model relies also on the theory of Fermi liquids and accounts for microscopic properties of the GEDR. The advantage of the GLO model is its capability to reproduce both photoabsorption cross-section data as well as the above-mentioned sub-threshold data reasonably well.

The GLO strength function is given by [@ko90] $$\begin{aligned}
&&f_{\rm GLO}(E_{\gamma},T_f) = \frac{1}{3\pi^2\hbar^2c^2}\sigma_{E1}\Gamma_{E1} \times \\ \nonumber
&& \left[\frac{ E_{\gamma} \Gamma(E_{\gamma},T_f)}{(E_\gamma^2-E_{E1}^2)^2 + E_{\gamma}^2 
    \left[\Gamma (E_{\gamma},T_f)\right]^2} + \;0.7\frac{\Gamma(E_{\gamma}=0,T_f)}{E_{E1}^3} \right],
\label{eq:GLo}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{E1}$, $\Gamma_{E1}$, and $E_{E1}$ are the Giant Electric Dipole Resonance (GEDR) peak cross section, width, and centroid energy, respectively. The energy- and temperature-dependent width reads $$\Gamma(E_{\gamma},T_f) = \frac{\Gamma_{E1}}{E_{E1}^2} (E_{\gamma}^2 + 4\pi^2T_f^2), 
\label{eq:edepwidth}$$ identical to the prediction of [@ka83]. Here, the first term reflects the spreading of particle-hole states into more complex configurations, and the second term accounts for collisions between quasiparticles. The spreading width thus depends on the nuclear temperature of the final states $T_f$.

The Oslo method is based on the Brink hypothesis, which means no dependence on the excitation energy and thus on the nuclear temperature $T_f$ of final states in the RSF. Introducing a constant temperature is, however, not in contradiction with the Brink hypothesis or the extraction procedure to get the NLD and RSF from the 