dobaczewski. (N. C 57. C. Phys. Trieste. 1998. Annu. 2001. Phys. and P. P. K. Phys. Libert. 1999. A. Heenen. Heßberger. 75. and P. Hofmann. Wu. G. (N. Phys. Hamamoto. Libert.. Grammaticos. Phys. Reinhard. Vol. Ring. Girod. Van Isacker. J. and J. 367. 1998. C 60. Vol. E. and P. P. J. I. D. Lett. Z. M. Gozdz. J. K. Haensel. S. Pandharipande. J. and B.. Friedmann. Lett. Phys. Heenen. Brack. J.. 1997a. 149. 328. 10. Phys.. P. Nucl. 86. 1994. and X. Sagawa. Rev. Pearson. Sci.) 197. Bonche.. . and P. Phys. and E. Berlin). 2000. Girod. D. and J. M. A. Phys. Berg. A 361. A 369. Munich. Heyde. Giannoni.. Hjorth-Jensen. J. Hasse. T. B. and T. 61. Goodman. B 32. Rev. Waroquier. C. 43. Heenen.-H. S.. Heenen. M. Rep. A 10. Phys. 504.. Phys. H. 1989. 8.. 1981. D. Part. Astrophys.) 112. L. Phys. 1982b. Data Nucl. B 325.. Phys. 249. de Boer and H. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Time-dependent Hartree-Fock and beyond. Phys.. K. 024319. Go¨ppert-Mayer. J. 466. Data Tables 73. Grasso.-H. Flocard. J. 1986. C 21. Adv. A. Quentin. P. Nucl. J. 62. Heenen.. 1992.-G.-H. Mang (North-Holland. N.. Phys. Rev.. Phys. H. S. L. 102. 1989. Rapaport. L. 258.. 031303. Flocard. 1975. C 48. D.. Lalazissis. Woldt. and L. Z. and H. Rev. Meyer. Egido. C 50. J. and L. (N. Rev. and I. Gross and R. 63. F.. Ullrich. Phys. Muether. Bonche. 1994. Ring. A. K. M. Popeko. J. Hagino. Phys. R2326. Cagarda. A. Flocard. Sandulescu. Hamamoto. M. 1998. Phys. Phys. Mondry. and P. Egido. A 561. F. Sagawa. G. and J. Nucl. D. G. Nucl. Phys. Phys. Lett. J. 1974. Phys. J. Phys. and J. 311. Phys. Zdunik. Gossmann.. F. M. B. Nguyen Van Giai. Bad Honnef. A 385. and P. Girod. Delaroche. B. Garett. Rep. M. J. Phys. Da¸browski.. Jonson. M. H. I.. Taddeucci. Flocard. Rev. 3121. Nucl. Heenen. Hiller. 1982a. X. 74. Rev. Nucl. 1994. Bainum. and R. S. P. 2317.. Phys. Rev. 1983. J. Goeke. L. Hamamoto. Sagawa. Nucl. Acta Phys. Hoch. Ackermann. Rev. p. Nucl.. D. Rev. J. 14. 064321. V. Eds. R960. U. Greenfield. 802. 48. Han. 64B. 1102. 1979.. A 11. 291. 1973. Dobaczewski. P. Heiselberg. I. 12. Sandulescu. et al. Girod. 102.. and W. and J. Z. 1975. Wheeler. Zhang. 1994. and X. G. Rev. A. Ripka and M. 2375.. 219. Phys. Lett. P. Amsterdam). J.-G... A 254. Part. Gogny. Hansen. Girod. Phys. 104. Part. 419. Sugarbaker. Janssens. Goriely. International Centre for Theoretical Physics. Annu.. Reinhard. Lett. Sci. J. Rev. and P.) 124. 5. Rev. 447. 171 (Springer. Z. C 21. Germany. M. P.Y. and R. Mod. Girod. Adv.-G. W. Phys. K. Sagawa. J. 2001. and X. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Self-Consistent Fields. 1983.. January 2003 Grabmayr.Y.

Rep. Lett. A 700. 1968. 1985. and M. E. Po¨schl.) 9. 7. 166.. J.. Mahaux. Vertse. J.. Phys. 733. F. and D. p. A. H. 1997b... S. Kegley. Z. Horowitz. Mizutori. 71. Liotta. Leander. Liotta. C 54. 1999. Kucharek. 61. J. Rev. J. Nucl. Bo¨hmer. D. 197.. Kleban. A. Vretenar. M. H. 1987. Ma. J. Fritsch. Weiss. A. Rev.Y. Mod. Comput. 301. V. G.-H. 1986. Ring. Martı´nez-Pinedo. H. Phys. 1981. K. A. P. 1976.. Rev. Koonin. R. Moszkowski... and C. E. A 686. Prog. Italy. in Elementary Modes of Excitation in Nuclei—Proceedings of the International School of Physics ˚. Phys.-F. Phys. 321. P. R. Heenen. Bonche. B. Rev. Mu¨nzenberg. P. Phys. J. C 1993. A 536. Z. and W. 325. 331.-G.. A 650.... Wo´jcik. G. G. Phys. Vretenar. T. K. W. and J. Rev. Phys. 1996. H. Marcos. and S. Magierski. M. H. Hannawald. 2002. S. Mahaux. Mehrem. S. Phys. P. Rev. France). Mod. 1. and R. Dean. Rev. and J. Mo¨ller. and O. J. and S. D. B. Phys. E. p. Marcos. S. and J. A. Rev. T. C 63. and G. Ring.. S. 014310. M. Svenne. Krieger. R. Part. Phys. 1997. Sci. Nucl. Rep. 1964. 155. Flocard. G. Phys. 1998b. 149. Wo¨hr. P. H. and D. D. M.-H.. P. D. 1977. Krieger.. Machleidt. 79. J. edited by A Bohr and R. Weigel. M. 597. A.. M. Kruppa. Raman. G. 463. Kohn. 136. D.. and P. and F. The NUDAT/PCNUDAT program for nuclear data.. W. Phys. Schiff. M. Wandelt. P. Ragnarsson. et al. Langanke. K. Heenen. Phys.. C 60. Sheline. 140. Rev. Bonche. Rev. 1994.. Data Tables 70. Oberacker. N.. Holinde.. Lalazissis. Phys. Phys. Kerman. Y. 41. and O. S.. R. Phys. and P. Reinhard. 133. Data Nucl. and P. A 339. Nazarewicz. Lalazissis. 2000. B. Phys.. Strayer. J. P. Phys. 1997a. Lalazissis. Nucl. Phys. R. A. Budapest. Quentin. G. M. Phys. Phys.. P. Koonin. Flocard. J. Vretenar.. Z.. B. Po¨schl. A 588. 1991.) 12. No. Faessler. Rev. J. Liu.. A. Lett. 452.. (N. Wong. G 27.. Q. Shen. Miranda. S. A. A. W. Lalazissis..-Y. D. L. W. 384. P. Phys. F. Weiss. H. Khoo. G. Ring. Lett. and C.. 108B. Phys. Nucl. 125. Phys. Rev. 2002. G. 1997. Ring. 2000. C. C 63. G. 1996. Phys. J. W. 1997. Rev. O. Nucl. V. Rev. B 418. B. Lett. Phys. Iudice. Lalazissis. Kohn. Part. S. 1999a. Phys. A 449. R. H. 2217. A. Phys. G. 678. Mo¨ller. and J. Bortignon. Ineichen. Rep. T. C Kruppa. H. Dean. Hungary. January 2003 177 Kruppa. 1976. Ma. 2000.. and P. Data extracted from the NUDAT database. K. Nucl. H. 1686. Rep. A 632. Fedoseyev.. Mod. 278. Kaiser. Bonche. 201. 2001. Broglia. Duppen. Part. Ring. Sham. Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex. Mishin. Friman. Lalazissis. 1990. A. Ring. Hilaire.. Delaroche. A.-H. Girod. 1989. S. P. Souder. 1988. C 41. and C. 556. Ring. and P. Niembro. Ring. Weiss. Umar. Phys. P.. 1992. 9th International Symposium of Capture Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy and Related Topics. A. D. 83. J. Michaels. R. Phys. J. and P.. Annu. and R. Nucl. 1998a. 80. A 258. 1999. 377. and S.-H. Heenen. Phys. 2001. J. Berger. S. 371. J. A 388. C 53. A 9. Libert. Antibes (France). 2000. Eckart. A 281. M. Krieger. A. M. 52. and C. Nucl. Nix. 1996. Pfeiffer. R69. K. Decharge´. Heenen. P. 024309. Janssens. Reinhard. Vergnes. Girod. V. J. Bohigas... Slaus. and P. and K. H. and P. K. Flocard. H. R. H. Phys. S. Dobaczewski. P. Jading. A 284.-H. version March 20. Ring. Nucl. 1994. D. A 58. Phys. Phys.. Elster. J. S. Luo. C 61. 051302. Phys. G. R. and P. 363. 1975. Phys. Lipkin. Rev. P. Phys. J.nndc. 20. S. (N. Rev. Vretenar. Ko¨nig. Int. 18. A. 7.-G. Ko¨hler. 689. 4502. A. 47. Krivine. Jensen. 460. J. Rev.-F. J. Lalazissis. and P. 65. 697. Vretenar. 1990. 1134. 1982. Rev. Lett. Phys. M. Appel. 1966. and M. Z. Wells. Phys. S. D. and P. 2001. V. G... Meyer. Speth. I. W. 1997. Kautzsch. Weiss. Rev.-L. K. Flocard. J. J. J. M. P. C 5. 68. Rev. 2399. Kerman. Robledo. Kutschera. Lett. 275. Langanke. 025501. 1982. Weise. Nguyen Van Giai.. 216. A1133. Phys. R. M. and P. Amsterdam). Nguyen Van Giai.-P. 044326... 291. and J.. Ring. S. Phys. Phys. A. A 534. Lett. Matsuo. L. G. 72.. 272.. Sharma. and L. Nucl. Reinhard. Lalazissis. B864. 1995. Phys. Phys. Nucl. 23.. Nucl. Nucl. Maruhn. and G. R. Sci. At. Phys... Stoitsov. Annu. Heenen. and M. S. Ko¨nig.. Lett. Jaminon. P. A. 1. J. edited by M. C.Bender. C. et al.. Bender. Meng. Phys. 540. Marcos.. C. Nucl.-H.-G. Eur. 034313. J. 1253. Holinde. Rev. . Villars.-H.-H. Serot. D. A 410. Nucl. Langanke. J. Gunnarsson. Jones. G. and I. K. Phys. 2001. 1991. Varenna. 2158. 128. and B. 1. 1984. Rep. Ring. S. Nucl. 1. 2001... S. Von-Eiff. and T. Z. Phys. C 48. 147. Ann. Phys. ´ wiok. in International Conference on Nuclear Shapes and Nuclear Structure at Low Excitation Energies. J. A.. Rev. C 61. Sauvage (Editions Frontieres. and L.. C 65. 2000. Kratz. Nucl. and R. M. Madland.. S. B 474. T. 134B. and K.. 1999. Phys. Ann. and P. 1978. Phys. 1994. 1. Phys. P. Jancovici. and P. D. and A.. 1980. Nazarewicz. Nazarewicz. 20. Heenen. 1999b. Dobaczewski. 343. Treiner. and W. Machleidt. 161. A. 1998. C 55. J.. Rev. and K. P. National Nuclear Data Center World Wide Web site: http://www. Phys. Welton. R. 1997. P. 1965. N. Flocard. A. Mang. Rev. Malfliet.’’ Course LXIX. Phys. I. A 336. Lalazissis. Kinsey. Lutz. Mod. Holzwarth. Olanders.. 135. P. H. Klemt. 1. Nerlo-Pomorska. W. P. 1983. Nucl.. Flocard. A. 1961. ‘‘Enrico Fermi. 172. N. Hohenberg. Phys. Broglia (North-Holland. Lo´pez-Quelle. 120. Comput. Walters. J. H.. 173. and P. H. Phys.. 710. 1. Goutte. and R. 1991. 287. Lipkin. Horowitz. Phys. and W. 1960. H. Dasso. and C. F. V. Nucl. S. 044324. and A. W. A 696. ´ wiok. A. M. J. 28. A 572. Rev. Nix. A 517. Heenen. Sierk. Kohn. Kamlah. Y. T. 1989. Dobaczewski. D. and W. Mo¨ller. R. 1994. T. Lauritsch. C 60. Mod. Phys. Phys.. Flocard. Phys. M. 1977. Bonche. A 476. Rev. A. Phys. Heenen. J. 122. S. Vol. 054301. Nucl.Y.. Nucl. 326. V. Phys. C 60. Phys. J.. J. B 325. C 39. 1999. 1964. Heenen.. M. 1999. 75. and A. Vretenar. A. Pollock. Krewald. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Hofmann. 452.

. Annu. Swiatecki. M. 1977. Rev. 1972... D. T. Prog. P. 93.-G. Sumiyoshi. and P. 1. J. Freyer. N. C. 440. Phys. 1997. and P. Reinhard. R. and I. S. Ravenhall. 242. Langanke. K. Phys. Negele. R.. A. J. Reinhard. Marinova. Rev. Phys.. Oganessian. P. C. 1998. Data Tables 59.. K. Passler. and P. J. and U.. 28. Nucl. Rev. Nadjakov. edited by D. C.. Phys. Data Nucl.. E. Mu¨ther. A. and M. P. Kratz. Nogami. 204. Nikolaus.. Law. Reinhard. C 60. 1964. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Mo¨ller. P. Nilsson. 1992b. H.. Phys.. 1992. 429. Carlson. W. P. Nilsson. T. Neergard. M. 2000. Parr. Onida. Mosel. and M. in Treatise on Heavy-Ion Science. A. Cambridge. Phys. G. Nucl. 1995. 19. Rev. 1997. W. B. Zunger. and H. and W. C. Nerlo-Pomorska. 1984. Ravenhall. K. Maruhn. A 290. 2000. Pethick. Prog. W. Phys. Part. K. Z. 1992. 185. Comput. A 201. and I. C 62..-G. J. Int. Berger. A. Poenaru and W. R. 2001. Stoitsov. 1981. C 1. D. 1982. 1979. Droplet Model of Atomic Nuclei (IFI/ Plenum. Machleidt. Rev. 1995. Olanders.. B.. Nazarewicz. Pfeiffer. 32. 186. and D. 632. 207. P. Pandharipande. A. Sheline. Bender. Reinhard. Nestor. Phys. 014316. J. Berger. Nucl. Onsi. (Leipzig) 1. 75. 7.. B 513. M.. Nucl.. Decharge´. Rutz. I. 981. Nazarewicz. edited by J. Lett. Warda.-G. Reinhard. J. and D. 1978. J. Commun. River Edge. Tanihata. 491. Rev. and D. 1996. Nazarewicz. 76.. Otten. New York).. Friedrich. Goriely. Maruhn. Phys. Nuclear Density Functional Theory (Clarendon. and Y. Pomorski. Phys. 1982. and H. B 23. H. England). L. Sugahara. 1998. S. 1984. and W.. Y.. J. J. Vautherin. Phys. Farine. Rev. B 27. Phys. Phys. 47. 2000. 277. Sci. 536. 319. 38. 64.. NJ). Lojewski. Osterfeld. 2001. 85. Madland.-G. 383.. Z. A 634. Dobaczewski. and R. Speth. Annu. Nayak. 2001. in Electric and Magnetic Giant Resonances in Nuclei. Pearson. Sci. 50. and W. 257. C. Mo¨ller.. E 2. Reinhard.. Nucl. 309. G. Phys. A. in Handbook of Nuclear Properties. Phys. deWitt Huberts. Nucl. 1994. Part.) 84. Phys. and U. M. 5048. P.. P. in Computational Nuclear Physics 1—Nuclear Structure.. A.. p. Data Tables 78. Rev. D. Z. K. 1996. Z. Part..-G. Maruhn. Part. VIII (Plenum. Rep. Pearson.. P. Phys. Rev. M.. 1997. W. 298. C. Myers.. Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules (Oxford University. 1978.. Gangrsky. Koonin (Springer.-G. 1757. A 257. R. P. 439. D. No. Po¨schl. Nayak. Part. and H. 103. Pudliner. Lett. and S. Reinhard. Kratz. R. Nix. Phys.. Phys. edited by K. P. Na´gy. 3841. 217. Phys. A 649.. 2002. T. and J. Reinhard. A. Rev. and J. and J. Y. Rev. . At.. M. Zittartz (Springer Verlag. and R. 74. J. 23). Mod. D. Ann. 1989.. Shimizu. Phys. Nogami. H. 35.-G. H. Gambhir. 1976. edited by J. J. Nucl.. 305c. Vautherin. R. Honma. 1995. A 378. P. Data Nucl. Rev. At. Phys. 1994. Rev. K. Phys. and A. Barrett. Eur. K. 45. Otsuka. Raman. Voegler. Negele. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Rev. Baran. Myers. J. 281. Strayer.-L. 357. Yamaji (RIKEN Rev.. Mod.-G.. W. Lalazissis. F. Oyamatsu. and W. Ehlers. and G. K. 1978. Goeke. Lalazissis. B. J. I. Nucl. and W. S. A 584.-G. Smerzi. Stocker. C 42. Reinhard. A. K. Acta Phys. I. Po¨schl. N. Otsuka. and M.. I. A. Goeke. R. 1. R. Phys.. Z.-G. and S. 011301(R). R. Rev. Heenen. 2416. M. B. Rev. Phys. A. P. Phys. p. Phys. C 11. Bu¨rvenich. E.. B. RIKEN.. 1996. and N. et al. 54. Dobaczewski. Peru. Y. K. Pieper.. Nazarewicz. January 2003 Pearson.. and P. Ann. 52. Rev. Bromley. 69. Jr. Germany. K. Petkov. J. 2001. Lett. A 285. 601. and Y. P. P.. T. Navratil. 1989. Data Tables 66. 1989. P.. p. 619. 18.-G. 81. K. Nolan. J. Phys. G. P. Phys. W.-G. Mizusaki. p. Twin. Nucl. P. Kippenhahn. edited by N. Rev. 79. G. Pearson. 1.. 1991. Drechsel. P. and D. Prog. Pol. Nucl. 3166. Rev. and Y. 1997. J. F. G.. Phys. Phys. and W. Sick. Tikkanen. J. 185. J. 1997. Oxford). 1990. G. 1965. Phys.-G. A 693. 1988. 517. Hepp. M. P. A 329. Phys. 133. Ann.. Rep. Lett. Leander. 1997. Phys. A 358. Nix. R. P. Z. and M. C. T. and J. R. F. and J... International Review of Nuclear Physics No. in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Models and Theories of the Nuclear Mass. Phys. P. Vol. Phys. 523. 1992a... Rep. Muthukrishnan. Rubio. 51. Z. J. Pearson. M. J. B 134. T. Phys. 349. and D. 027301. C 46. P. J. A 9. in Microscopic Optical Potentials. Perdew.-G. J. Rev. Oxford).-G. W. and K. Negele. M. P. Myers. Quentin. Rep. Rep. Mo¨ller.. Y. A 624. G. Y.. 1995. 878. Utsuno. Reinhard. edited by D. Nerlo-Pomorska.. Mosel. Sci. 45. 7 (World Scientific. Data Nucl. Cusson.. A. Swiatecki. Phys. W. p. and J. and M. 52. R. and P. Pradhan. 1999.-G. Mod. W. 1260. Reinhard. H. S. Phys. At. 2001. P. and D. 1. Phys. S. 2000. Phys. C 63. 1973. A 321. Flocard. Data Nucl. G. Reinhard. and K. A. C 58. V. A. W.. and J. 1987. New York). 1979. 1981. Reinhard. J. P. Reinhard. K.Y. (Leipzig) 1. J. W. Mod. Greiner (Clarendon Press. Vretenar.178 Bender. Reinhard. Dean. C 64. Ragnarsson. 1992. 1970. B313. Annu. Myers. G. V. Bender. Girod. Reinhard.. Sci. 467. Reining. 3. H. Pandharipande. Phys.. Rev.. Swiatecki. C 55. At. 598.. 1998. Shapes and Shells in Nuclear Structure (Cambridge University. Toki. Baranger. K. 28. 35. Nucl. Maruhn. Data Tables 56. Reinhard. Heidelberg). D. J. P. 418. Mod. 1984. Phys. 1272. Phys. 160. Osterfeld. Ragnarsson. 1993. Phys. No. Lett. Berlin).. J.-G. 131. Weidenmu¨ller. V. Vretenar. 1. Mu¨hlhans. Rev. A 169. Nucl. 1985. 1988.. A 316.. 319. 054311.-L. Ragnarsson. Phys. Nucl. Dudek.. W. 533. 1974. and B. Negele. Vary. Rev. 26. Phys. 1997. S. W. Phys. J. Z. Rev. W. J. 1991.-G. P. Proceedings of the Hamburg Topical Workshop on Nuclear Physics. C 5. Pauli.. Yang. Japan.. Reinhard. D. Reiss. and P. 45. P. Brockmann. E. Rev. C 50. A 420.. and K. 1991. W. Ring. Ring. Phys. J. Mod. W. 1973. Eur. Rev. Friedrich.. 2001. Ring. I. Oxford). and A. Hoch. Lett. Flocard. G. 913. Hamburg. C.. Greiner. 1975. Tajima and S. A 8. Ragnarsson. 1031.-F. and R. J. J. 1982. Phys. Pomorski. 1472. (N. Phys. 1999. Annu.

J. 1995. J. Reinhard. The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer. H. 311. Wyss. R. A 634. Reinhard. Heenen. 1986. T. 1959a. Stocker. 1988. B 286.. Speicher. 635. Phys. Schilling. 2001. and J.. C 55. T. Pomorski.. T. Zhong-Yu Ma. Phys. A 458. 1997. and K. 1997. 71.) 151. 2888. 1995. 1993.-G. Flocard. 2000a. Wyss. Phys. D.. and E. Ann. Rufa. International Centre for Theoretical Physics. D.Bender. P. Lett. Nucl. J. Pearson. E. and Nguyen Van Giai. and R. C 50. E. K. J. Toepffer. Nazarewicz.-G. C. Sharma. 1974. R. Nuclear Collective Motion (Methuen. B 187. and J. Mizutori. Phys. Nucl. Rev. M. Stancu. 231. Bu¨rvenich. and B. (N. P. Bonche. M. 2002. 1999. Bertsch. C. M.. 1981. 1986. Part. J. L.. 44. Nucl. 1. 15. A 551. Greiner. 1. Rodriguez-Guzma´n. 1993. Gupta (World Scientific. 68B.. 024304. R. M. C. Nayak. 1997. Reinhard. Phys. Phys. 1970. 507. 84. A 562. L. Robledo. Satuła. Rev. J. Nucl. B. Reinhard. 2002. Lett. 1967. D. K. J. Reiss. K. A 370.. River Edge. Suzuki. C 62. 2000b. H. A. Stoitsov. Phys. 409. Rodriguez-Guzma´n. U. 75. W. J. Rummel.. and J. Dean. Girod. R. Meyer. Schmid.. J. Bender. 3542. and J. A. 87. Rev. 1959b. Nucl. and Nguyen Van Giai. 142. p. W. M. 495. E. M. 13. J. and M. 1991. Bender. and P. Nucl. 319. Speth. A. Phys. B 474. P. Phys. Phys. Vretenar. and J. Samyn. M. Rev. Maruhn. Otten. 108. Phys. Prog. Rev. Brink. in Heavy Elements and Related New Phenomena. M. Rep. 1975. Nucl. 1992. M. Rutz. C 63. 75. Greiner. Bender. (N. J. and V. Rev. Reinhard. P. A 693. Amsterdam). 1. P.. Brink. 1043. Lett. Maruhn. B.Y. Goriely. D.-G. A 559. 1968. Wyss. Rev. Phys. R. E. J. and J. 1999. Deb. V. and L. Pittel.Y. Phys. F. Lett. A 243. L. M. Satuła.. H. C. M. Rev. Rev. Nucl. and G. 16. Rev. Satuła. Reinhard. P. H. Phys.. Philos. 615. Serra. de Guerra. S. Borkowski. Rev. and Li-Gang Cao. Phys. Satuła. Gross. R. S.. C 52. A. 55. Dreizler. W. P. Phys. and R.. Simon. Quentin. 1996. Rev. Phys. C 65.-F. 1980.. 493. Shlomo. 2086. C. N. 1994.. A.... Reinhard.. Phys. Nazarewicz. Cornelius. and R. Rev. et al. 1. K. (N. and L. 1997. Sagawa. P. M. 1855. 1. 85. Nucl. R.. 312. Heenen. and M. J. Sarriguren. Reinhard. J. Sheikh. 740. edited by J. L. Schmitt. 35. C 50. Egido. Serot. 719. 1995a. Sarriguren. Rev.-H. Heenen. Yadav. 67. Adv. 127. Phys. A 420. Toepffer.. 1995. 2002. 390. Singapore). Prog. Engel. Phys. Ann. M.. and C. Skalski. 2776. 448. Mag. 054319. Greiner.. P. Lett. 1977. and W. Walecka. 86. Rutz. 1984. Rev.. W. D. 2000. 2001b. 74.. M. and J. M. International Review of Nuclear Physics No. Rev. H. Scheid. 1. Pearson. 034311. R. Lett. S. Phys. Leonardi. Nerlo-Pomorska. and H. J. Phys. 680. Phys.. T. 2000. Nucl. Phys. Sugahara. 2874. Ko¨nig. M. D. Rodriguez-Guzma´n. A. D.. W. H. V.. Robledo.. and P. and R. Prog.. Reinhard. W.. 9. Phys. M. edited by W. M. 2002. Nucl. 2804. Strayer. C 58. Skyrme. S. 1984. Rev. Saunier.. Phys. Lett. Phys. V. M. and L. A 700.. C 65. 9.. Sagawa. 13. E 3. 223. W. Phys. 2000. 238. and J. J. Greiner. T. Maruhn..-G. Ring. G. and W. Phys. 1981. Phys. Egido.Y. Walther. Hyperfine Interact.. Ring. Ring. 1999. P. Phys. van der Woude. P.. P. Egido. and F. C 62. Wandelt. and R. Ring. Robledo. Mod. Ring. H. J. A. Nucl. Vol. 1998. Phys. 3744. Nucl. Int. 1994. Z. L. Rev. p. Bu¨rvenich. B 468. 1995b. Tondeur. Vol. 2001. Maruhn.-H. R. Phys. S. and R. E.-G. A.. J. A 333. C 58. and E. Singh. and W. Lett.. and H. Egido. G. H. Phys. P. and P. 381. Phys. Bender. Rufa.. A 269. S. A. Rev. Lett. 52. 2000c.. R. Skyrme. Nguyen Van Giai. Rusnak... 332. P. Stoitsov. and R.. Phys. Nucl. A. R. Rev. 103. Dreizler. Lett. Phys. Phys. 221. J. and A. Flocard... 1976. 052504. Robledo. G. Porneuf.. A 323. Engel. L. Lett.. and H. 997. Rev..-G. 193. 1986. Rev. Schmid. and P. W.. and W. and R. 249. Wambach. Phys. P. Lett. G.. 2001. 143. A. and L. W.-G. in Electric and Magnetic Giant Resonances in Nuclei. 1. Greiner. Flocard.) 48. Phys. T. J. NJ). Maruhn. 1211.-G. Rutz.. M. M... Nucl. and A. 1975. L.-G. 1998. Furnstahl. and P. J. New York). H. 164. 2777. Ripka. 1956. W. 1983. Mod. Bender. Dreizler. Phys. Rodriguez-Guzma´n. J. and P. 283. L. Vretenar. B 393. Heenen. C 65. A. Z.. Runge. R. P.. A. Rev. and R.. Phys. Lett. P. 37. Ring. Maruhn. Speicher. Greiner. A 530. Y. 173. Phys. P. 1992. K. F. G. No. Robledo. and G. Satuła. N.-G. and D. Egido. C 53. M. 1991. 1996. Greiner and R. R. Bonche. D. E. Schmid. Reinhard.. P. Mod... de Guerra. Phys. Chossy.. Phys. 2001. Phys. Phys. Dobaczewski. C 64. Engel. P. K. 3629. J. Dreizler. C 38. M. R. J. M. and W. 569. R. 7. 064306. Lalazissis. Shen. 1998. Berger. Skalski. Nucl. Phys. Eds. Phys. A 357. Phys. Phys. Robledo. T. Rutz. Phys. and S. and R. J. Phys. Skalski. W. Egido. Nucl. P. Nojarov. Escuderos. 7 (World Scientific. M. Rev.. Stringari. A 694.. K. 064324.. 47. Rep. Toki. P. Stringari.. R. 4488. Nucl. and W. A. Speth. Phys. L. Phys. A 590. Speth. Rev. W. Engel. Ring. A 627. J. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Self-Consistent Fields. M. M. Maruhn. P. and E. 1988. Rev. and H. 1980. Esbensen. 2001a. Lalazissis. Satuła. 81. Ann. 3599. Robledo. and P. Maruhn. 435. M. 301. H. Trieste (NorthHolland. 024312. Schuck. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Reinhard. 1998.. Phys. Rowe. C 52. 160. 1991.. 054308. M. 2000. Serra. Rep. and C. Sagawa. H. J.-H. Reinhard. H. Gary. 1993. M. Phys.. Phys. 87. 1982. 2002. Lett. M. Wyss. Phys. Sauvage-Letessier. H.. and J. L. R.. B 201. London). C 65. A 665. Dobaczewski. 46. January 2003 179 Satpathy. P. .-G. Phys. Sagawa. C 56.. Reinhard. 1999. and T. Lett. Rep. Phys. Phys. Phys. 014304. Nucl..-G.. Phys. F. 064314. Phys.. J. Specht. L. J. Skyrme. Rev. Nazarewicz. Ring. C 61. 1997. Rev. 1987.. Friedrich. Lett.) 213. Phys. 113B. Maruhn. Sagawa. Nucl. J. W. Phys. Reiter. and M. M. Nucl. T. Serot. 109. 119. B. P. 1994. J. U. Phys. Ring. B 407. Maheswari. Rev. Phys.-G. 1997.. 773.

Nucl. Ventura. 1989. Vretenar. Bonche. A. P. Vol. Phys. C.180 Bender. Sugahara. 2001. 1981. Toki. Mod. Ring. Von-Eiff. Paar. Phys. N. Phys. S. J. Lett. 1972. 1992. 626. Heenen. 397. and H. Nucl.. N. C. Heenen. and J.. C 60. B 333.. 1995.. H. T. van der Woude. Typel. 409. Wenes. A. Phys.-H. Phys. Phys. Rev. P. Vin Nucl. and N. D. M. and P. 261. H. K. D. 1967. Umar... Lett. Lee.. A 579. Villars. Tondeur. M. 123. 1979.. and T. B 331.. Sagawa. A 460. Bonche. M. Terasaki. C 65.. 434. ˜ as. S. C. Phys.. and P. 2000b. Phys. Ring.. F. Phys. 405. 203. Nucl. Phys. Heenen. Takahara. Phys. Sagawa. Rev. 1997a. Tajima. Onishi. 106B. 26. No.. 1. 1996. Rev. A. 1231. 2000a.. et al. 1974. Bonche. 331. Wood. Woods. R. 1987. 1994. H. 1994.. A.. S. S. Lett.. C 55. J. 15. and M. A 578. 189. Tajima. A 95. J. Robledo. A 642. 1998. 491. L. 46. A 600. Flocard. and S. Weigel. A. and P. J. Z. Yamaji (RIKEN Rev. 1992.. and M. Tanihata. and P. Japan. Brown. Weigel. S. and M. P. Nucl. Nazarewicz. Nucl. D. 1. Vretenar.. Nucl. and M. Yamagami. H. and L. J. S. 1990. 334. D. Robledo. N. J. Tajima and S. H. N. S. L.. Misu.. Rev. Polls. 1998. T. RIKEN.Y. 557. Speth. A 315. Lett. Phys. X. and M.. 1996. C 64. S. Weigel. Heenen. Phys. Wong. A 656. Nucl. Phys. 045502. 379. A 693. A. Sci. Phys. Lalazissis. Lett. and M. Rev. Takigawa. 047301. W. W. J. in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Models and Theories of the Nuclear Mass. M. 1993. Rep. P. R.. Lalazissis. Onsi. P. M. Part. Wong. Phys. and B. J. Haddad... 2001a. and P.-H... Vretenar. T. and P. Egido. Waroquier. 2000. 1997. Z. Rep. 1994. F. S. A 692. Phys. Phys. H. Tajima. Phys. Nucl. A. Rev. C. Freyer. and H.. S tocker.. K. Sun. Pearson. Phys. 353. Hernandez. J. M. V. F. Phys. Phys. and K.. Brack. Phys. 297. Phys. Vretenar. P. 1355. 2000. Ring. and M.. K. Fast Nuclear Rotation (Clarendon. Terasaki. Egido.. 636. Rev. P.. Ring. 1983. Nucl. 371. 49B. Zheng. M. R. P. 1998. 215. Nucl.. 1.. Eur. 75. Tondeur. 305c. Towner. Huyse. . (N. J. A 325. Wyss. Nazarewicz. 11. and J. 1993. Tajima. 1999. 279. Vautherin. Suzuki. K. Thies. 1995. Yoshida. Robledo. 29B. Flocard. A 404. Zimanyi. Nucl. Von-Eiff. Onishi.. Phys. Quentin. Lett. P. J. and G. D. Rev. D. Phys. R. NJ). H.. Davies. Stocker. M. W.. 579. H. D. Heyde... 29. Nucl. 541. Wandelt. Titin-Schnaider. C 40. Phys. Flocard. Phys. 2796. C 50. A 665. 1416. Valor. A. private communication. Xu. Phys. Nucl. Nucl. Vretenar. Matsuyanagi. Y. J. M. 051301. W. M. 706. Szymanski. 1999. 1983. Rev. D. Nucl. Nucl. P. Terasaki. Von-Eiff. Pearson.. A 551. Walker. 1994. Nucl. and M. M.. in Electric and Magnetic Giant Resonances in Nuclei. Rev. 559. Egido. 49. R. and H. K. 1991. Sprung. Lett. 460. 2001. Wyss. and G. N. A. M. Nucl. 1985. N.. A 442.. Terasaki. Lett. Vautherin. Strayer. and M. J.. Nucl. S. 1986. and N. P. Phys. Phys. Typel. J. Heenen. Flocard. and P. Stocker. Heenen. Rev. M. J. 1996. F.. Phys. Annu. 147. 420. A 420.-G. D. Sci. A. Phys. 155. 1244. W. 123B. 1994. N. Phys. Ann. Rev. C 46. I. 2000. C 58. Flocard. C 50. and P. Phys. Weigel. Tajima. and H. A. Berdichevsky. L. Nucl. D.-H. A 147. 1983. 563. 1986. Phys. 7 (World Scientific. D. Lalazissis. Tondeur. Phys. Phys. A 593. 2001b. Yamagami. Rev. Goriely. and P. and E. F. Bonche. and N. 021301(R). Rep. K. F. 157. Phys. B 437. 1975. 139. J. and L. M. Rev. River Edge. Y. Lett.. 1994. and P. B 487. 1994. 7. M. Walecka.. Farine. International Review of Rev.. Berghammer. Paar. Phys. Ring. B 324. and P. Phys. Van Duppen. A 673. S. A 570. Takahara.. Heenen. Wilson. G 22. V. A 671. D... and C. 1993. F. 461. Nikisˇjc´. Phys. Lett. Flocard. Tondeur.-H. B 344.-H. L. 1984. M. Phys. A 551. Dobaczewski. Phys. and J.. N. 269. Paar. Phys. and P. 145. 283. M. 1986. 1957. Walther. I. B 319. 1997b. D. Phys. 2000. L.-H. Davids. A 621. Bonche. L. Matsuyanagi. Phys. N. Annu. 2002. 2000. F. edited by N. C 63. Phys. J. S. Ring. K.) 83. Sagawa. Valor. 1974. Tondeur. P. Terasaki. Van Giai.. Lett. Tondeur. Vretenar. Rev. and G. 496.. and H. Heenen. W. Phys. Moszkowski. C 5. P. A.-H. 185. 101. Phys. H. Nucl. N. Dobaczewski. R. A. Heenen. Phys. Farine. Phys.... and M.-S. A 9. Von-Eiff.. M. Weiss.. D. Y. P. 87). Umar. G. 2000. Oxford). C 62. Strayer. Bonche.. 706. edited by J.-H. Nucl. C 42. 1969. 99. Phys. 027302. 024308. Bonche. A. 1436. Nucl. D. D. Flocard. Brink. Phys. Rev. Reinhard. Phys. Phys. Phys. Nguyen. January 2003 Nuclear Physics No. H. Rev. 1970. Wolter. Werner.. Pearson. 47. 2000. A 671. J. Matsuo.. W. and H. K. J. and D. p. 263. Valor. R. Sheikh. C 62. C 54. and Reinhard: Self-consistent mean-field models Strutinsky. Heyde. Ve´ne´roni. A. 303. 1994. Nucl.