Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Electroweak probes of ground state densities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 PREX-II and CREX will constrain the weak form factors of xenon and argon, the nuclei at the heart of neutrino and dark matter detectors.

desk verdict Useful, honest paper: the correlations are plausible and clearly presented, but the quantitative predictions are conditional on a single RMF family and arbitrarily placed PREX-II/CREX central values. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10939 v1 pith:TFZKEG6C submitted 2019-08-28 nucl-th nucl-ex

Junjie Yang , Jesse A. Hernandez , J. Piekarewicz This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex PACS 21.10.Gv21.60.Jz25.30.Bf
keywords neutronskinthicknessweakformfactorparity-violatingelectronscatteringcoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusrelativisticmean-fieldmodelsmirrornucleisymmetryenergydarkmatterdirectdetection
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 argues that the neutron-skin thickness of $^{48}$Ca is almost perfectly correlated with that of $^{40}$Ar, and that of $^{208}$Pb with that of $^{132}$Xe. Because xenon and argon are the active targets used in coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering and dark matter searches, the ongoing PREX-II and upcoming CREX measurements can therefore be exported directly into tighter nuclear-physics uncertainties for those detectors. The claim is carried by five relativistic mean-field models that share one fitting protocol and differ only in the assumed $^{208}$Pb neutron skin, which tunes the density dependence of the symmetry energy. The paper also extends the same logic to mirror nuclei, arguing that the charge radius of the exotic nucleus $^{50}$Ni could serve as a proxy for the neutron skin of $^{48}$Ca.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weak-skin form factor $F_{W\rm skin}(q)=F_{\rm ch}(q)-F_{\rm wk}(q)$, a model-independent isovector observable whose leading low-$q$ behaviour is set by the weak skin thickness. It connects the measured parity-violating asymmetry to the difference between charge and weak radii. The theoretical predictions come from five covariant density functionals calibrated to finite nuclei and neutron-star masses, with all fitting fixed except the assumed $^{208}$Pb neutron skin; the covariance matrix from calibration supplies the error bands. A symmetrized Fermi density with a closed analytic form factor is used to verify that the numerically generated weak form factors can be reproduced with just two parameters, half-density radius $c$ and diffuseness $a$.

What would settle it

COHERENT or a successor could measure the $^{40}$Ar weak form factor at low momentum transfer; if the extracted neutron skin disagrees with $R_{\rm skin}(^{40}{\rm Ar}) = -0.015 + 0.572\,R_{\rm skin}(^{48}{\rm Ca})$ beyond the quoted regression band after CREX, the central correlation fails. Alternatively, evaluate $F_{\rm wk}$ for $^{40}$Ar and $^{132}$Xe with a non-relativistic density functional or ab initio family calibrated independently; a spread above 2% at $q\simeq0.1$--$0.5\,{\rm fm}^{-1}$ would falsify the paper's claim that coherent neutrino scattering is largely insensitive to nuclear structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a set of near-perfect linear data-to-data relations: $R_{\rm skin}(^{40}{\rm Ar}) = -0.015 + 0.572\,R_{\rm skin}(^{48}{\rm Ca})$ and $R_{\rm skin}(^{132}{\rm Xe}) = 0.017 + 0.793\,R_{\rm skin}(^{208}{\rm Pb})$, both with correlation coefficient $\rho\simeq 1$. With realistic error bars, a CREX measurement of the $^{48}$Ca skin would fix the argon skin to about 0.014 fm, and a PREX-II measurement of lead would fix the xenon skin to about 0.055 fm. Separately, the weak form factors of $^{40}$Ar and $^{132}$Xe at the low momentum transfers relevant to coherent neutrino scattering vary by less than 2% across the model set, so the nuclear-structure uncertainty in the coherent cross section is small. The mirror-nucleus analysis shows the same pattern: the difference between charge radii of the $A=50$ pair $^{50}$Ti--$^{50}$Ni is strongly correlated with the $^{48}$Ca neutron skin, and the minority-species form factors of mirror partners agree much better than expected. The paper presents these correlations as the mechanism by which electroweak experiments on stable, doubly magic nuclei can constrain the ground-state densities of the noble gases used in detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that five relativistic mean-field models, all from the same functional family with the same fitting protocol except for the assumed $^{208}$Pb skin, represent the true theoretical uncertainty in neutron skins and weak form factors, and that only Coulomb-induced charge-symmetry breaking matters for the mirror relations; the paper itself says validation with a differently calibrated model set is essential and notes that explicit charge-symmetry violations in the nuclear force were not tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CREX will directly set the weak form factor of $^{40}$Ar over the momentum range used by coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering experiments.
  • PREX-II will directly set the weak form factor of $^{132}$Xe, with the anticipated $\sim 0.06$ fm error on lead translating into roughly 0.055 fm on the xenon skin.
  • Because the model spread in the low-momentum weak form factors of argon and xenon is under 2%, coherent neutrino scattering becomes a comparatively clean place to look for deviations from the Standard Model, including the weak mixing angle.
  • A measurement of the charge radius of $^{50}$Ni to about 0.01 fm would provide an independent constraint on the neutron skin of $^{48}$Ca through the mirror-skin relation.
  • The two-parameter symmetrized Fermi function reproduces the weak form factors, so experimental extractions of weak radii from single-momentum-transfer measurements can be made without full density-functional input.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-perfect correlations survive in nonrelativistic and ab initio energy functionals, the same data-to-data logic could map future parity-violating measurements onto any noble-gas target of interest, turning each electron-scattering campaign into a calibration for dark matter and neutrino detectors.
  • The unexpectedly close matching of minority-species form factors in mirror pairs suggests that charge radii of neutron-deficient isotopes, which are much easier to measure than neutron densities, may serve as precision proxies for neutron radii across the nuclear chart; this is a testable prediction for ab initio calculations.
  • The less-than-2% spread claim is a quantitative benchmark: any non-relativistic functional family that yields a larger spread in $F_{\rm wk}$ at $q\simeq0.5\,{\rm fm}^{-1}$ for argon or xenon would weaken the new-physics reach of coherent neutrino scattering, so the spread should be recomputed outside the relativistic mean-field paradigm.
  • A combined fit to PREX-II, CREX, and coherent neutrino scattering recoil data could determine both the neutron skins and the weak mixing angle simultaneously, because the form factor carries the nuclear-structure information while the overall rate carries $\sin^2\theta_W$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates how three complementary experimental programs—parity-violating elastic electron scattering, coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, and elastic electron scattering of unstable nuclei—can constrain ground-state neutron densities and weak-charge form factors. The authors use five relativistic mean-field (RMF) models that share the same calibration protocol and differ only in the assumed value of the neutron skin thickness of 208Pb, allowing them to tune the isovector sector. They compute charge and weak densities and form factors for 208Pb, 48Ca, 40Ar, 132Xe, and the A=50 mirror pair 50Ti-50Ni. The central quantitative results are the near-perfect linear correlations between the neutron skin of 48Ca and 40Ar (R40_skin = -0.015 + 0.572 R48_skin) and between 208Pb and 132Xe (R132_skin = 0.017 + 0.793 R208_skin), together with the claim that the low-momentum weak form factors of the noble-gas targets vary by less than about 2% across the model set. The paper concludes that the ongoing PREX-II and upcoming CREX measurements will provide important anchors for the weak form factors relevant to CEvNS and dark-matter searches.

Significance. If the reported correlations and small form-factor spreads survive contact with independent model families, the paper provides a valuable bridge between Jefferson Lab parity-violating measurements and the nuclear-structure uncertainties relevant to CEvNS and dark-matter detectors. The formalism is standard, the use of covariance-matrix error bars is a strength, and the symmetrized Fermi function is a useful analytic tool presented with exact moments. The authors are also commendably explicit that their central CREX/PREX-II values are placed arbitrarily and that validation against models with a different fitting protocol is essential. However, the quantitative uncertainty band underlying the headline claims is currently derived from a single family of functionals sharing one calibration protocol, so the numerical spreads and the near-unity correlation coefficients are conditional rather than established model-independent results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.2, Figs. 7 and 8] The ensemble of five RMF models is effectively a one-parameter family: all models use the identical fitting protocol and differ only in the assumed value of Rskin(208Pb). The reported near-perfect correlations (rho near 1) and the regression lines in Figs. 7(a) and 8(a) may therefore be partly generated by the construction, and the less-than-2% spread in Fwk(q) shown in Fig. 7(b) is a spread within this family rather than a representative theoretical uncertainty. The text states in Sec. II.2 that validation against models with a different protocol is essential, but that validation is not carried out. I request either that nonrelativistic EDFs or ab initio predictions be added to the correlation analysis, or that the quantitative uncertainty claims be explicitly reframed as illustrative of this particular model family and removed from the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. II.2, Figs. 7(a), 8(a), and 11(b)] The numerical values R40_skin = 0.097(14) fm, R132_skin = 0.188(55) fm, and R50_Mskin = 0.201(15) fm are conditioned on central values for CREX and PREX-II that are arbitrarily placed. Although the figure captions and text state this clearly, the abstract and conclusions do not carry the same qualification, so a reader may mistake these numbers for predictions. The paper should either present these as functions of the assumed central value or add an explicit caveat in the abstract and conclusions whenever these numbers are quoted.
  3. [Sec. II.2, Eq. (13) and Fig. 7(b)] The claim that the weak form factor of 40Ar varies by less than 2% over the displayed momentum-transfer range is essentially a restatement of the 0.054 fm spread in the weak radii Rwk = 3.450-3.504 fm listed in Fig. 7(b), because at q < 0.5 fm^-1 the form factor is dominated by the radius term in Eq. (13). The paper should state explicitly that this spread is an extrapolation from the calibration nuclei and is not a model-independent uncertainty. In addition, the corresponding spread for 132Xe (Rwk values 4.897-5.042 fm in Fig. 8(b)) is larger in relative terms than the 40Ar spread, so the paper should quantify the form-factor spread for xenon rather than implying that the same 2% statement applies.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Sec. I] The paper refers to all three probes as electroweak, but elastic electron scattering of unstable nuclei is an electromagnetic probe; the connection to weak-charge distributions comes through the mirror-skin correlation. Consider softening the terminology in the title and abstract or clarifying the distinction.
  2. [Sec. I.C, Eq. (12)] The statement that Coulomb distortions have been ignored is appropriate for the formalism, but the paper should note the expected size of Coulomb-distortion corrections for 208Pb at the PREX kinematics, since these are relevant for the quantitative interpretation of the measured asymmetry.
  3. [Sec. II.3, Fig. 11] The mirror-skin analysis is clearly labeled as not including explicit charge-symmetry violations in the nuclear force. This limitation should be mentioned in the main text near the correlation plot, not only in the conclusions, to prevent overinterpretation of the A=50 result.
  4. [Sec. II.2, Fig. 6] The CREX point in Fig. 6(b) is 'placed at an arbitrary central value,' but the central value is not stated in the text or caption. Stating the assumed value (approximately 0.2 fm) directly in the caption would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed skin correlations and weak-form-factor insensitivity are model outputs anchored to independently calibrated observables, not restatements of the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the near-perfect skin correlations in Figs. 7 and 8 and the weak-form-factor spread below 2%—are generated by five relativistic mean-field models that are calibrated to binding energies, charge radii, and an assumed neutron skin thickness of 208Pb (Sec. II). The target nuclei (40Ar, 132Xe, 48Ca) are not used to define the functional parameters; the assumed R208_skin values are inputs, and the R40_skin and R132_skin relations are outputs of the model calculations and linear regressions, not quantities fitted back into the calibration. The low-q weak form factor is tied to the weak radius through Eq. (13), but that radius is itself a model prediction, not a fitted variable. The paper explicitly notes that validation with models using a different protocol is essential (Sec. II.2), which is a limitation on the uncertainty band rather than a circular step. Self-citations to Refs. [29,30,50,66] refer to previously calibrated functionals and analytic forms; these are not invoked as uniqueness theorems and do not carry the derivation by themselves, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity. No derived quantity is used to define the target result, and no prediction is statistically forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper has one hand-set free parameter (the 208Pb skin values) that controls the isovector spread, plus standard physics assumptions. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Assumed neutron skin thickness of 208Pb for the five RMF models = 0.128, 0.161, 0.216, 0.285, 0.320 fm (Fig. 5)
    Chosen by hand to tune the density dependence of the symmetry energy; all other model parameters are refit to the same nuclear observables. This set generates the entire model spread used for the correlations.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard Fourier-transform relation between density and form factor, and standard electroweak cross-section formulas (Eqs. 5, 9, 12, 13).
    Used throughout Sec. I without proof; these are textbook results.
  • domain assumption The five relativistic mean-field models provide realistic ground-state densities for the nuclei studied.
    The central spread and correlations rely entirely on these models; the paper calls for validation against other theoretical protocols (Sec. II.2).
  • domain assumption Charge symmetry holds up to Coulomb corrections; explicit charge-symmetry violations in the nuclear force (Okamoto-Nolen-Schiffer) are neglected.
    The mirror-nuclei argument in Sec. II.3 depends on this; the paper acknowledges the omission in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Coulomb distortions are ignored in the parity-violating asymmetry formula (Eq. 12).
    Stated in Sec. I.C with references to earlier work; this is an approximation that could affect high-Z nuclei such as 208Pb.
  • ad hoc to paper The same fitting protocol can be used for all five models except for the assumed 208Pb skin thickness.
    This protocol is the device that tunes the isovector sector without spoiling known observables; it is specific to this paper's construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak probes of ground state densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFZKEG6C

@misc{pith2026190810939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak probes of ground state densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFZKEG6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10939}
}
read the original abstract

Elastic electron scattering has been used to paint the most accurate picture of the proton distribution in atomic nuclei. Spurred by new experimental developments, it is now possible to gain valuable insights into the neutron distribution using exclusively electroweak probes. Our goal is to assess the information content and complementarity of the following three electroweak experiments in constraining the neutron distribution of atomic nuclei: (a) parity violating elastic electron scattering, (b) coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering, and (c) elastic electron scattering of unstable nuclei. Relativistic mean-field models informed by the properties of finite nuclei and neutron stars are used to compute ground state densities and form factors of a variety of nuclei. All the models follow the same fitting protocol, except for the assumed and presently unknown value of the neutron skin thickness of 208Pb. This enables one to tune the density dependence of the symmetry energy without compromising the success in reproducing well known physical observables. We found that the ongoing PREX-II and upcoming CREX campaigns at Jefferson Lab will play a vital role in constraining the weak form factor of xenon and argon, liquid noble gases that are used for the detection of both neutrinos and dark matter particles. We concluded that remarkable new advances in experimental physics have opened a new window into ground state densities of atomic nuclei using solely electroweak probes. The diversity and versatility of these experiments reveal powerful correlations that impose important nuclear structure constraints. In turn, these constraints provide quantitative theoretical uncertainties that are instrumental in searches for new physics and insights into the behavior of dense matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10939 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Feynman diagram for the elastic scattering of electrons from a spinless nuclear target. Information on the internal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Feynman diagram for the elastic scattering of neutrinos from a spinless nuclear target. Information on the internal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Feynman diagram for the elastic scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons from a spinless nuclear target. In Born [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) The charge form factor of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) (a) The charge density of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) The weak skin form factor of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) Data-to-data relation between the neutron skin thickness of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) (a) Data-to-data relation between the neutron skin thickness of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) (a) Point proton and neutron densities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) (a) Point proton and neutron densities for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) (a) The “mirror skin” form factor of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Electroweak form factors of large nuclei as BPS skyrmions

    nucl-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With one fitted radial parameter, the BPS Skyrme model reproduces electromagnetic and weak form factors of heavy nuclei up to about 150 MeV, including PREX and CREX data.

  2. Searching for neutrino polarizability at DUNE

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DUNE's near detector could probe new parameter space for enhanced neutrino polarizability in light-scalar models, mainly through single-forward-shower events from coherent argon scattering.

  3. Prospects for Exploring Non-Standard Neutrino Properties with Argon-Based CEvNS Experiments

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Argon CEvNS detectors at stopped-pion sources project sin²θW precision near 1%, neutrino magnetic-moment limits near 10⁻⁹ μB, charge-radius limits near 10⁻³² cm², and vector NSI sensitivity at the 10⁻² level.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    weak-skin

    PREX and CREX Having introduced the various theoretical models and their impact in predicting ground state densities and form factors of 208Pb, we now turn our attention to the upcoming PREX-II and CREX campaigns at JLab. In this context it is particularly useful to frame the discussion in terms of the “weak-skin” form factor—defined as the difference betw...

  2. [2]

    loss of coherence

    Coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering Given the imminent start of both the PREX-II and CREX campaigns at JLab, it is timely to explore the insights that one may gain from such compelling experiments. Specifically, we want to explore the limits that PREX-II and CREX may impose on the 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 q (fm-1) -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 FWskin(q)=Fch(q)-F...

  3. [3]

    proton skin

    Charge radii of mirror nuclei We conclude this section by examining correlations between the neutron skin thickness of 48Ca and the difference in proton radii of mirror nuclei. The underpinning of the correlation is compelling: in the limit of exact charge symmetry, the neutron 12 (a) 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Rskin 208Pb(fm) 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32...

  4. [4]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys.Rev. C86, 045503 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Hofstadter, Rev

    R. Hofstadter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 214 (1956)

    1956

  6. [6]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. W. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  7. [7]

    Fricke, C

    G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig, L. A. Schaller, L. Schellenberg, E. B. Shera, and C. W. de Jager, Atom. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 60, 177 (1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Suda et al., Phys

    T. Suda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 102501 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Androi et al

    D. Androi et al. (Qweak), Nature 557, 207 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Saudinos and C

    J. Saudinos and C. Wilkin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 24, 341 (1974)

    1974

  4. [12]

    L. Ray, G. W. Hoffmann, and W. R. Coker, Phys. Rept. 212, 223 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Zenihiro, H

    J. Zenihiro, H. Sakaguchi, T. Murakami, M. Yosoi, Y . Yasuda,et al., Phys.Rev. C82, 044611 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Zenihiro et al., (2018), arXiv:1810.11796 [nucl-ex]

    J. Zenihiro et al., (2018), arXiv:1810.11796 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. B. Balantekin et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A29, 1430010 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Thiel, C

    M. Thiel, C. Sfienti, J. Piekarewicz, C. J. Horowitz, and M. Vanderhaeghen, J. Phys. G46, 093003 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Donnelly, J

    T. Donnelly, J. Dubach, and I. Sick, Nucl.Phys. A503, 589 (1989)

    1989

  10. [18]

    Abrahamyan, Z

    S. Abrahamyan, Z. Ahmed, H. Albataineh, K. Aniol, D. S. Armstrong, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 112502 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    C. J. Horowitz, Z. Ahmed, C. M. Jen, A. Rakhman, P. A. Souder, et al., Phys. Rev. C85, 032501 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    CREX: Parity-violating measurement of the weak charge distribution of 48Ca,

    “CREX: Parity-violating measurement of the weak charge distribution of 48Ca,” http://hallaweb.jlab.org/parity/prex/c-rex/ c-rex.pdf

  13. [21]

    Becker et al., (2018), 10.1140/epja/i2018-12611-6, arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex]

    D. Becker et al., (2018), 10.1140/epja/i2018-12611-6, arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Physics case for the weak charge of 12C,

    “Physics case for the weak charge of 12C,” https://indico.mitp.uni-mainz.de/event/193/

  15. [23]

    B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5296 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    R. J. Furnstahl, Nucl. Phys. A706, 85 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Centelles, X

    M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi ˜nas, and M. Warda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 122502 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Roca-Maza, M

    X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, X. Vi ˜nas, and M. Warda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252501 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5647 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C64, 062802 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Carriere, C

    J. Carriere, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Astrophys. J. 593, 463 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and P. J. Ellis, Phys. Rept. 411, 325 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Erler, C

    J. Erler, C. J. Horowitz, W. Nazarewicz, M. Rafalski, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C87, 044320 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C90, 044305 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Chen and J

    W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Lett. B748, 284 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    M. B. Tsang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 062701 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032701 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    A. W. Steiner and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. C72, 041601 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    D. V . Shetty, S. J. Yennello, and G. A. Souliotis, Phys. Rev.C76, 024606 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    M. B. Tsang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 122701 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Li, L.-W

    B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rept. 464, 113 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Tsang, J

    M. Tsang, J. Stone, F. Camera, P. Danielewicz, S. Gandolfi, et al., Phys.Rev. C86, 015803 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    C. J. Horowitz, E. F. Brown, Y . Kim, W. G. Lynch, R. Michaels,et al., J. Phys. G41, 093001 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    Antypas, A

    D. Antypas, A. Fabricant, J. E. Stalnaker, K. Tsigutkin, V . V . Flambaum, and D. Budker, Nature Phys.15, 120 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    E. N. Fortson, Y . Pang, and L. Wilets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2857 (1990)

    1990

  37. [45]

    S. J. Pollock, E. N. Fortson, and L. Wilets, Phys. Rev. C46, 2587 (1992)

    1992

  38. [46]

    B. Q. Chen and P. V ogel, Phys. Rev.C48, 1392 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C60, 015501 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    T. Sil, M. Centelles, X. Vinas, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C71, 045502 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Science 357, 1123 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 122502 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974)

    1974

  44. [52]

    G. A. Miller, A. K. Opper, and E. J. Stephenson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 56, 253 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Yang and J

    J. Yang and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C97, 014314 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Sammarruca, Front.in Phys

    F. Sammarruca, Front.in Phys. 6, 90 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and A. J. G. Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics, Second Edition (Taylor & Francis, 1989)

    1989

  48. [56]

    Electron scattering for nuclear and nucleon structure,

    J. D. Walecka, “Electron scattering for nuclear and nucleon structure,” (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Patton, J

    K. Patton, J. Engel, G. C. McLaughlin, and N. Schunck, Phys. Rev. C86, 024612 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    K. M. Patton, G. C. McLaughlin, and K. Scholberg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330013 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, Y . F. Li, and Y . Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 072501 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    C. J. Horowitz, K. J. Coakley, and D. N. McKinsey, Phys. Rev. D68, 023005 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    Scholberg, Ann

    K. Scholberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 81 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Scholberg, Phys

    K. Scholberg, Phys. Rev. D73, 033005 (2006). 18

    2006

  55. [63]

    E. J. Beise and R. D. McKeown, eds., Parity violation in electron scattering. Proceedings, Workshop, Pasadena, CA (1990)

    1990

  56. [64]

    K. A. Aniol et al. (HAPPEX), (2005), nucl-ex/0506010

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Musolf, T

    M. Musolf, T. Donnelly, J. Dubach, S. Pollock, S. Kowalski, et al., Phys.Rept. 239, 1 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C57, 3430 (1998)

    1998

  59. [67]

    Roca-Maza, M

    X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, F. Salvat, and X. Vinas, Phys. Rev. C78, 044332 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Aristizabal Sierra, J

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, (2019), arXiv:1902.07398 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Piekarewicz, A

    J. Piekarewicz, A. R. Linero, P. Giuliani, and E. Chicken, Phys. Rev. C94, 034316 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    D. W. Sprung and J. Martorell, J. Phys. A 30, 6525 (1997)

    1997

  63. [71]

    R. D. Amado, J. P. Dedonder, and F. Lenz, Phys. Rev. C21, 647 (1980)

    1980

  64. [72]

    R. D. Amado, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 15, 1 (1985)

    1985

  65. [73]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys. 83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  66. [74]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  67. [75]

    Boguta and A

    J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys. A292, 413 (1977)

    1977

  68. [76]

    Mueller and B

    H. Mueller and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A606, 508 (1996)

    1996

  69. [77]

    B. G. Todd-Rutel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett 95, 122501 (2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    M. H. Mahzoon, M. C. Atkinson, R. J. Charity, and W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222503 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Hagen et al., Nature Phys

    G. Hagen et al., Nature Phys. 12, 186 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    C. G. Payne, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, arXiv:1908.09739 [nucl-th]

    1908 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Piekarewicz, B

    J. Piekarewicz, B. Agrawal, G. Col `o, W. Nazarewicz, N. Paar,et al., Phys. Rev. C85, 041302(R) (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Okamoto, Phys

    K. Okamoto, Phys. Lett. 11, 150 (1964)

    1964

  75. [83]

    J. A. Nolen, Jr. and J. P. Schiffer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 19, 471 (1969)

    1969

  76. [84]

    Utama, J

    R. Utama, J. Piekarewicz, and H. B. Prosper, Phys. Rev. C93, 014311 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Utama and J

    R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C96, 044308 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Utama and J

    R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C97, 014306 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Neufcourt, Y

    L. Neufcourt, Y . Cao, W. Nazarewicz, and F. Viens, Phys. Rev.C98, 034318 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Neufcourt, Y

    L. Neufcourt, Y . Cao, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, and F. Viens, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 062502 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Utama, W.-C

    R. Utama, W.-C. Chen, and J. Piekarewicz, J. Phys. G, 014311 (2016)

    2016

  82. [90]

    Piekarewicz and F

    J. Piekarewicz and F. J. Fattoyev, Physics Today 72, 30 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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