Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

A nuclear mass model rooted in chiral effective field theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chiral Hartree-Fock mass model, calibrated by renormalizing 11 low-energy constants, reproduces 107 even-even nuclear binding energies within 3.5 MeV.

desk verdict A genuine proof-of-principle that runs honest comparisons, but the headline RMS is in-sample and the cD fit sits on a boundary, so the '11-parameter fit' claim is softer than it appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20843 v1 pith:WPNDZSAA submitted 2025-04-29 nucl-th

C. Mishra , A. Ekström , G. Hagen , M. Menickelly , T. Papenbrock , S. M. Wild This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35 PACS 21.10.Dr21.60.Jz
keywords nuclearmassmodelchiraleffectivefieldtheoryHartree-Focklow-energyconstantseigenvectorcontinuationemulatorcalibrationbindingenergiesNNLO
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

This paper tries to establish that a nuclear mass model can be built directly from a chiral effective field theory Hamiltonian rather than from a phenomenological energy functional. The authors solve that Hamiltonian at the Hartree-Fock level—the mean-field approximation in which each nucleon moves in the average field of the others—and renormalize 11 short-range low-energy constants to the measured binding energies of 18 even-even nuclei. Applied to 107 even-even nuclei with mass numbers $16\leq A\leq 56$, the calibrated model reproduces the binding energies with an RMS deviation of 3.5 MeV. The result matters because a successful version would connect the nuclear mass table to QCD-based interactions while keeping the computation cheap, but the same comparison shows the model is less accurate than a semi-empirical mass formula fit to the same nuclei, which reaches 2.07 MeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalized Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian $H(x)=h_0+\sum_{i=1}^{11}x_i h_i$, where $h_0$ contains the kinetic energy and pion-exchange terms and the $x_i$ are the short-range low-energy constants. Because the Hartree-Fock energy is nonlinear in the $x_i$, direct calibration would require many expensive three-nucleon-force calculations, so the paper builds a projection-based emulator for each calibration nucleus. The emulator stores 68 exact Hartree-Fock snapshots in a reduced basis and solves a small generalized eigenvalue problem to reproduce the Hartree-Fock energy almost instantly, an approach known in nuclear physics as eigenvector continuation. The three-body force is first reduced to normal-ordered one- and two-body pieces, open-shell nuclei are handled with fractional occupations, and the 11 constants are then optimized by a nonlinear least-squares fit to 18 binding energies. The mechanism that carries the argument is the idea, imported from coupled-cluster studies, that short-range contacts can be renormalized so that a mean-field state already contains the dominant correlation effects.

What would settle it

Hold the 11 optimized constants fixed and recompute $^{28}$Si, $^{32}$S, and $^{48}$S with a Hartree-Fock calculation that adds angular-momentum projection and pairing; if the roughly 12–16 MeV residuals persist, the short-range renormalization did not absorb the missing long-range correlations, and the model's 3.5 MeV accuracy would be a fitting artifact of the even-even calibration set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that renormalizing the short-range part of a chiral Hamiltonian makes a plain Hartree-Fock calculation accurate enough to serve as a nuclear mass model. Starting from the delta-full NNLO chiral interaction $\Delta$NNLOGO(394), the authors keep the pion-exchange physics fixed and promote the 11 contact low-energy constants—the leading and next-to-leading order two-body contacts plus the three-body contacts $c_D$ and $c_E$—to fit parameters. After calibrating these constants to 18 even-even nuclei and evaluating on 107 even-even nuclei with $16\leq A\leq 56$, the model gives an overall RMS deviation of 3.5 MeV, with the largest residuals of 11.4, 15.8, and 12.0 MeV at $^{28}$Si, $^{32}$S, and $^{48}$S. The paper also reports a 3.17 MeV RMS deviation for two-neutron separation energies, and notes that the fitted three-body contact $c_D$ lands at the boundary of the allowed interval while the other constants stay natural. It interprets this pattern as evidence that the short-range renormalization absorbs much of the missing correlation energy, while long-range correlations such as angular momentum projection and pairing are still absent.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction assumes that changing 11 short-range parameters of the force can stand in for the correlation energy that Hartree-Fock omits, so that a single mean-field state with tuned constants gives the true binding energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A mass table can in principle be generated from a chiral Hamiltonian by tuning only short-range contacts, without introducing a phenomenological density functional.
  • The 3.5 MeV RMS over 107 even-even nuclei is comparable to the 3.3 MeV RMS of coarse ab initio ground-state calculations, while a semi-empirical mass formula fit to the same 107 nuclei gives 2.07 MeV; the paper states that a chiral-based model should probably be more accurate than this.
  • The 3.17 MeV RMS on two-neutron separation energies shows that binding-energy errors are partly correlated between neighboring isotopes, though less strongly than in ab initio calculations, so the Hartree-Fock mass model does not fully inherit the ab initio advantage on energy differences.
  • The largest residuals at $^{28}$Si, $^{32}$S, and $^{48}$S single out soft, transitional nuclei where angular momentum projection, pairing, and deformation mixing are expected to contribute at the MeV scale.
  • The emulator-based calibration pipeline is reusable at higher chiral orders or with additional contact terms, enabling order-by-order convergence studies of renormalized Hamiltonians.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not pursued here: apply the same optimized constants to odd-mass and odd-odd nuclei in the same mass region; if the 3.5 MeV accuracy does not survive, the calibration would be benefiting from even-even cancellations rather than from a universal renormalization of short-range physics.
  • Because the emulators make each calibration nearly free, one could refit the same Hamiltonian to two-neutron separation energies or charge radii instead of total binding energies; such a model might extrapolate better toward the neutron-rich region that matters for r-process nucleosynthesis.
  • The optimum lands exactly at the lower boundary for the three-body contact $c_D$, which suggests the fit wants to leave the sampled parameter region; widening the allowed range and repeating the calibration would show whether the data genuinely prefer a more extreme contact or whether the boundary is an artifact of the chosen interval.
  • The paper's renormalization idea implies portability: the optimized constants should be roughly independent of the model-space size and of the normal-ordering scheme; checking that portability directly would separate true renormalization from mere curve fitting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a nuclear mass model in which binding energies of even-even nuclei in the range 16 <= A <= 56 are computed by Hartree-Fock from the delta-full NNLO chiral Hamiltonian DeltaNNLOGO(394), with 11 short-range low-energy constants recalibrated to 18 binding energies using eigenvector-continuation emulators. The calibrated model is reported to yield an RMS deviation of 2.17 MeV on the calibration nuclei, 3.5 MeV over all 107 nuclei, and 3.17 MeV for two-neutron separation energies. The authors compare with a liquid-drop fit (2.07 MeV RMS) and with ab initio benchmarks (3.3 MeV RMS), and they discuss naturalness of the renormalized constants and the role of missing long-range correlations.

Significance. The methodological core of the paper, namely calibrating chiral Hamiltonian contact terms to nuclear masses through fast Hartree-Fock emulators, is interesting and could be a step toward EFT-rooted mass tables. The paper is unusually transparent about limitations: it states that the model is less accurate than a semi-empirical fit on the same data, identifies the largest residuals (28Si, 32S, 48S), and attributes them to missing correlations such as angular-momentum projection, pairing, and configuration mixing. If the calibration and emulator issues raised below are resolved, the work would be a useful proof-of-principle. As it stands, however, the manuscript does not yet establish the advertised 11-parameter renormalization or a predictive RMS, because several optimized constants lie on the boundary of the allowed parameter box and the headline RMS includes the calibration set.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Sec. III.C, Table III] The optimization is presented as a renormalization of 11 LECs, but the reported optimum is not an interior stationary point of Eq. (3). Section III.A fixes cD and cE to 'natural ranges' of about [-0.7, 0.9] and [-0.7, 0.7], while Table III and Section III.C report cD = -2.0000 at 'the boundary allowed in the optimization', and Section III.B uses a range [-2, 2] for cD and cE in the validation. In addition, several NLO contacts in Table III sit at or very near the +/-10% box edges around x0, for example C1S0, C3P0, C1P1, and C3P1. The solution of Eq. (3) is therefore a constrained least-squares optimum, not an unconstrained one, and at least one, likely several, parameters are pinned by the box rather than determined by the binding-energy data. This undercuts the '11 LECs renormalized' claim and the naturalness discussion in Section IV.A, which states that the optimal three-body contacts are natural in size despite cD = -2 lying outside the range named in Section III.A (or at the edge of the range used in validation). Please report the actual bounds used, list which LECs are active at their bounds, and provide an unconstrained optimization or a physical justification for the constraints.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 7] The headline RMS of 3.5 MeV is computed over all 107 nuclei, including the 18 nuclei used to minimize Eq. (3). Because those 18 energies are fitted in sample, with a training RMS of 2.17 MeV, the aggregate RMS overstates predictive accuracy. The relevant number for a mass model is the RMS over the 89 nuclei not used in the calibration, or a leave-one-out or k-fold estimate. Please report this held-out RMS and qualify the abstract and summary accordingly. With only 7 degrees of freedom (18 data minus 11 parameters), the in-sample RMS is not a strong figure of merit on its own.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 1] The emulator validation is performed at randomly sampled points in the neighborhood of x0, with cD and cE allowed to span the range [-2, 2], but the optimized parameter vector xopt has cD at the boundary of that range. The manuscript does not report emulator accuracy at xopt or along the boundary direction. Since the calibration RMS and all subsequent quoted RMS values are computed through the emulator, the emulator error at xopt matters directly. Please validate the emulator at xopt, and at a few neighboring boundary points, against exact Hartree-Fock calculations for the 18 calibration nuclei, and report the errors. If the emulator degrades near the boundary, the quoted RMS values require revision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I and Sec. IV.B] There are typos in the text: 'Hamiltonan' should be 'Hamiltonian' and 'zink' should be 'zinc'.
  2. [Figs. 5 and 6] The notation 'CE1' used in Figures 5 and 6 is inconsistent with 'C3S1-3D1' in Table I; please use a single notation throughout.
  3. [Sec. IV.B] The comparison with the liquid-drop fit would be more informative if the number of fitted parameters and the data set used for that fit were specified, since the chiral model is calibrated on 18 nuclei while the liquid drop is fitted to all 107 nuclei.
  4. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 9] The S2n RMS of 3.17 MeV is derived from the same fitted binding energies; because these values are not independent, the statement that this 'suggests errors are correlated' should be supported by a covariance analysis or by reporting S2n residuals for the held-out nuclei only.
  5. [Sec. III.B] The text states that the emulator is 'frequently accurate to better than 1%' near the experimentally relevant energies; please state how many of the roughly 220 validation points lie in that region and what the maximum error is there.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 3.5 MeV full-set RMS is partly in-sample because it includes the 18 nuclei minimized in Eq. (3); the Hamiltonian and emulator derivations themselves are self-contained, with the self-citation [45] only motivational.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. IV.B (Predictions of the Mass Model); Eq. (3)]
    "Figure 7 shows the residuals, i.e. the differences between theoretical and experimental ground-state energies. Circles mark the nuclei used in the calibration and squares mark the predictions. We found a RMS deviation of 3.5 MeV for the full set of 107 nuclei."

    Equation (3) minimizes the sum of squared residuals for the 18 calibration nuclei, so those residuals are in-sample by construction. The quoted 3.5 MeV RMS for the full set of 107 nuclei averages these 18 fitted residuals with the 89 held-out predictions, and the paper does not report the RMS for the held-out squares alone. Thus the headline accuracy figure is partly a restatement of the fit rather than a pure prediction metric. This is a statistical contamination, not a collapse of the whole derivation: the 89 genuinely predicted nuclei and the Hamiltonian construction remain independent.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The Hamiltonian (1) is linear in the low-energy constants, and the objective function (3) is a standard least-squares calibration; the reported calibration RMS of 2.17 MeV is explicitly a training-set result, not a prediction. The Hartree-Fock emulators are validated against exact Hartree-Fock calculations in Figs. 1 and 2, so the emulator step has independent support. The S2n values are derived from the same fitted binding energies, which limits their information content but is not a definitional circularity; the paper itself notes the errors are correlated. The self-citation [45] motivates the renormalization idea, but the model's success is established by the empirical calibration and held-out predictions, not by that citation alone, and the cited work is a separate coupled-cluster calculation. The cD = -2 boundary issue noted in Sec. III.C is a robustness and correctness concern about whether the optimum is constrained, not an instance of circularity. The one genuine circularity concern is that the abstract and Sec. IV.B present the 3.5 MeV RMS over all 107 nuclei as the model quality while including the 18 fitted nuclei; because those 18 enter the least-squares objective, their residuals are minimized by construction, so the 3.5 MeV figure is partly in-sample. This warrants a moderate score of 4, since the main model construction remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's free parameters are the 11 short-range LECs of the delta-full NNLO chiral interaction (Table III), fitted to 18 binding energies. The central claim also depends on several domain assumptions: the adequacy of Hartree-Fock after renormalization, the normal-ordered two-body approximation for 3N forces, the accuracy of the eigenvector-continuation emulators, the choice of optimization domain, the neglect of charge dependence in the 1S0 channel, and the restriction to axially symmetric prolate shapes. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • C~1S0 (LO) = -0.3727 x 1e4 GeV^-2
    Leading-order S-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C~3S1 (LO) = -0.2694 x 1e4 GeV^-2
    Leading-order S-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C1S0 (NLO) = +2.7555 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO S-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C3P0 (NLO) = +0.6304 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO P-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C1P1 (NLO) = -0.3492 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO P-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C3P1 (NLO) = -1.0613 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO P-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C3S1 (NLO) = +0.9614 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO S-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C3S1-3D1 (NLO) = +0.4766 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO tensor coupling, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • C3P2 (NLO) = -0.8098 x 1e4 GeV^-4
    NLO P-wave contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
  • cD (NNLO) = -2.0000
    Three-nucleon contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; hits the lower boundary of the allowed range (Sec. III.C).
  • cE (NNLO) = -0.6198
    Three-nucleon contact, fitted to 18 binding energies; Table III.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock with renormalized short-range LECs is an adequate approximation for binding energies of the 107 nuclei.
    Underpins the whole model; motivated in the Introduction by Ref. [45], which showed 3p-3h correlations can be absorbed into a 3N contact. The generalization to 2p-2h correlations via 2N contacts is not proven here, and the paper's own results (3.5 MeV RMS, worst residuals in transitional nuclei) indicate it is only partially satisfied.
  • domain assumption The normal-ordered two-body approximation for the three-nucleon force is accurate enough.
    Used in Sec. III for all nuclei following Refs. [57,58]; residual three-nucleon forces are neglected.
  • domain assumption Eigenvector-continuation emulators with dRB = 68 snapshots reproduce exact Hartree-Fock energies in the optimization region.
    Validated for 32Ne, 52Cr, and 56Ni at about 220 validation points (Fig. 1) with typical relative errors below 10 percent and below 1 percent near experimental energies; not validated for all 18 calibration nuclei.
  • domain assumption The optimization domain (about +/-10 percent around x0 for most LECs, and a stated range for cD and cE) contains the optimal parameter vector.
    The optimal cD = -2.0 lies at the boundary of the allowed range (Sec. III.C), which suggests the true optimum may be outside the chosen domain.
  • domain assumption Charge independence breaking in the 1S0 channel is small enough to use a single contact for nn, np, and pp.
    Stated in Sec. II.A; the authors argue the differences between charge-dependent contact values are much smaller than their values.
  • domain assumption Axially symmetric prolate shapes are sufficient for the deformed nuclei in the calibration set.
    All deformed nuclei are computed with axially symmetric prolate shape (Sec. III); triaxiality is argued to contribute only tens of keV (Sec. V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nuclear mass model rooted in chiral effective field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPNDZSAA

@misc{pith2026250420843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nuclear mass model rooted in chiral effective field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPNDZSAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20843}
}
abstract

We develop a nuclear mass model that is based on chiral effective field theory at next-to-next-to leading order. Nuclear binding energies are computed via the Hartree-Fock method using a Hamiltonian from delta-full chiral effective field theory. We employ Hartree-Fock emulators to adjust $11$ low-energy constants in the chiral interaction to binding energies of $18$ even-even nuclei. When applied to $107$ even-even nuclei with mass numbers $16\leq A\leq 56$ the chiral mass model exhibits an overall root-mean-square deviation of $3.5$ MeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnitude of the relative error (in %) between the emulated and exact Hartree-Fock energy for 220 pseudo-randomly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Hartree-Fock energy per nucleon before (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Dimensionless low-energy constants for the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contributions to the Hartree-Fock energy per nucleon from the individual Hamiltonian terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differences of the ground-state energy between mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Two-neutron separation energies from the mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thoennessen, The Discovery of Isotopes (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016)

    M. Thoennessen, The Discovery of Isotopes (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, A. M. Perhac, and M. Stoitsov, The limits of the nuclear landscape, Nature 486, 509 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Blaum, J

    K. Blaum, J. Dilling, and W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, Precision atomic physics techniques for nuclear physics with ra- dioactive beams, Phys. Scr. T152, 014017 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    C. J. Horowitz et al. , r-Process Nucleosynthesis: Con- necting Rare-Isotope Beam Facilities with the Cosmos, J. Phys. G 46, 083001 (2019), arXiv:1805.04637 [astro- ph.SR]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    T. M. Sprouse, R. Navarro Perez, R. Surman, M. R. Mumpower, G. C. McLaughlin, and N. Schunck, Propa- gation of statistical uncertainties of skyrme mass models to simulations of r-process nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. C 101, 055803 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    E. M. Holmbeck, T. M. Sprouse, and M. R. Mumpower, Nucleosynthesis and observation of the heaviest elements, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 28 (2023), arXiv:2304.01850 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    C. F. Weizs¨ acker, Zur Theorie der Kernmassen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik96, 431 (1935)

    work page 1935

  8. [8]

    H. A. Bethe, Nuclear Physics B. Nuclear Dynamics, The- oretical, Reviews of Modern Physics 9, 69 (1937)

    work page 1937

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Kejzlar, L

    V. Kejzlar, L. Neufcourt, W. Nazarewicz, and P.-G. Rein- hard, Statistical aspects of nuclear mass models, J. Phys. G 47, 094001 (2020), arXiv:2002.04151 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: Frdm(2012), Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Kortelainen, T

    M. Kortelainen, T. Lesinski, J. Mor´ e, W. Nazarewicz, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, M. V. Stoitsov, and S. Wild, Nuclear energy density optimization, Phys. Rev. C 82, 024313 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Further explo- rations of skyrme-hartree-fock-bogoliubov mass formu- las. xiii. the 2012 atomic mass evaluation and the sym- metry coefficient, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024308 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Lunney, J

    D. Lunney, J. M. Pearson, and C. Thibault, Recent trends in the determination of nuclear masses, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 1021 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    J. M. Pearson and S. Goriely, Nuclear mass formulas for astrophysics, Nuclear Physics A 777, 623 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    J. R. Stone and P. G. Reinhard, The Skyrme interaction in finite nuclei and nuclear matter, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 58, 587 (2007), arXiv:0607002 [nucl- th]

    2007

  8. [16]

    Grasso, Effective density functionals beyond mean field, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 106, 256 (2019), arXiv:1811.01039

    M. Grasso, Effective density functionals beyond mean field, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 106, 256 (2019), arXiv:1811.01039

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, and R. R. Rodr´ ıguez- Guzm´ an, Mean field and beyond description of nuclear structure with the Gogny force: a review, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 013001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Duflo and A

    J. Duflo and A. P. Zuker, Microscopic Mass Formulas, Physical Review C 52, 23 (1995), arXiv:9505011 [nucl- th]

    1995

  11. [19]

    B. G. Carlsson, J. Dobaczewski, and M. Kortelainen, Lo- cal nuclear energy density functional at next-to-next-to- next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044326 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    B. G. Carlsson, J. Dobaczewski, and M. Kortelainen, Er- ratum: Local nuclear energy density functional at next- 10 to-next-to-next-to-leading order [phys. rev. c 78, 044326 (2008)], Phys. Rev. C 81, 029904 (2010)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Raimondi, K

    F. Raimondi, K. Bennaceur, and J. Dobaczewski, Non- local energy density functionals for low-energy nuclear structure, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 41, 055112 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Sobiczewski and Y

    A. Sobiczewski and Y. A. Litvinov, Predictive power of nuclear-mass models, Physical Review C 90, 2 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Kejzlar, L

    V. Kejzlar, L. Neufcourt, and W. Nazarewicz, Local Bayesian Dirichlet mixing of imperfect models, Sci. Rep. 13, 19600 (2023), arXiv:2311.01596 [stat.ME]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, D. L. Fang, M. Beard, P. M¨ oller, T. Kawano, and A. Aprahamian, Impact of in- dividual nuclear masses on r -process abundances, Phys- ical Review C 92, 1 (2015), arXiv:1505.07789

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, G. C. McLaughlin, and A. Aprahamian, The impact of individual nuclear proper- ties on r-process nucleosynthesis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 86, 86 (2016), [Erratum: Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 87, 116– 116 (2016)], arXiv:1508.07352 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Saito, I

    Y. Saito, I. Dillmann, R. Kruecken, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Surman, Uncertainty quantification of mass mod- els using ensemble Bayesian model averaging, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054301 (2024), arXiv:2305.01782 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ekstr¨ om, C

    A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, What is ab initio in nu- clear theory?, Front. Phys. 11, 1129094 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Those computations were based on a Hamiltonian from chiral effective field the- ory that yields accurate binding energies

    performed ab initio computations of the ground-state energies for about 700 nuclei with 2≤A≤ 56 and found a RMS deviation of 3.3 MeV. Those computations were based on a Hamiltonian from chiral effective field the- ory that yields accurate binding energies. Thus, a mass model b...

  21. [29]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Ab initio limits of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 022501 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Scalesi, T

    A. Scalesi, T. Duguet, P. Demol, M. Frosini, V. Som` a, and A. Tichai, Impact of correlations on nuclear bind- ing energies: Ab initio calculations of singly and doubly open-shell nuclei, European Physical Journal A 60, 209 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Koszor´ us, X

    ´A. Koszor´ us, X. F. Yang, W. G. Jiang, S. J. Novario, S. W. Bai, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bis- sell, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, R. P. de Groote, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. T. Flanagan, C. Forss´ en, S. Franchoo, R. F. G. Ruiz, F. P. Gustafsson, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, A...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kortelainen, Z

    M. Kortelainen, Z. Sun, G. Hagen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Pa- penbrock, and P.-G. Reinhard, Universal trend of charge radii of even-even ca-zn nuclei (2021), arXiv:2111.12464 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Stoitsov, M

    M. Stoitsov, M. Kortelainen, S. K. Bogner, T. Duguet, R. J. Furnstahl, B. Gebremariam, and N. Schunck, Mi- croscopically based energy density functionals for nu- clei using the density matrix expansion: Implementation and pre-optimization, Physical Review C 82, 1 (2010), arXiv...

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gebremariam, S

    B. Gebremariam, S. K. Bogner, and T. Duguet, Microscopically-constrained fock energy density func- tionals from chiral effective field theory. i. two-nucleon interactions, Nuclear Physics A 851, 17 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Navarro P´ erez, N

    R. Navarro P´ erez, N. Schunck, A. Dyhdalo, R. J. Furn- stahl, and S. K. Bogner, Microscopically based energy density functionals for nuclei using the density matrix expansion. II. Full optimization and validation, Physical Review C 97, 054304 (2018), arXiv:1801.08615

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Salvioni, J

    G. Salvioni, J. Dobaczewski, C. Barbieri, G. Carlsson, A. Idini, and A. Pastore, Model nuclear energy density functionals derived from ab initio calculations, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 47, 085107 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Zurek, E

    L. Zurek, E. A. Coello P´ erez, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furn- stahl, and A. Schwenk, Comparing different density- matrix expansions for long-range pion exchange, Physical Review C 103, 014325 (2021), arXiv:2010.12518

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Duguet, J

    T. Duguet, J. P. Ebran, M. Frosini, H. Hergert, and V. Som` a, Rooting the EDF method into the ab initio framework: PGCM-PT formalism based on MR-IMSRG pre-processed Hamiltonians, European Physical Journal A 59, 1 (2023), arXiv:2209.03424

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zurek, S

    L. Zurek, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, R. Navarro P´ erez, N. Schunck, and A. Schwenk, Optimized nu- clear energy density functionals including long-range pion contributions, Physical Review C 109, 1 (2024), arXiv:2307.13568

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zurek, Towards Nuclear Energy Density Functionals from First Principles, Acta Phys

    L. Zurek, Towards Nuclear Energy Density Functionals from First Principles, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 18, 2 (2025), arXiv:2504.10164 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Density-matrix expan- sion for an effective nuclear hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. C 5, 1472 (1972)

    1972

  34. [42]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Density-matrix expan- sion for an effective nuclear hamiltonian. ii, Phys. Rev. C 11, 1031 (1975)

    1975

  35. [43]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, and L. Platter, Density Matrix Expansion for Low-Momentum Interactions, Eur. Phys. J. A 39, 219 (2009), arXiv:0811.4198 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Cvii. the nuclear surface, The Philo- sophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimen- tal and Applied Physics 1, 1043 (1956)

    1956

  37. [45]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, The effective nuclear potential, Nuclear Physics 9, 615 (1958)

    1958

  38. [46]

    Z. H. Sun, C. A. Bell, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, How to Renormalize Coupled Cluster Theory, Physical Review C 106, L061302 (2022), arXiv:2205.12990

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Multiscale physics of atomic nuclei from first principles, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011028 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    van Kolck, Few-nucleon forces from chiral La- grangians, Phys

    U. van Kolck, Few-nucleon forces from chiral La- grangians, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Mod- ern theory of nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: Status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Epelbaum, A

    E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gl¨ ockle, H. Kamada, U.-G. Meißner, and H. Wita la, Three-nucleon forces from chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 66, 064001 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, and P. D. Schwartz, ∆ isobars and nuclear saturation, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024332 (2018). 11

    2018

  47. [55]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Accurate bulk properties of nuclei from a = 2 to ∞ from potentials with ∆ isobars, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054301 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Ab initio computations of strongly deformed nuclei near 80Zr, Phys. Rev. C 110, L011302 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Pa- penbrock, Ab initio computations from 78ni towards 70ca along neutron number n = 50, Physics Letters B 858, 139010 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, A. Schwenk, A. Nogga, M. W loch, and P. Piecuch, Coupled-cluster theory for three-body Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. C 76, 034302 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    R. Roth, S. Binder, K. Vobig, A. Calci, J. Langham- mer, and P. Navr´ atil, Medium-Mass Nuclei with Normal- Ordered Chiral N N+3N Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 052501 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, B. Bally, Y. Beaujeault-Taudi` ere, J. P. Ebran, and V. Som` a, In-mediumk-body reduction of n-body operators: A flexible symmetry-conserving ap- proach based on the sole one-body density matrix, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 151 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Benner, M

    P. Benner, M. Ohlberger, A. Patera, G. Rozza, and K. Urban, eds., Model Reduction of Parametrized Sys- tems, 1st ed., MS&A, Vol. 17 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. XII, 504

    2017

  54. [62]

    Frame, R

    D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 032501 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Ekstr¨ om and G

    A. Ekstr¨ om and G. Hagen, Global sensitivity analysis of bulk properties of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 252501 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    K¨ onig, A

    S. K¨ onig, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Eigenvector Continuation as an Efficient and Accurate Emulator for Uncertainty Quantification, Phys. Lett. B 810, 135814 (2020), arXiv:1909.08446 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Drischler, M

    C. Drischler, M. Quinonez, P. G. Giuliani, A. E. Lovell, and F. M. Nunes, Toward emulating nuclear reactions us- ing eigenvector continuation, Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics 823, 136777 (2021), arXiv:2108.08269

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Gar- cia, and X. Zhang, BUQEYE guide to projection-based emulators in nuclear physics, Frontiers in Physics 10, 1 (2022), arXiv:2212.04912

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Yapa and S

    N. Yapa and S. K¨ onig, Volume extrapolation via eigen- vector continuation, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014309 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Colloquium: Eigenvector continuation and projection-based emulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031002 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 031301 (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peter- son, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamen- tal algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    J. J. Mor´ e, B. S. Garbow, and K. E. Hillstrom,User guide for MINPACK-1, Tech. Rep. (CM-P00068642, 1980)

    1980

  64. [72]

    G. P. Lepage, How to renormalize the Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, in 8th Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School on Nu- clear Physics (1997) pp. 135–180, arXiv:nucl-th/9706029

    1997 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Chiral quarks and the non- relativistic quark model, Nuclear Physics B 234, 189 (1984)

    1984

  66. [74]

    Georgi, Effective field theory, Ann

    H. Georgi, Effective field theory, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 209 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    R. J. Furnstahl and J. C. Hackworth, Skyrme energy functional and naturalness, Phys. Rev. C56, 2875 (1997)

    1997

  68. [76]

    E. A. Coello P´ erez and T. Papenbrock, Effective field theories for collective excitations of atomic nuclei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.04895 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Papenbrock, Ab initio computations of atomic nuclei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.00843 (2024)

    T. Papenbrock, Ab initio computations of atomic nuclei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.00843 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    M¨ oller, R

    P. M¨ oller, R. Bengtsson, B. G. Carlsson, P. Olivius, and T. Ichikawa, Global calculations of ground-state axial shape asymmetry of nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 162502 (2006)

    2006

  71. [79]

    Bazak, J

    B. Bazak, J. Kirscher, S. K¨ onig, M. P. Valderrama, N. Barnea, and U. van Kolck, Four-body scale in uni- versal few-boson systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 143001 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.