arxiv: 2605.11353 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Ab initio calculation of symmetry-breaking observables

A Belley , B. Romeo , J. Engel , D. Kekejian , T. Miyagi , S. Foster , P. Navratil , B. C. He

show 3 more authors

S. R. Stroberg J. D. Holt R. F. Garcia Ruiz

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex

keywords anapole momentSchiff momentparity violationIMSRGab initio nuclear structuresymmetry breakingnuclear theory

0 comments

The pith

Generalizing the IMSRG flow to parity-violating operators yields the first ab initio anapole and Schiff moment predictions for medium-mass nuclei.

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

The paper introduces a method to calculate nuclear observables that violate parity symmetry from first principles in nuclei where experiments are searching for new physics. It extends the in-medium similarity renormalization group by evolving the weak symmetry-breaking Hamiltonian and the relevant measurement operators together with the ordinary nuclear forces. The approach is validated against exact results in light nuclei and then applied to produce predictions for the anapole moment of silicon-29 and the Schiff moments of xenon-129. These quantities are sensitive probes of fundamental symmetries, so reliable calculations help interpret experimental searches for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Core claim

By generalizing the IMSRG flow equations to evolve the weak symmetry-breaking Hamiltonian and the anapole or Schiff operators alongside the strong nuclear Hamiltonian, the authors construct a systematically improvable framework for computing these parity-violating moments and obtain the first ab initio predictions of the anapole moment in 29Si and the Schiff moments in 129Xe.

What carries the argument

The generalized IMSRG flow equations that simultaneously evolve the strong nuclear Hamiltonian, the weak parity-violating Hamiltonian, and the anapole or Schiff operators.

If this is right

The method supplies systematically improvable predictions for parity-violating moments in nuclei of direct experimental interest.
It enables ab initio calculations for other medium-mass and heavy systems where phenomenological approaches have been required until now.
The predictions can be refined by including higher-order terms in the IMSRG expansion or larger model spaces.
These results provide benchmarks that can guide the interpretation of ongoing and future parity-violation experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same generalization could be applied to compute other nuclear symmetry-violating observables such as electric dipole moments.
If the method proves accurate in these cases, similar operator-evolution techniques might improve ab initio treatments of weak processes in nuclear reactions.
Confirmation of the predicted moments by experiment would support using this framework to constrain beyond-Standard-Model parameters from nuclear data.
Further extension to even heavier nuclei could connect directly to searches for permanent electric dipole moments in atoms and molecules.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized IMSRG flow captures the effects of parity-violating operators in medium-mass nuclei without introducing uncontrolled approximations.

What would settle it

A precise experimental measurement of the anapole moment in 29Si that differs significantly from the calculated value would show the framework misses important contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11353 by A Belley, B. C. He, B. Romeo, D. Kekejian, J. D. Holt, J. Engel, P. Navratil, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, S. Foster, S. R. Stroberg, T. Miyagi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: shows the evolution of the anapole moment along the IMSRG flow in Eq’s (7)–(10) as a function of the flow parameter s. As we perform the evolution, the moment is transferred from the expectation value of the parity-violating part of the effective anapole operator, evaluated in perturbation theory, to the expectation value of the induced parity-conserving operator in a way that preserves the sum of the con… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schiff-moment coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Symmetry-violating observables such as the nuclear anapole and Schiff moments provide sensitive probes of the fundamental symmetries of nature and physics beyond the Standard Model. Their interpretation has been hindered, however, by the lack of ab initio nuclear structure calculations in the medium-mass and heavy nuclei of interest to experimentalists. To provide them, we introduce a new version of the in-medium similarity renormalization group (IMSRG) designed to target parity-violating operators. By generalizing the IMSRG flow equations to evolve the weak symmetry-breaking Hamiltonian - and the anapole or Schiff operators - alongside the strong nuclear Hamiltonian, we construct a systematically improvable framework for computing these parity-violating moments. We benchmark the method against the no-core shell model in light nuclei and obtain the first ab initio predictions of the anapole moment in $^{29}$Si and the Schiff moments in $^{129}$Xe. These heavier systems are of direct experimental interest.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper extends IMSRG to evolve parity-violating operators and delivers the first ab initio anapole moment for 29Si plus Schiff moments for 129Xe.

read the letter

This paper generalizes the IMSRG flow equations so that the weak symmetry-breaking Hamiltonian and the anapole or Schiff operators are evolved together with the strong nuclear Hamiltonian. The result is the first ab initio predictions for the anapole moment in 29Si and the Schiff moments in 129Xe, nuclei that matter for ongoing precision experiments looking for physics beyond the Standard Model. They also benchmark the new variant against no-core shell model results in light nuclei, which is a necessary first check. That combination of a technical extension plus concrete numbers for experimentally relevant systems is the main contribution. The approach is systematic in the sense that it stays within the IMSRG framework rather than introducing ad-hoc adjustments. The light-nucleus benchmarks give some reassurance that the operator evolution works at least in simpler regimes. The soft spot is the truncation. Standard IMSRG(2) is used, and while that is common, the parity-violating perturbation can induce additional correlations whose size grows with mass. The light benchmarks do not fully test whether those effects remain under control at A=129, and the abstract gives no quantitative error estimates or explicit convergence plots for the heavier cases. A reader would want to see how the results shift with basis size or with inclusion of induced three-body terms before treating the 129Xe numbers as settled. This work is for nuclear theorists who build ab initio tools and for experimental groups that need reliable nuclear inputs for anapole and Schiff moment searches. Anyone already using IMSRG for other observables will see the direct extension. It is worth sending to peer review because it fills a documented gap with a reproducible method and supplies numbers that can be checked against future data or other calculations.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a generalized in-medium similarity renormalization group (IMSRG) framework that evolves the weak parity-violating Hamiltonian and the anapole or Schiff operators simultaneously with the strong nuclear Hamiltonian. It benchmarks the approach against no-core shell model results in light nuclei and reports the first ab initio predictions for the anapole moment of 29Si and the Schiff moments of 129Xe.

Significance. If the truncation errors are controlled, the work supplies the first systematically improvable ab initio calculations of parity-violating moments in medium-mass and heavy nuclei that are directly relevant to ongoing experiments searching for physics beyond the Standard Model. The technical extension of IMSRG to symmetry-breaking operators is a clear advance, and the provision of concrete predictions for 129Xe strengthens the connection to experiment.

major comments (1)

[Application to 29Si and 129Xe] The central claim that the generalized IMSRG flow yields systematically improvable results for 29Si and 129Xe rests on the assumption that the chosen truncation (typically IMSRG(2)) captures all relevant induced correlations from the parity-violating operators. The light-nucleus NCSM benchmarks test this only in regimes where many-body effects are simpler; no explicit convergence checks, induced three-body operator analysis, or quantitative error estimates are provided for the heavier systems, leaving the accuracy of the predictions for 129Xe unverified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive major comment. We address it point by point below, acknowledging the limitations of the current calculations while clarifying the systematic character of the approach.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the generalized IMSRG flow yields systematically improvable results for 29Si and 129Xe rests on the assumption that the chosen truncation (typically IMSRG(2)) captures all relevant induced correlations from the parity-violating operators. The light-nucleus NCSM benchmarks test this only in regimes where many-body effects are simpler; no explicit convergence checks, induced three-body operator analysis, or quantitative error estimates are provided for the heavier systems, leaving the accuracy of the predictions for 129Xe unverified.

Authors: We agree that the light-nucleus benchmarks do not constitute a direct convergence test for 29Si or 129Xe. The IMSRG(2) truncation is the standard approximation employed throughout the IMSRG literature for medium-mass nuclei, and the light-nucleus comparisons show that it reproduces NCSM results for the anapole and Schiff moments to within a few percent. We therefore expect the induced higher-body contributions from the parity-violating operators to remain modest, consistent with the behavior observed for the strong Hamiltonian. Explicit IMSRG(3) calculations or a full induced three-body operator analysis for 129Xe are, however, computationally prohibitive at present. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph that quantifies the expected truncation uncertainty by extrapolating from the light-nucleus discrepancies and from analogous strong-interaction IMSRG studies, thereby providing readers with a clearer assessment of the accuracy of the 129Xe predictions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: generalized IMSRG flow equations yield independent predictions

full rationale

The derivation introduces a generalization of the IMSRG flow to evolve parity-violating operators and the weak Hamiltonian in tandem with the strong interaction. This produces operator matrix elements that are then evaluated in the evolved basis for the target nuclei. Benchmarks against exact NCSM results in light nuclei serve as external validation rather than input fitting. Predictions for 29Si and 129Xe follow directly from the same evolved operators without redefinition or parameter adjustment tied to the final observables. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a prior result from the same authors or to a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The framework remains systematically improvable under the stated truncation, with no self-referential closure identified in the chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the standard IMSRG truncation and flow-equation assumptions plus the new generalization to parity-violating operators; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The IMSRG flow equations remain valid when extended to include parity-violating operators.
Invoked when generalizing the flow to evolve the weak Hamiltonian and operators.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1241 out tokens · 32977 ms · 2026-05-13T02:15:53.409545+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

By generalizing the IMSRG flow equations to evolve the weak symmetry-breaking Hamiltonian and the anapole or Schiff operators alongside the strong nuclear Hamiltonian, we construct a systematically improvable framework...
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

dH(s)/ds = [η(s), H(s)] ... dO(s)/ds = [η(s), O(s)]

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Engel, M

J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics71, 21–74 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Engel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 75, 129–151 (2025)

J. Engel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 75, 129–151 (2025)

work page 2025
[3]

T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Dmitriev, I

V. Dmitriev, I. Khriplovich, and V. Telitsin, Nuclear Physics A577, 691 (1994)

work page 1994
[5]

V. V. Flambaum and D. W. Murray, Phys. Rev. C56, 1641 (1997)

work page 1997
[6]

W. C. Haxton, C.-P. Liu, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Physical Review C65(2002)

work page 2002
[7]

V. F. Dmitriev, R. A. Sen’kov, and N. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. C71, 035501 (2005)

work page 2005
[9]

Hergert, Frontiers in Physics8(2020)

H. Hergert, Frontiers in Physics8(2020)

work page 2020
[10]

Ekström, C

A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, Frontiers in Physics11 (2023)

work page 2023
[11]

Epelbaum, H.-W

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

work page 2009
[12]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rep.503, 1 (2011)

work page 2011
[13]

Hergert, S

H. Hergert, S. Bogner, T. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Physics Reports621, 165 (2016), memo- rial Volume in Honor of Gerald E. Brown

work page 2016
[14]

Hergert, Physica Scripta92, 023002 (2016)

H. Hergert, Physica Scripta92, 023002 (2016)

work page 2016
[15]

Simonis, S

J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Physical Review C96(2017)

work page 2017
[16]

N.M.Parzuchowski, S.R.Stroberg, P.Navrátil, H.Herg- ert, and S. K. Bogner, Physical Review C96(2017)

work page 2017
[17]

Gysberset al., Nature Phys.15, 428 (2019)

P. Gysberset al., Nature Phys.15, 428 (2019)

work page 2019
[18]

S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021)

work page 2021
[19]

Belley, C

A. Belley, C. G. Payne, S. R. Stroberg, T. Miyagi, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 042502 (2021)

work page 2021
[20]

J. M. Yao, A. Belley, R. Wirth, T. Miyagi, C. G. Payne, S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C103, 014315 (2021)

work page 2021
[21]

Miyagi, X

T. Miyagi, X. Cao, R. Seutin, S. Bacca, R. F. G. Ruiz, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 232503 (2024)

work page 2024
[22]

B. S. Hu, J. Padua-Argüelles, S. Leutheusser, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 072502 (2022)

work page 2022
[23]

B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon, Nature Physics (2022)

work page 2022
[24]

Belley, J

A. Belley, J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Pitcher, J. Engel, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, T. Miyagi, T. R. Rodríguez, A. M. Romero, S. R. Stroberg, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 182502 (2024)

work page 2024
[25]

Belley, J

A. Belley, J. M. Munoz, and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 082501 (2026)

work page 2026
[26]

J. M. Munoz, A. Belley, A. Ekström, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, (2026), arXiv:2603.26905 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

S. Ban, J. Dobaczewski, J. Engel, and A. Shukla, Phys. Rev. C82, 015501 (2010)

work page 2010
[28]

T. D. Morris, N. M. Parzuchowski, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C92, 034331 (2015)

work page 2015
[29]

S. R. Stroberg, S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, and J. D. Holt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

work page 2019
[30]

IMSRG++,

S. R. Stroberg, “IMSRG++,” (2018)

work page 2018
[31]

Shimizu, T

N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno, and Y. Tsunoda, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 372 (2019)

work page 2019
[32]

Y. B. Zel’dovich,33, 1488 (1957)

work page 1957
[33]

Y. B. Zel’dovich,33, 1531 (1957)

work page 1957
[34]

Alves, S

A. Alves, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014)

work page 2014
[35]

Alves, A

A. Alves, A. C. O. Santos, and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 97, 055023 (2018)

work page 2018
[36]

Derevianko, and C

M.S.Safronova, D.Budker, D.DeMille, D.F.J.Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

work page 2018
[37]

K. Gaul, L. Cong, and D. Budker, (2025), arXiv:2503.08210 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

W. C. Haxton, E. M. Henley, and M. J. Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 949 (1989)

work page 1989
[39]

Desplanques, J

B. Desplanques, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein, Annals of Physics124, 449 (1980)

work page 1980
[40]

B.et al.(NPDGamma Collaboration) (NPDGamma Collaboration), Phys

D. B.et al.(NPDGamma Collaboration) (NPDGamma Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 242002 (2018)

work page 2018
[41]

Y. Hao, P. Navrátil, E. B. Norrgard, M. Iliaš, E. Eliav, R. G. E. Timmermans, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Borschevsky, Phys. Rev. A102, 052828 (2020)

work page 2020
[42]

de Vries, E

J. de Vries, E. Epelbaum, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, E. Mereghetti, and M. Viviani, Frontiers in Physics8 (2020)

work page 2020
[43]

L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev.132, 2194 (1963)

work page 1963
[44]

Engel, J

J. Engel, J. L. Friar, and A. C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. C61, 035502 (2000)

work page 2000
[45]

W. C. Haxton and E. M. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1937 (1983)

work page 1937
[46]

N. R. Roberson, C. R. Gould, and J. D. Bowman (1987)

work page 1987
[47]

Liu and R

C.-P. Liu and R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. C70, 055501 (2004)

work page 2004
[48]

Flambaum, I

V. Flambaum, I. Khriplovich, and O. Sushkov, Nuclear Physics A449, 750 (1986)

work page 1986
[49]

O. P. Sushkov, V. V. Flambaum, and I. B. Khriplovich, Sov. Phys. - JETP60:5(1984)

work page 1984
[50]

S. R. Stroberg, T. D. Morris, and B. C. He, Phys. Rev. C110, 044316 (2024). 7

work page 2024
[51]

B. C. He and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C110, 044317 (2024)

work page 2024
[52]

Heinz, A

M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C103, 044318 (2021)

work page 2021
[53]

Computational schemes for the Magnus expansion of the in-medium similarity renormalization group

M. Heinz, “On computational schemes for the magnus expansion of the in-medium similarity renormalization group,” (2026), arXiv:2601.16133 [nucl-th]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[54]

Froese and P

P. Froese and P. Navrátil, Phys. Rev. C104, 025502 (2021)

work page 2021
[55]

Foster and P

S. Foster and P. Navrátil, (2025), in preparation

work page 2025
[56]

K. B. Ng, S. Foster, L. Cheng, P. Navrátil, and S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 112501 (2026)

work page 2026
[57]

V. Somà, P. Navrátil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C101, 014318 (2020)

work page 2020
[58]

D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C68, 041001 (2003)

work page 2003
[59]

Miyagi, S

T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navrátil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022)

work page 2022
[60]

V. F. Dmitriev and V. B. Telitsin, Nuclear Physics A 613, 237–252 (1997)

work page 1997
[61]

Karthein, S

J. Karthein, S. M. Udrescu, S. B. Moroch, I. Belose- vic, K. Blaum, A. Borschevsky, Y. Chamorro, D. De- Mille, J. Dilling, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, N. R. Hutzler, L. F. Pašteka, and R. Ringle, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 033003 (2024)

work page 2024
[62]

M. A. Rosenberry and T. E. Chupp, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 22 (2001)

work page 2001
[63]

Sachdeva, I

N. Sachdeva, I. Fan, E. Babcock, M. Burghoff, T. Chupp, S. Degenkolb, P. Fierlinger, S. Haude, E. Kraegeloh, W. Kilian, S. Knappe-Grüneberg, F. Kuchler, T. Liu, M. Marino, J. Meinel, K. Rolfs, Z. Salhi, A. Schnabel, J. Singh, S. Stuiber, W. Terrano, L. Trahms, and J. Voigt, Physical Review Letters123(2019)

work page 2019
[64]

Allmendinger, I

F. Allmendinger, I. Engin, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, H.-J. Krause, B. Niederländer, A. Offenhäusser, M. Repetto, U. Schmidt, and S. Zimmer, Phys. Rev. A100, 022505 (2019)

work page 2019
[65]

Yanase and N

K. Yanase and N. Shimizu, Physical Review C102 (2020)

work page 2020
[66]

Sanderson, Techical Report, NICTA (2010)

C. Sanderson, Techical Report, NICTA (2010)

work page 2010
[67]

Sanderson and R

C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Journal of Open Source Software1, 26 (2016)

work page 2016
[68]

Miyagi, The European Physical Journal A59, 150 (2023)

T. Miyagi, The European Physical Journal A59, 150 (2023)

work page 2023
[69]

Flambaum, I

V. Flambaum, I. Khriplovich, and O. Sushkov, Physics Letters B146, 367 (1984)

work page 1984
[70]

Flambaum and I

V. Flambaum and I. Khriplovich, Physics Letters A110, 121 (1985)

work page 1985
[71]

single- particle

P. Fadeev and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C100, 015504 (2019). End of Matter Single particle estimates—Well-known “single- particle” estimates, coming from the assumption that the parity violating nuclear moment is due only to a valence nucleon, are based on a picture in which both the strong nucleon-nucleon interaction and the P- or T-violating in- teract...

work page 2019