Benchmark calculations of pure neutron matter with realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions

A. Lovato; D. Logoteta; I. Bombaci; M. Piarulli; R. B. Wiringa

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 123 references

Benchmark calculations of pure neutron matter with realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In pure neutron matter, constrained-path Monte Carlo overestimates the energy when the nucleon-nucleon force has spin-orbit terms; releasing the constraint removes the bias and matches Brueckner theory.

desk verdict The paper makes a real, mostly convincing case that constrained-path AFDMC systematically overestimates neutron-matter energies once spin-orbit interactions are in the potential, and that unconstrained propagation fixes most of the discrepancy; treat the high-density end as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04426 v1 pith:K6VXYA2W submitted 2019-08-12 nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

M. Piarulli , I. Bombaci , D. Logoteta , A. Lovato , R. B. Wiringa This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords pureneutronmatterequationofstateauxiliary-fielddiffusionMonteCarloBrueckner-Bethe-GoldstoneFermihypernettedchainspin-orbitinteractionconstrained-pathapproximationnucleon-nucleonpotentials

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper benchmarks three independent many-body methods—Brueckner–Bethe–Goldstone, Fermi hypernetted chain/single-operator chain, and auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo—for the energy per particle of pure neutron matter, using the AV6′, AV8′, and AV18 potentials and four NV2 chiral potentials. Its central finding is that the constrained propagation normally used in the Monte Carlo method to control the fermion sign problem is not neutral: for every potential with spin-orbit terms, the constrained energy per particle sits above the true result, and the gap grows with density. When the constraint is released and the imaginary-time evolution is extrapolated to its asymptotic energy, the Monte Carlo results drop substantially and come into close agreement with the Brueckner method, within about 1 MeV for AV18 and within about 2.5 MeV for the NV2 family up to twice nuclear saturation density. The paper also reports that the hypernetted-chain method lies below the other two above saturation density, an effect attributed to the truncated treatment of spin-orbit correlations. If the central claim is right, earlier constrained Monte Carlo equations of state for neutron matter are systematically too stiff at high density, and potentials fitted to higher-energy scattering data give a tighter band of predictions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-stage imaginary-time evolution in auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo. In the first stage the walkers are propagated with the constrained-path approximation, which suppresses the fermion sign problem but is not variational. In the second stage the constraint is released: the guiding function is switched to $\Psi_G(X)=\sqrt{\mathrm{Re}\{\Psi_T(X)\}^2+\alpha\,\mathrm{Im}\{\Psi_T(X)\}^2}$ with $\alpha=0.5$, and the energy $E_{\rm UC}(\tau)$ is tracked until it can be extrapolated to its asymptotic value by a single-exponential fit that accounts for correlations through the covariance matrix. The difference $E_{\rm UC}(\tau)-E_{\rm UC}(\tau_0)$ computed with 14 neutrons in a periodic box is added to the 66-neutron constrained results to estimate the thermodynamic-limit unconstrained energy; the additivity is validated for AV8′ by comparing 14- and 38-neutron boxes. This release-and-extrapolate mechanism carries the paper's central claim, because it is what turns the biased constrained energies into the energies that agree with Brueckner theory.

What would settle it

Run the unconstrained stage directly with 66 neutrons at $\rho_0$ and $2\rho_0$ for the AV8′, AV18, and one NV2 potential, and compare with the values obtained by adding the 14-neutron unconstrained correction to the 66-neutron constrained results; a difference larger than the quoted error bars would break the central agreement with Brueckner theory. A complementary check is to compute the same periodic system with a method that treats spin-isospin exactly, such as Green's function Monte Carlo, at the densities where the correction is largest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the constrained-path approximation in auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo introduces a density-dependent upward bias in the neutron-matter equation of state whenever the two-nucleon interaction contains spin-orbit terms, and that removing this bias reconciles the method with Brueckner theory. Concretely, at $\rho_0$ the AV8′ energy per particle falls from $15.55(1)$ MeV under the constrained propagation to $12.5(3)$ MeV after the constraint is released; for AV18 the release lowers the energy by about $2.2$ MeV at $\rho_0$ and $5.3$ MeV at $2\rho_0$, and for NV2-Ib the shift reaches about $8$ MeV at $2\rho_0$. The paper presents this as a cross-method benchmark: after the correction, AFDMC and BBG agree within $1$ MeV for AV18 and within about $2.5$ MeV for the NV2 potentials up to $2\rho_0$, while FHNC/SOC falls below the other two at supra-saturation densities because its spin-orbit correlations are truncated at the three-body cluster level. The authors frame the result as a systematic improvement to the Monte Carlo method rather than a final equation of state, since three-nucleon forces are deliberately excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy lowering measured during unconstrained evolution of 14 neutrons in a small periodic box is exactly the correction that applies to the 66-neutron constrained energies at every density and for every potential, and that the extrapolation used to read off that lowering is trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For potentials with spin-orbit terms, constrained AFDMC overestimates the energy per particle, and the bias grows with density: about $2.2$ MeV at $\rho_0$ and $5.3$ MeV at $2\rho_0$ for AV18, and up to about $8$ MeV at $2\rho_0$ for NV2-Ib.
After the constraint is released, AFDMC and BBG agree within about $1$ MeV per particle for AV18 and within about $2.5$ MeV for the NV2 potentials up to twice nuclear saturation density.
The FHNC/SOC energies fall below both BBG and AFDMC-UC above saturation density, and the paper attributes this to the three-body cluster truncation of spin-orbit correlations.
Potentials fitted to higher-energy scattering data (AV18, NV2-IIa, NV2-IIb) keep the spread of equations of state within about $4$ MeV per particle up to $2\rho_0$, while including the lower-energy-fitted NV2-I models widens the spread to about $9$ MeV.
For the spin-orbit-free AV6′ potential, all three methods agree within about $5$ MeV per particle up to $2\rho_0$, and constrained and unconstrained AFDMC nearly coincide.

Reading between the lines

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

A likely consequence: earlier constrained AFDMC equations of state for pure neutron matter obtained with local N2LO chiral Hamiltonians carry the same upward spin-orbit bias; running the unconstrained stage for those interactions would test this directly.
A diagnostic extension: if the bias is driven by spin-orbit strength, its size should correlate with the splitting of the $^3P_J$ phase shifts across the six potentials used here, which could be checked at fixed density.
A practical take-home: for neutron-star modelling, two-body-only constrained equations of state should be treated as upper bounds above saturation density, with the unconstrained correction and three-nucleon forces both lowering the energy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a careful benchmark that delivers a new and consequential result—constrained AFDMC neutron-matter energies carry a spin-orbit-dependent bias that grows with density, and releasing the constraint moves AFDMC close to BBG. I think the authors have earned that conclusion, with one caveat about how much weight the extrapolation can carry.

What's genuinely new: the plus/minus importance sampling applied to pure neutron matter, unconstrained propagation with a proper covariance-aware exponential fit, and the extension of FHNC/SOC with central elementary diagrams beyond FHNC/4. The paper also does a useful job connecting the many-body spread to how well each potential describes NN phase shifts at the relevant lab energies. The AV18/NV2 comparison is informative, and the point that potentials fit to higher-energy scattering data give a tighter EoS band is well supported.

The central comparison is internally consistent. The unconstrained runs visibly lower the energy for AV8' (about 3 MeV at rho0), the 38-neutron check for AV8' supports box-size independence of the difference, and the AFDMC-UC numbers land within a couple MeV of BBG across most of the range. That is a satisfying convergence of methods.

The soft spots are concentrated in the machinery that produces AFDMC-UC. The asymptotic energy comes from a single-exponential fit to EUC(tau) over a short propagation window, and the correction is computed with 14 neutrons and added to 66-neutron constrained results. That additivity and the fit quality are validated in detail only for AV8' at rho0. The density where the bias matters most—around 2 rho0, where the claimed shift is up to ~8 MeV for NV2-Ib—is exactly where the validation is thinnest. The authors are honest that backflow correlations change constrained results by more than 1 MeV, which is a reminder that trial-wave-function sensitivity has not been fully eliminated. BBG results also come without uncertainty estimates, so the 'agreement' has a one-sided error bar.

None of this is fatal. The paper is transparent about its approximations, the statistics on AFDMC-UC are properly handled, and the qualitative conclusion—constrained AFDMC is biased upward for potentials with spin-orbit terms—is robust. The quantitative 1–2.5 MeV agreement with BBG is best read as provisional until a direct high-density unconstrained calculation with a larger box is done.

Who gets value: anyone using or comparing microscopic neutron-matter EoS, especially in the neutron-star context, and people developing QMC methods. It deserves a serious peer review, and I would want the high-density extrapolation checked in review.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports benchmark calculations of the energy per particle of pure neutron matter as a function of density, using three independent many-body methods: Brueckner–Bethe–Goldstone (BBG), Fermi hypernetted chain/single-operator chain (FHNC/SOC), and auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo (AFDMC). The interactions considered are AV6', AV8', AV18, and four Norfolk NV2 chiral potentials. Two technical improvements are central: the FHNC/SOC calculation includes additional elementary diagrams, and the AFDMC calculation implements unconstrained imaginary-time propagation after a constrained-path stage, together with a new importance-sampling procedure. The main result is that for potentials with spin-orbit terms, constrained AFDMC significantly overestimates the neutron-matter energy, while unconstrained AFDMC lowers the energy and brings it into close agreement with BBG up to twice saturation density, with discrepancies of order 3 MeV per particle or less. The paper also finds that potentials fit to higher-energy NN scattering data (AV18, NV2-II) give a smaller spread of the equation of state than potentials fit only up to 125 MeV laboratory energy.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is significant for the nuclear many-body field: it identifies a systematic upward bias in previous constrained AFDMC neutron-matter equations of state at high density, and it demonstrates that releasing the constrained-path bias brings two very different methods, AFDMC and BBG, into agreement for the NN-only Hamiltonian. The benchmark is also useful because it covers two families of realistic potentials and provides a consistent comparison of methods. The paper has notable strengths: the AFDMC energies carry carefully estimated statistical errors from a covariance-matrix analysis of the imaginary-time data; the unconstrained-propagation correction is cross-checked with 14- and 38-neutron boxes for AV8'; the FHNC/SOC treatment is improved beyond previous work; and the phase-shift comparisons connect the density range of the equation of state to the laboratory-energy range of the scattering data. The potentials are external inputs fit to scattering data, so the benchmark comparison is not circular with respect to the reported neutron-matter energies.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III C, Eq. (43) and Fig. 4] The unconstrained AFDMC energies are constructed by adding the 14-neutron difference EUC(τ)−EUC(τ0) to the 66-neutron AFDMC-CP values. The box-size validation of this difference is reported only for AV8', and the text does not state that it was performed at densities other than ρ0 (the figure context suggests ρ0). The correction is then applied at all densities up to 2ρ0 and for all spin-orbit potentials, where it is as large as about 8 MeV per particle for NV2-Ib. Because the claimed agreement between AFDMC-UC and BBG depends directly on this additivity and on the single-exponential extrapolation, the manuscript should provide a direct unconstrained run at high density for at least one spin-orbit potential (for example AV8' or NV2-IIb with 38 or 66 neutrons) to show that the correction is not density-dependent in a way that invalidates the 3 MeV agreement.
[Sec. III C, Eq. (43) and Fig. 4] The asymptotic energy E0 is obtained from a single-exponential fit to EUC(τ) over τ ≤ 0.004 MeV^-1. The unconstrained propagation starts from configurations produced by a constrained propagation, so components discarded by the constraint are not resampled at τ0; the authors also note that backflow correlations lower the constrained energy by more than 1 MeV per particle. These facts leave a residual trial-wave-function dependence that the single-exponential fit does not quantify. I request a stability check of E0 under a two-exponential fit and, if feasible, a test with backflow-correlated trial wave functions at ρ0 and at one high density, so that the central AFDMC-UC/BBG comparison rests on a more controlled extrapolation.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads "Same as Fig. 4" but should refer to Fig. 3.
[Sec. V] The sentence giving the AV18 constrained-minus-unconstrained difference states "∼ 3 MeV at ρ = ρ0 and ∼ 7 MeV at ρ = ρ0"; the second density should be 2ρ0.
[Sec. III C] The text contains the duplicated phrase "Since the the expectation values are substantially correlated in τ"; the second "the" should be removed.
[Eq. (25) and Eq. (43)] The symbol α is used both for the spin/isospin potential quencher in Eq. (25) and for the parameter appearing in the positive-definite guiding function in Eq. (43); renaming one of them would avoid confusion.
[Sec. V] The conclusion that potentials fit to higher-energy scattering data reduce the spread of the equation of state is based on four of the six NV2 variants; including the NV2-Ic and NV2-IIc cutoffs would make the regulator dependence of this conclusion quantitative rather than illustrative.
[Sec. IV] The BBG results are presented without uncertainty estimates; given that the AFDMC-UC/BBG agreement is a central benchmark, a remark on the expected size of the hole-line truncation error, for example from three-hole-line contributions, would help the reader interpret the "within 3 MeV" claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark is self-contained; potentials are external scattering-data inputs and the AFDMC-UC extrapolation is an independently cross-checked approximation, not a fit to the target energies.

full rationale

The paper is a benchmark comparison whose central quantities are energies per particle computed from fixed Hamiltonians. The Argonne potentials are phenomenological fits to scattering data (AV18, AV8', AV6'), and the NV2 potentials are described as 'constrained to a large set of NN-scattering data, as assembled by the Granada group', i.e., external scattering observables, not to the PNM energies reported here. No parameter is fitted to the BBG or FHNC results, and the variational parameters in FHNC/SOC and AFDMC are minimized against the variational energy itself (an upper-bound principle), not against the other methods. The AFDMC-UC energies rely on an imaginary-time extrapolation (single-exponential fit to EUC(tau)) and on adding the 14-neutron EUC(tau)-EUC(tau0) difference to 66-neutron CP results; these are uncontrolled approximations whose validation is limited to AV8' at rho0 with 38 neutrons. That is a legitimate correctness/robustness concern, but it is not circular: nothing in the extrapolation or additivity step is defined in terms of, or fitted to, the BBG energies it is compared with. The later statement that AFDMC-UC/BBG agreement 'corroborates the accuracy of the extrapolation' is ex-post cross-validation between independent methods, not a construction of the result from inputs. Self-citations to the NV2 potential papers and to AFDMC algorithmic improvements are backed by external Granada/SM16 phase-shift fits and by independent GFMC comparisons; they are not used as an unverified authority to forbid alternatives. No equation is shown to be equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on methodological assumptions about the accuracy of the many-body approximations, not on new physics entities. No new forces, particles, or conserved quantities are introduced. The variational parameters are internal to the two variational methods and are not reported, which is the main reproducibility burden.

free parameters (3)

FHNC/SOC healing distances (ds, dp, dt) = Not reported; varied at each density via simplex search
Enter Eq. (14) and control the range of the correlation operator. They are method-specific variational parameters, not physics constants, but their values are needed to reproduce the FHNC/SOC numbers.
FHNC/SOC quenching factor alpha = Not reported; varied at each density
Scales the two-body potential used in the Euler-Lagrange equations (Eq. 25). A variational parameter that affects the resulting correlations and energy.
AFDMC trial wave function parameters (alpha, beta_sigma, d_c) = Not reported; varied at each density
Define the central Jastrow and linearized spin-dependent correlations in Eq. (27) and are optimized to minimize the variational energy. The AFDMC-UC energies depend on these choices.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The chosen NN potentials (AV18, AV8', AV6', NV2) are sufficiently realistic to probe many-body method differences.
The benchmark compares methods, not models, but the comparison of potential families and the conclusion about energy spread assume these potentials are representative of the NN interaction. Entered in Sec. II.
domain assumption Single-exponential extrapolation of EUC(tau) to infinite imaginary time yields the true ground-state energy for each density.
Stated after Eq. (43) in Sec. III C. The accuracy of E0 depends on this fit; the paper checks consistency only for AV6' and AV8' with 14 vs 38 neutrons.
domain assumption The difference EUC(tau) minus EUC(tau0) computed with 14 neutrons is additive to the 66-neutron constrained-path energy.
Stated in Sec. IV. Validated for a limited set of systems, not for all potentials and densities.
domain assumption The expectation value of (v18 - v8') can be reliably computed in perturbation theory when propagating with v8'.
Used for AV18 and NV2 results in Sec. III C and Fig. 5. Relies on the difference being small and stable during the imaginary-time propagation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmark calculations of pure neutron matter with realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6VXYA2W

@misc{pith2026190804426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmark calculations of pure neutron matter with realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6VXYA2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04426}
}

abstract

We report benchmark calculations of the energy per particle of pure neutron matter as a function of the baryon density using three independent many-body methods: Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone, Fermi hypernetted chain/single-operator chain, and auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo. Significant technical improvements are implemented in the latter two methods. The calculations are made for two distinct families of realistic coordinate-space nucleon-nucleon potentials fit to scattering data, including the standard Argonne $v_{18}$ interaction and two of its simplified versions, and four of the new Norfolk $\Delta$-full chiral effective field theory potentials. The results up to twice nuclear matter saturation density show some divergence among the methods, but improved agreement compared to earlier work. We find that the potentials fit to higher-energy nucleon-nucleon scattering data exhibit a much smaller spread of energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04426 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Same as Fig. 1, but for the NV2 ∆-full local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. PNM unconstrained evolution for the AV6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: , exhibits a a clear exponentially-decaying behavior, lowering the energy per particle by as much as ∼ 3 MeV. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 τ [10-3 MeV-1] 14.7 14.8 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 E( τ) [MeV] EUC(τ) fit E0 FIG. 3. PNM unconstrained evolution for the AV60 potential at ρ…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. PNM unconstrained evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Energy per particle of PNM as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6 for the NV2-Ia (upper left panel), NV2-Ib (upper right panel), NV2-IIa (lower left panel), and NV2-IIb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990)

1990
[2]

Weinberg, Nucl

S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

1991
[3]

Epelbaum, H.-W

E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2009
[4]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2011
[5]

Reinert, H

P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 86 (2018), arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2018
[6]

D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2017
[7]

Pastore, L

S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 80, 034004 (2009)

2009
[8]

Kolling, E

S. Kolling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C80, 045502 (2009), arXiv:0907.3437 [nucl- th]

arXiv 2009

Show all 123 references

[9]

Pastore, L

S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024001 (2011)

2011
[10]

Kolling, E

S. Kolling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C84, 054008 (2011), arXiv:1107.0602 [nucl- th]

2011 arXiv
[11]

Baroni, L

A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C93, 015501 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C95,no.5,059901(2017)], arXiv:1509.07039 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[12]

healing distances

The vL 12 part includes one-pion- exchange (OPE) and two-pion-exchange (TPE) terms up to next-to-next-to-leading order (N2LO) in the chiral ex- pansion [58], derived in the static limit from leading and sub-leading πN and πN∆ chiral Lagrangians. The vS 12 part, however, is des...

2000
[13]

Krebs, E

H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum, and U. G. Meiner, Annals Phys. 378, 317 (2017), arXiv:1610.03569 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Baroni, L

A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, L. E. Marcucci, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C94, 024003 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C95,no.5,059902(2017)], arXiv:1605.01620 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[15]

H. J. Schulze, J. Cugnon, A. Lejeune, M. Baldo, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. C52, 2785 (1995)

1995
[16]

Baldo and G

M. Baldo and G. F. Burgio, Rep. Progr. Phys. 75, 026301 (2012)

2012
[17]

Carbone, A

A. Carbone, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, A. Rios, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C88, 054326 (2013), arXiv:1310.3688 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[18]

B. R. Barrett, P. Navratil, and J. P. Vary, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 69, 131 (2013)

2013
[19]

Hagen, T

G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014), arXiv:1312.7872 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Carlson, S

J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1067 (2015), arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Hergert, S

H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Phys. Rept. 621, 165 (2016), arXiv:1512.06956 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[22]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observa- tory Gro...

2017 arXiv
[23]

LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, http://www.ligo.org
[24]

VIRGO Collaboration, http://www.virgo-gw.eu
[25]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[26]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[27]

I. Tews, J. Margueron, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C98, 045804 (2018), arXiv:1804.02783 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[28]

Fasano, T

M. Fasano, T. Abdelsalhin, A. Maselli, and V. Ferrari, (2019), arXiv:1902.05078 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

2010 arXiv
[30]

R. S. Lynch et al., Astrophys. J. 763, 81 (2013), arXiv:1209.4296 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[31]

Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[32]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235, 37 (2018), arXiv:1801.01837 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[33]

H. T. Cromartie et al., (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Prakash, I

M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer, and R. Knorren, Phys. Rept. 280, 1 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9603042 [nucl-th]

1997 arXiv
[35]

Friedman and V

B. Friedman and V. R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A361, 502 (1981)

1981
[36]

R. B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988)

1988
[37]

Akmal, V

A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804027 [nucl-th]

1998 arXiv
[38]

J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062501 (2016), arXiv:1509.03470 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Bombaci and D

I. Bombaci and D. Logoteta, Astron. Astrophys. 609, A128 (2018), arXiv:1805.11846 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[40]

N. K. Glendenning, Astrophys. J. 293, 470 (1985)

1985
[41]

Vidana, D

I. Vidana, D. Logoteta, C. Providencia, A. Polls, and I. Bombaci, EPL 94, 11002 (2011), arXiv:1006.5660 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[42]

Lonardoni, A

D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolﬁ, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092301 (2015), arXiv:1407.4448 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[43]

Chatterjee and I

D. Chatterjee and I. Vidaa, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 29 (2016), arXiv:1510.06306 [nucl-th]. 15

2016 arXiv
[44]

Haidenbauer, U

J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meiner, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 121 (2017), arXiv:1612.03758 [nucl- th]

2017 arXiv
[45]

I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, S. Han, M. G. Orsaria, G. A. Contrera, F. Weber, and M. G. Alford, Phys. Rev.C93, 045812 (2016), arXiv:1512.09183 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[46]

M. G. Alford, G. F. Burgio, S. Han, G. Taranto, and D. Zappal, Phys. Rev. D92, 083002 (2015), arXiv:1501.07902 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[47]

Mariani, M

M. Mariani, M. Orsaria, and H. Vucetich, Astron. Astrophys. 601, A21 (2017), arXiv:1607.05200 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[48]

Bombaci, D

I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, I. Vidaa, and C. Providncia, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 58 (2016), arXiv:1601.04559 [astro- ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[49]

V. R. Pandharipande, C. J. Pethick, and V. Thors- son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4567 (1995), arXiv:nucl- th/9507023 [nucl-th]

1995
[50]

N. K. Glendenning and J. Schaﬀner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C60, 025803 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810290 [astro-ph]

1999 arXiv
[51]

Mukherjee, Phys

A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. C79, 045811 (2009), arXiv:0811.3528 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[52]

Epelbaum, H

E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meiner, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 53 (2015), arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[53]

B. D. Day, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 719 (1967)

1967
[54]

Fantoni and S

S. Fantoni and S. Rosati, Nuovo Cimento A 25, 593 (1975)

1975
[55]

V. R. Pandharipande and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 821 (1979)

1979
[56]

K. E. Schmidt and S. Fantoni, Phys. Lett. B446, 99 (1999)

1999
[57]

R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9408016 [nucl-th]

1995 arXiv
[58]

R. B. Wiringa and S. C. Pieper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 182501 (2002)

2002
[59]

Piarulli, L

M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, R. Navarro Prez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. C91, 024003 (2015), arXiv:1412.6446 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[60]

Piarulli, L

M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, A. Kievsky, A. Lovato, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C94, 054007 (2016), arXiv:1606.06335 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[61]

Baldo, A

M. Baldo, A. Polls, A. Rios, H. J. Schulze, and I. Vi- dana, Phys. Rev. C86, 064001 (2012), arXiv:1207.6314 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[62]

Gandolﬁ, A

S. Gandolﬁ, A. Lovato, J. Carlson, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C90, 061306 (2014), arXiv:1406.3388 [nucl- th]

2014 arXiv
[63]

Lonardoni, S

D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolﬁ, J. E. Lynn, C. Petrie, J. Carlson, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C97, 044318 (2018), arXiv:1802.08932 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[64]

Gezerlis, I

A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolﬁ, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 032501 (2013), arXiv:1303.6243 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[65]

Gezerlis, I

A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, M. Freunek, S. Gan- dolﬁ, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C90, 054323 (2014), arXiv:1406.0454 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[66]

Benhar, (2019), arXiv:1903.11353 [nucl-th]

O. Benhar, (2019), arXiv:1903.11353 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[67]

J. E. Lynn, J. Carlson, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolﬁ, A. Gezerlis, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 192501 (2014), arXiv:1406.2787 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[68]

I. Tews, S. Gandolﬁ, A. Gezerlis, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C93, 024305 (2016), arXiv:1507.05561 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[69]

J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, A. Gez- erlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C96, 054007 (2017), arXiv:1706.07668 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[70]

Piarulli et al., Phys

M. Piarulli et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 052503 (2018), arXiv:1707.02883 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[71]

Baroni et al., Phys

A. Baroni et al., Phys. Rev. C98, 044003 (2018), arXiv:1806.10245 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[72]

Navarro Prez, J

R. Navarro Prez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Ar- riola, Phys. Rev. C88, 064002 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C91,no.2,029901(2015)], arXiv:1310.2536 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[73]

van Kolck, Phys

U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C49, 2932 (1994)

1994
[74]

Epelbaum, A

E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gloeckle, H. Kamada, U. G. Meissner, and H. Witala, Phys. Rev. C66, 064001 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0208023 [nucl-th]

2002 arXiv
[75]

Gazit, S

D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navratil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 102502 (2009), arXiv:0812.4444 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[76]

L. E. Marcucci, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 052502 (2012), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121,no.4,049901(2018)], arXiv:1109.5563 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[77]

Gardestig and D

A. Gardestig and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 232301 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0603045 [nucl-th]

2006 arXiv
[78]

Schiavilla, unpublished (2017)

R. Schiavilla, unpublished (2017)

2017
[79]

B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1720 (1997)

1997
[80]

R. L. Workman, W. J. Briscoe, and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. Rev. C94, 065203 (2016), arXiv:1609.01741 [nucl- th]

2016 arXiv
[81]

Goldstone, Proc

J. Goldstone, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A239, 267 (1957)

1957
[82]

K. A. Brueckner, C. A. Levinson, and H. M. Mahmoud, Phys. Rev. 95, 217 (1954)

1954
[83]

K. A. Brueckner, Phys. Rev. 96, 508 (1954)

1954
[84]

H. A. Bethe and J. Goldstone, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A238, 0 (1957)

1957
[85]

H. A. Bethe, B. H. Brandow, and A. G. Petschek, Phys. Rev. 129, 225 (1963)

1963
[86]

Hufner and C

J. Hufner and C. Mahaux, Annals of Physics 73, 525 (1972)

1972
[87]

J. P. Jeukenne, A. Lejeunne, and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rep. 25, 83 (1967)

1967
[88]

Grang´ e, J

P. Grang´ e, J. Cugnon, and A. Lejeune, Nucl. Phys. A473, 365 (1987)

1987
[89]

Baldo, I

M. Baldo, I. Bombaci, G. Giansiracusa, U. Lombardo, C. Mahaux, and R. Sartor, Phys. Rev. C41, 1748 (1990)

1990
[90]

Baldo, I

M. Baldo, I. Bombaci, L. S. Ferreira, G. Giansiracusa, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Rev C43, 2605 (1991)

1991
[91]

H. Q. Song, M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, and U. Lom- bardo, Phys. Lett. B411, 237 (1997)

1997
[92]

Baldo, G

M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, U. Lombardo, and S. H. Q., Phys. Lett. B473, 5 (2000)

2000
[93]

Jastrow, Phys

R. Jastrow, Phys. Rev. 98, 1479 (1955)

1955
[94]

J. M. J. van Leeuwen, J. Groeneveld, and J. de Boer, Physica (Utrecht) 25, 792 (1959)

1959
[95]

V. R. Pandharipande and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. C 7, 1312 (1973)

1973
[96]

H. W. Jackson and E. Feenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 686 (1962)

1962
[97]

J. G. Zabolitzky, Phys. Rev. A 16, 1258 (1977)

1977
[98]

Q. N. Usmani and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4502 (1982)

1982
[99]

I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, and S. Reddy, Astro- phys. J. 860, 149 (2018), arXiv:1801.01923 [nucl-th]. 16

2018 arXiv
[100]

Fantoni, S

S. Fantoni, S. Gandolﬁ, A. Yu. Illari- onov, K. E. Schmidt, and F. Pederiva, Perspectives in hadronic physics. Proceedings, 6th International Conference, Hadron 08, Trieste, Italy, May 12-16, 2008, AIP Conf. Proc. 1056, 233 (2008), arXiv:0807.5043 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[101]

Gandolﬁ, A

S. Gandolﬁ, A. Yu. Illarionov, K. E. Schmidt, F. Ped- eriva, and S. Fantoni, Phys. Rev. C79, 054005 (2009), arXiv:0903.2610 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[102]

Sarsa, S

A. Sarsa, S. Fantoni, K. E. Schmidt, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. C68, 024308 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0303035 [nucl-th]

2003 arXiv
[103]

Lonardoni, J

D. Lonardoni, J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, J. E. Lynn, K. E. Schmidt, A. Schwenk, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 122502 (2018), arXiv:1709.09143 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[104]

Sorella, Phys

S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B 71, 241103 (2005)

2005
[105]

Toulouse and C

J. Toulouse and C. J. Umrigar, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 084102 (2007), physics/0701039

2007 arXiv
[106]

Zhang and H

S. Zhang and H. Krakauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 136401 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0208340 [cond-mat]

2003 arXiv
[107]

Zhang, J

S. Zhang, J. Carlson, and J. E. Gubernatis, Phys. Rev. B55, 7464 (1997), arXiv:cond-mat/9607062 [cond-mat]

1997 arXiv
[108]

R. B. Wiringa, S. C. Pieper, J. Carlson, and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C62, 014001 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0002022 [nucl-th]

2000 arXiv
[109]

Pederiva, A

F. Pederiva, A. Sarsa, K. E. Schmidt, and S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A742, 255 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0403069 [nucl-th]

2004 arXiv
[110]

B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C56, 1720 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9705009 [nucl-th]

1997 arXiv
[111]

Yoon, Y.-C

B. Yoon, Y.-C. Jang, C. Jung, and W. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 63, 145 (2013), arXiv:1101.2248 [hep-lat]

2013 arXiv
[112]

W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN; The Art of Scientiﬁc Computing, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1993)

1993
[113]

Lonardoni, S

D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolﬁ, X. B. Wang, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C98, 014322 (2018), arXiv:1804.08027 [nucl- th]

2018 arXiv
[114]

Lovato, O

A. Lovato, O. Benhar, S. Fantoni, A. Yu. Illarionov, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C83, 054003 (2011), arXiv:1011.3784 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[115]

Brualla, S

L. Brualla, S. Fantoni, A. Sarsa, K. E. Schmidt, and S. A. Vitiello, Phys. Rev. C67, 065806 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0304042 [nucl-th]

2003 arXiv
[116]

Carlson, J

J. Carlson, J. Morales, Jr., V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C68, 025802 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0302041 [nucl-th]

2003 arXiv
[117]

Gandolﬁ, J

S. Gandolﬁ, J. Carlson, S. Reddy, A. W. Steiner, and R. B. Wiringa, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 10 (2014), arXiv:1307.5815 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[118]

Evolution of Nuclear Spectra with Nuclear Forces,

R. B. Wiringa and S. C. Pieper, “Evolution of Nuclear Spectra with Nuclear Forces,” https://www.phy.anl. gov/theory/fewbody/avxp_results.html (dated July 15, 2002)

2002
[119]

Lovato, O

A. Lovato, O. Benhar, S. Fantoni, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C85, 024003 (2012), arXiv:1109.5489 [nucl- th]

2012 arXiv
[120]

Lu, Z.-H

J.-J. Lu, Z.-H. Li, C.-Y. Chen, M. Baldo, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C98, 064322 (2018)

2018
[121]

Baldo and C

M. Baldo and C. Maieron, Phys. Rev. C69, 014301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0311070 [nucl-th]

2004 arXiv
[122]

Bombaci, A

I. Bombaci, A. Fabrocini, A. Polls, and I. Vidana, Phys. Lett. B609, 232 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411057 [nucl- th]

2005 arXiv
[123]

L. Huth, I. Tews, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C96, 054003 (2017), arXiv:1708.03194 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990)

1990

[2] [2]

Weinberg, Nucl

S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

1991

[3] [3]

Epelbaum, H.-W

E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2009

[4] [4]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2011

[5] [5]

Reinert, H

P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 86 (2018), arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Pastore, L

S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 80, 034004 (2009)

2009

[8] [8]

Kolling, E

S. Kolling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C80, 045502 (2009), arXiv:0907.3437 [nucl- th]

arXiv 2009