Supplemental Material: On the nature of yrast states in neutron-rich polonium isotopes

.1 Detector calibrations and corrections

The absolute $\beta$ and $\gamma$-ray efficiencies for the detection setup of the present experiment were:  15% for $\beta$ electrons recorded in the fast plastic scintillator, 6% for $\gamma$ rays at 300 keV and 3% at 500 keV for the two LaBr₃(Ce) detectors, 9% at 300 keV and 7% at 500 keV for the four HPGe detectors. The digital processing of the energy signals provides resolutions at 1.3 MeV of the order of 2.3 keV for the HPGe and 40 keV for the LaBr₃(Ce) detectors. The HPGe detectors’ efficiency when gating on all three transitions below the $6_{1}^{+}$ level ($6_{1}^{+}\to 4_{1}^{+},4_{1}^{+}\to 2_{1}^{+}$ and $2_{1}^{+}\to 0_{1}^{+}$) is $\sim$23%, corresponding to the sum of the three individual absolute efficiency values for each $\gamma$-ray energy.

The first step of the fast-timing analysis involved the walk correction for the $\beta$ detector. Although the $\beta$ detector is thin and has a time response relatively independent of the incident $\beta$ energy, there is still a residual time dependence that needs to be accounted for. The correction was performed relative to an intense prompt peak in the LaBr₃(Ce) spectra for both calibration and experiment data sets. Afterwards, the curves representing the centroid positions of time spectrum vs. $\gamma$-ray energy deposited in the the LaBr₃(Ce) crystals were extracted for each full energy peak after subtracting the background close to it. The timing information was corrected on an event-by-event basis after each iteration using the polynomial fit of the energy-vs-time walk curve determined before by using the timing information of transitions in ¹³⁸Ba which de-excite short-lived levels that are directly fed in the $\beta$ decay of implanted ¹³⁸Cs [138Ba, 138Ba-timing]. The final time-energy walk curves were extracted using HPGe gated coincidences between the plastic scintillator and the LaBr₃(Ce) detectors in the triple $\beta\gamma\gamma(t)$-event data set, showing an overall variation of $\pm 5$ ps compared to a flat response.

.2 Shell-model calculations

The two different shell-model calculations were performed including the same model space spanning the $0h_{9/2}$, $1f_{7/2}$, $1f_{5/2}$, $2p_{3/2}$, $2p_{1/2}$, $0i_{13/2}$ orbitals for protons, and the $1g_{9/2}$, $0i_{11/2}$, $1g_{7/2}$, $2d_{5/2}$, $2d_{3/2}$, $3s_{1/2}$, $0j_{15/2}$ orbitals for neutrons, above the ²⁰⁸Pb doubly magic core. The proton and neutron single-particle energies were extracted from experimental studies on ²⁰⁹Bi and ²⁰⁹Pb [nds209], respectively. The following diagonalization and truncation schemes were applied:

(a) The H208 diagonalization of the matrices was achieved using the Antoine shell-model code [Cau99, Cau05], where the full configuration space was included for the ^210-216Po isotopes. A truncation scheme was adopted in ²¹⁸Po, by including the excitations up to $6p-6h$ excitations, with some limitations in the occupation of the $0j_{15/2}$ neutron and the $0i_{13/2}$ proton orbitals. Despite this truncation, the diagonalization of the ²¹⁸Po matrix, with its size of the order of $5\times 10^{9}$ is very challenging.

(b) The KHPE diagonalizations were performed using the Kshell code [Shi19]. Similarly to H208, calculations up to ²¹⁶Po were done in the full space, while the calculation of ²¹⁸Po needed truncation. This truncation was slightly different from the one used for H208. First, the two valence protons were limited only to the $0h_{9/2}$, $1f_{7/2}$ and $0i_{13/2}$ orbitals. Secondly, the excitations of the 8 valence neutrons were limited to maximum of four in the $0i_{11/2}$ and maximum of two neutrons in the $2d_{5/2},2d_{3/2},3s_{1/2},0j_{15/2}$ orbitals. Finally, an additional limitation on the joint occupation of the high-$j$ orbitals $\pi 0i_{13/2}$ and $\nu 0j_{15/2}$ was necessary to limit the calculation dimensions to $2.6\times 10^{9}$.

To facilitate the comparison between the two shell-model calculations, the same effective charges are used, $e_{n}=0.85e$ for neutrons and $e_{p}=1.5e$ for protons.

To complement the presently reported experimental $B(E2)$ values and further validate the modifications implemented to the effective interactions, Table 1 includes experimental $B(E2)$ values for transitions between yrast states in ^210,212Po from literature [nds210, nds212, kocheva2017, Tre21] compared to calculated $B(E2)$s.

The principal wave function components ($\geq 10\%$) calculated using the H208 and H208-m effective interactions for yrast states in ^{210,212,214,216,218}Po isotopes are listed in Table 2.

		$B(E2;J\to J-2)$ (W.u.)
Nucleus	$J^{\pi}$	Exp.	H208	H208-m	KHPE	KHPE-m
	$2_{1}^{+}$	1.83(28) [kocheva2017], 0.56(12) [nds210]	3.8	3.8	3.5	3.5
	$4_{1}^{+}$	4.46(18) [nds210]	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5
210Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	3.05(9) [nds210]	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
	$8_{1}^{+}$	1.12(4) [nds210]	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2
	$2_{1}^{+}$	2.57$(^{+0.38}_{-0.29})$ [nds212], 2.6(3) [Tre21]	8.2	8.7	6.6	7.8
	$4_{1}^{+}$	9.3(13) [Tre21]	9.8	10.8	7.9	9.8
212Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	13.2$(^{+4.9}_{-2.9})$ [nds212], 8.7(15) [Tre21]	7.1	8.3	5.5	7.5
	$8_{1}^{+}$	4.56(12) [nds212], 4.6(1) [Tre21]	3.6	4.5	2.5	3.9

Table 1: Experimental $B(E2)$ values for transitions between yrast states in ^210,212Po from literature [nds210, nds212, kocheva2017, Tre21], compared to calculated $B(E2)$s using the effective interactions employed in the present work: H208, KHPE, and their pairing-modified versions.

Nucleus	$J^{\pi}$	H208	H208-m
	$0_{1}^{+}$	76% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$ + 14% $\pi 1i_{13/2}^{2}$	77% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$ + 15% $\pi 1i_{13/2}^{2}$
	$2_{1}^{+}$	95% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$	95% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$
	$4_{1}^{+}$	98% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$	98% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$
210Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	99% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$	99% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$
	$8_{1}^{+}$	99% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$	99% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}$
	$0_{1}^{+}$	46% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$	46% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$
	$2_{1}^{+}$	53% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$	53% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$
	$4_{1}^{+}$	57% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$	56% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$
212Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	58% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$	56% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$
	$8_{1}^{+}$	54% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$	47% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$ + 15% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}$
	$0_{1}^{+}$	22% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$ + 12% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$	21% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$ + 12% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$
	$2_{1}^{+}$	20% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$	19% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 10% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$
	$4_{1}^{+}$	20% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 12% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$	18% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$
214Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	23% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 14% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$	18% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 13% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$
	$8_{1}^{+}$	34% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 16% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$	28% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 11% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$8_{2}^{+}$	26% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 10% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{2}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	33% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$+ 16% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}$
	$0_{1}^{+}$	13% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$2_{1}^{+}$	13% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$4_{1}^{+}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	11% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
216Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	10% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	10% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$8_{1}^{+}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	16% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{4}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$0_{1}^{+}$	13% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$2_{1}^{+}$	13% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$4_{1}^{+}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 12% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	11% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 12% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
218Po	$6_{1}^{+}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$+ 11% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	10% $\pi 1f_{7/2}^{2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$
	$8_{1}^{+}$	12% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$	19% $\pi 1h_{9/2}1f_{7/2}\otimes\nu 1g_{9/2}^{6}1i_{11/2}^{2}$

Table 2: The principal wave function components ($\geq 10\%$) for yrast states in ^{210,212,214,216,218}Po isotopes, calculated using the two versions of the effective interaction: H208 (initial) and H208-m (reduced pairing).