pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12166 · v1 · pith:2GWAOCPKnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Saturation of Nuclear Binding from Lattice Hamiltonians

Maxwell Rothman , Gaute Hagen , Matthias Heinz , Thomas Papenbrock This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords nuclear bindinglattice HamiltoniansHartree-Fockauxiliary-field Monte Carlotwo-nucleon potentialsthree-nucleon potentialsnuclear saturationlight nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hartree-Fock upper bounds on lattice Hamiltonians show two-nucleon potentials alone fail to produce accurate nuclear binding.

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

The paper examines why auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations of lattice Hamiltonians with attractive two-nucleon and three-nucleon potentials seem to give accurate nuclear binding, while continuum methods typically overbind. It applies the Hartree-Fock method to established lattice Hamiltonians for the nuclei helium-4, beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16 plus nuclear and neutron matter. The resulting variational upper bounds on ground-state energies demonstrate that two-nucleon potentials by themselves do not match accurate binding, in contrast to the Monte Carlo results. When three-nucleon potentials are added, a constant binding energy per nucleon appears because of the dense packing imposed by the lattice, not because of repulsive forces.

Core claim

Variational Hartree-Fock upper bounds for the ground-state energies of light nuclei and nuclear matter computed with established lattice Hamiltonians demonstrate that two-nucleon potentials alone do not yield accurate binding, unlike auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations of the same Hamiltonians. For Hamiltonians that also include three-nucleon potentials the constant binding energy per nucleon arises from dense packing on the lattice.

What carries the argument

Hartree-Fock variational calculations performed on discrete spatial lattice Hamiltonians for light nuclei and infinite matter.

If this is right

  • Two-nucleon potentials on lattices do not produce accurate binding energies for nuclei beyond the lightest ones when evaluated variationally.
  • Three-nucleon potentials together with lattice Hamiltonians produce saturation through the effect of dense packing rather than through repulsive components.
  • The observed discrepancy between Hartree-Fock upper bounds and auxiliary-field Monte Carlo results points to differences in how each method samples the same Hamiltonian.
  • Saturation of binding energy per nucleon in these lattice models is controlled by the discrete spacing and packing density rather than by the form of the potentials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If auxiliary-field Monte Carlo results remain valid, they must be capturing correlations that lie beyond the mean-field level captured by Hartree-Fock.
  • Repeating the comparison at different lattice spacings could test whether the packing effect scales in a manner consistent with continuum limits.
  • The findings suggest that any lattice formulation of nuclear forces must separate packing artifacts from genuine interaction-driven saturation.

Load-bearing premise

The lattice Hamiltonians and interaction parameters in these Hartree-Fock calculations are identical to those used in the auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations being compared.

What would settle it

A side-by-side computation of ground-state energies for one specific two-nucleon lattice Hamiltonian using both Hartree-Fock and auxiliary-field Monte Carlo with exactly the same parameters, lattice spacing and interaction strengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12166 by Gaute Hagen, Matthias Heinz, Maxwell Rothman, Thomas Papenbrock.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the energy per nucleon as a function of the density ρ = A/(La) 3 for closed-shell configurations on lattices with extent L = 5, 6, and 7. Results are shown for the Hamiltonian H of Eq. (1) and HB of Eq. (5). We see that the data points from different L fall onto relatively smooth curves for each Hamiltonian. For the Hamiltonian H nuclear matter saturates at a much higher density and binding energy th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Positive expectation values of the kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy per nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the equation of state of the Hamilto￾nian (6) from Ref. [21] over the full range of density. The analytical results match the numerical ones at the maxi￾mum density. The region around the saturation point and the individual energy contributions are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of the main text. We turn to the potentials VL and VNL of the Hamilto￾nian HB, see Eqs. (15) and (21), respectively of Ref. [19], a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

There is a conundrum regarding the binding of $\alpha$ particles in nuclei. On one hand, auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations of Hamiltonians on discrete spatial lattices proposed that attractive two-nucleon potentials, alone or together with attractive three-nucleon potentials, yield accurate nuclear binding. On the other hand, such Hamiltonians typically overbind all but the lightest nuclei in continuum-space approaches. We address this puzzle by performing Hartree-Fock computations of the light nuclei $^4$He, $^8$Be, $^{12}$C, and $^{16}$O, and of nuclear and neutron matter using established lattice Hamiltonians. These variational upper bounds for the ground-state energies show that the Hamiltonians with only two-nucleon potentials do not yield accurate binding, in contrast to the results from auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulations. The case is different for Hamiltonians with three-nucleon potentials although it is the dense packing on the lattice -- and not repulsive potentials -- that yield a constant binding energy per nucleon.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript addresses a conundrum in nuclear binding energies by performing Hartree-Fock variational calculations on established lattice Hamiltonians for the nuclei ^4He, ^8Be, ^12C, and ^16O as well as nuclear and neutron matter. It reports that two-nucleon-only Hamiltonians produce variational upper bounds inconsistent with accurate binding (in contrast to prior auxiliary-field Monte Carlo results), while inclusion of three-nucleon potentials yields saturation of binding energy per nucleon due to dense lattice packing rather than repulsive core effects.

Significance. If the lattice Hamiltonians, spacings, and couplings employed here are identical to those in the contrasted AFMC literature, the variational bounds supply a useful consistency check that isolates lattice discretization effects from potential form. The work supplies rigorous upper bounds that can benchmark future calculations and clarifies that saturation arises from packing rather than repulsion when 3N forces are present.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1 (Introduction): The central claim that HF upper bounds contradict AFMC results for 2N-only Hamiltonians is load-bearing and requires explicit verification that the lattice spacing a, two-nucleon couplings C_{S,T}, three-nucleon couplings, and all other parameters are numerically identical to those used in the cited AFMC simulations. No table or dedicated subsection in the provided text confirms this parameter equality; any mismatch would render the reported discrepancy an artifact of different Hamiltonians rather than a resolution of the conundrum.
  2. [§3, §4] §3 (Results for light nuclei) and §4 (Nuclear matter): The manuscript must supply the numerical HF energies, error estimates on the variational bounds, and direct side-by-side comparison (with references) to the specific AFMC ground-state energies being contrasted. Without these tabulated values and citations, it is impossible to verify that the HF bounds actually lie above the AFMC energies for the same Hamiltonian.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§2] Notation for the lattice Hamiltonian (e.g., definition of the two- and three-body operators) should be cross-referenced to the original AFMC papers in a single consolidated table for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help ensure the clarity and verifiability of our results. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1 (Introduction): The central claim that HF upper bounds contradict AFMC results for 2N-only Hamiltonians is load-bearing and requires explicit verification that the lattice spacing a, two-nucleon couplings C_{S,T}, three-nucleon couplings, and all other parameters are numerically identical to those used in the cited AFMC simulations. No table or dedicated subsection in the provided text confirms this parameter equality; any mismatch would render the reported discrepancy an artifact of different Hamiltonians rather than a resolution of the conundrum.

    Authors: We agree that explicit confirmation of parameter identity is essential. The lattice Hamiltonians employed here are the established ones from the cited AFMC literature, using identical values for a, C_{S,T}, and three-nucleon couplings where applicable. To make this transparent, we will add a dedicated subsection (or table) in Section 2 that lists all parameters with their numerical values and direct citations to the AFMC source papers. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3, §4] §3 (Results for light nuclei) and §4 (Nuclear matter): The manuscript must supply the numerical HF energies, error estimates on the variational bounds, and direct side-by-side comparison (with references) to the specific AFMC ground-state energies being contrasted. Without these tabulated values and citations, it is impossible to verify that the HF bounds actually lie above the AFMC energies for the same Hamiltonian.

    Authors: We will expand §§3 and 4 to include tables of the computed HF energies for ^4He, ^8Be, ^12C, ^16O, and the matter systems, together with variational error estimates. Side-by-side comparisons to the specific AFMC ground-state energies from the referenced works will be added, with citations, to demonstrate that the HF upper bounds lie above the AFMC results for the 2N-only Hamiltonians. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs independent Hartree-Fock variational upper-bound calculations on established lattice Hamiltonians for light nuclei and nuclear matter, then contrasts the resulting binding energies with prior auxiliary-field Monte Carlo literature. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs: there are no self-definitional relations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that close the central claim. The contrast relies on external benchmarks and new computations rather than tautological re-expression of prior results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms listed. Standard nuclear many-body assumptions are implicit but not detailed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock method supplies variational upper bounds to exact ground-state energies
    Invoked when stating that the computed energies are upper bounds that can contradict Monte Carlo results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5702 in / 1198 out tokens · 22359 ms · 2026-06-27T08:09:47.552190+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Machleidt and D

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

    2011

  3. [3]

    Nogga, and A

    A.Gezerlis, I.Tews, E.Epelbaum, S.Gandolfi, K.Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Quantum Monte Carlo calcu- lations with chiral effective field theory interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 032501 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, R. N. Pérez, J. E. Amaro, and E. R. Arriola, Minimally nonlocal nucleon- nucleon potentials with chiral two-pion exchange including ∆resonances, Phys. Rev. C91, 024003 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Ekström, G

    A. Ekström, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Pa- penbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forssén, M. Hjorth-Jensen, P. Navrátil, and W. Nazarewicz, Accurate nuclear radii and binding energies from a chiral interaction, Phys. Rev. C91, 051301 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, M. Viviani, and R.B.Wiringa,Localchiralpotentialswith∆-intermediate states and the structure of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C94, 054007 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

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

    2020

  8. [8]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two-nucleon poten- tials up to fifth order, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 86 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Maris, E

    P. Maris, E. Epelbaum, R. J. Furnstahl, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, T. Hüther, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, U.-G. Meißner, J. A. Melendez, A. Nogga, P. Reinert, R. Roth, R. Skibiński, V. Soloviov, K. Topolnicki, J. P. Vary, Y. Volkotrub, H. Witała, and T. Wolfgruber (LENPIC Collaboration), Light nuclei with semilocal momentum- space regularized chiral interactions up t...

    2021

  10. [10]

    Hagen, A

    G. Hagen, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. R. Jansen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, K. A. Wendt, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, B. Carlsson, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. Miorelli, G. Orlandini, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Neutron and weak-charge distributions of the 48Ca nucleus, Nat. Phys.12, 186 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Hagen, G

    G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Structure of 78Nifrom first-principles computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 172501 (2016). 6

    2016

  12. [12]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Stumpf, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Structure of the lightest tin isotopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152503 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Bonaiti, G

    F. Bonaiti, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Structure of the doubly magic nuclei208Pb and 266Pb from ab initio computations, arXiv:2508.14217

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Gysbers, G

    P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Mor- ris, P. Navrátil, T. Papenbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. R. Stroberg, and K. A. Wendt, Discrepancy between experimental and theoreticalβ-decay rates resolved from first principles, Nat. Phys.15, 428 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    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, Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nat. Phys.18, 1196 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Multiscale physics of atomic nuclei from first principles, Phys. Rev. X15, 011028 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    C. R. Ding, C. C. Wang, J. M. Yao, H. Hergert, H. Z. Liang, and S. K. Bogner, From spin to pseudospin sym- metry: The origin of magic numbers in nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 052501 (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    König, H

    S. König, H. W. Grießhammer, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Effective theory of 3h and 3he, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.43, 055106 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Elhatisari, N

    S. Elhatisari, N. Li, A. Rokash, J. M. Alarcón, D. Du, N. Klein, B.-N. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, and G. Rupak, Nuclear binding near a quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 132501 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    Elhatisari, E

    S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-N. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Ab initio calculations of the isotopic dependence of nuclear cluster- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 222505 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Essential elements for nuclear binding, Phys. Lett. B797, 134863 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, and A. Lovato, Distill- ing the essential elements of nuclear binding via neural- network quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 142501 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Chiral inter- actions up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order and nuclear saturation, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 042501 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Accurate bulk properties of nuclei from A = 2to ∞ from potentials with∆isobars, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Arthuis, K

    P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Neutron-rich nuclei and neutron skins from chiral low-resolution inter- actions (2024), arXiv:2401.06675 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Elhatisari, L

    S. Elhatisari, L. Bovermann, Y.-Z. Ma, E. Epelbaum, D. Frame, F. Hildenbrand, M. Kim, Y. Kim, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-N. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, G. Rupak, S. Shen, Y.-H. Song, and G. Stellin, Wavefunc- tion matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature630, 59 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Effective field theory for few-nucleon systems, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science52, 339 (2002), nucl-th/0203055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  28. [28]

    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. C83, 031301 (2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    Hagen, D

    G. Hagen, D. J. Dean, M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. Papenbrock, and A. Schwenk, Benchmark calculations for3H, 4He, 16O, and 40Ca with ab initio coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. C76, 044305 (2007)

    2007

  30. [30]

    Ekström, G

    A. Ekström, G. Baardsen, C. Forssén, G. Ha- gen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, J. Sarich, and S. M. Wild, Optimized chiral nucleon-nucleon interaction at next- to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 192502 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Carlson, V

    J. Carlson, V. R. Pandharipande, and R. B. Wiringa, Three-nucleon interaction in 3-, 4- and∞-body systems, Nucl. Phys. A401, 59 (1983)

    1983

  32. [32]

    S. C. Pieper, V. R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Realistic models of pion-exchange three- nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. C64, 014001 (2001)

    2001

  33. [33]

    Hammer, A

    H.-W. Hammer, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Colloquium: Three-body forces: From cold atoms to nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 197 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Nuclear forces and their impact on neutron-rich nuclei and neutron-rich matter, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 457 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys

    K. Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys. Rep.890, 1 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Dickhoff and C

    W. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Self-consistent Green’s func- tion method for nuclei and nuclear matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.52, 377 (2004)

    2004

  37. [37]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navrátil, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio no core shell model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    V. Somà, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Ab initio Gorkov- Green’s function calculations of open-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C87, 011303 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    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. [40]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, The in-medium similarity renormalization group: A novel ab initio method for nuclei, Phys. Rep. 621, 165 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, Symmetry- guided large-scale shell-model theory, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.89, 101 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical Interactions for the Nuclear Shell Model: An Update, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Tichai, R

    A. Tichai, R. Roth, and T. Duguet, Many-body perturba- tion theories for finite nuclei, Front. Phys.8, 164 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Heinz, A

    M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, In-medium similarity renormalization group with three-body operators, Phys. Rev. C103, 044318 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Piarulli, A

    M. Piarulli, A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lovato, E. Lusk, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Light-nuclei spectra from chiral dynamics, ArXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1707.02883 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Rothman, B

    M. Rothman, B. Johnson-Toth, G. Hagen, M. Heinz, and T. Papenbrock, NuLattice: Ab initio computations of 7 atomic nuclei on lattices, Eur. Phys. J. A62, 28 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2020

  48. [48]

    [19, 20, 65–70] solved the many-body problem by applying the transfer matrix formalism [71] with a discrete temporal lattice spacing at = 1/(150 MeV)

    The auxiliary field Monte Carlo calculations of Refs. [19, 20, 65–70] solved the many-body problem by applying the transfer matrix formalism [71] with a discrete temporal lattice spacing at = 1/(150 MeV). Such calculations are not equivalent to calculations withat → 0(see Supplemen- tal Material). Based on our comparison to Refs. [19, 20], the differences...

  49. [49]

    Gandolfi, A

    S. Gandolfi, A. Y. Illarionov, K. E. Schmidt, F. Pederiva, and S. Fantoni, Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of the equation of state of neutron matter, Phys. Rev. C79, 054005 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, A. Ekström, K. A. Wendt, G. Baardsen, S. Gandolfi, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and C. J. Horowitz, Coupled-cluster calculations of nucleonic mat- ter, Phys. Rev. C89, 014319 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Marino, W

    F. Marino, W. G. Jiang, and S. J. Novario, Diagrammatic ab initio methods for infinite nuclear matter with modern chiral interactions, Phys. Rev. C110, 054322 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Christina Colizza, The Anatomy of a Wirecutter Guide, https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/ anatomy-of-a-guide/(2025), accessed: 2026-04-09

    2025

  53. [53]

    Elhatisari, private communications (2026)

    S. Elhatisari, private communications (2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    Rothman, G

    M. Rothman, G. Hagen, M. Heinz, and T. Papenbrock, Nulattice v1.2: Saturation of nuclear binding from lattice hamiltonians (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Wang, J.-A

    C.-C. Wang, J.-A. Shi, and B.-N. Lu, Cutoff-independent predictions from nuclear lattice effective field theory, arXiv:2604.20681

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    O. Agar, Z. Ren, and S. Elhatisari, From binding and saturation to criticality in nuclear matter with lattice effective field theory, arXiv:2604.09154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Nogga, S

    A. Nogga, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Low-momentum interaction in few-nucleon systems, Phys. Rev. C70, 061002 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    S. K. Bogner, A. Schwenk, R. J. Furnstahl, and A. Nogga, Is nuclear matter perturbative with low-momentum inter- actions?, Nucl. Phys. A763, 59 (2005), nucl-th/0504043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  59. [59]

    Bogner, R

    S. Bogner, R. Furnstahl, and A. Schwenk, From low- momentum interactions to nuclear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.65, 94 (2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    F. Alp, Y. Dietz, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Equation of state and Fermi liquid properties of dense matter based on chiral effective field theory interactions, Phys. Rev. C 112, 055802 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Niu and B.-N

    Z.-W. Niu and B.-N. Lu, Sign-problem-free nuclear quan- tumMonteCarlosimulation,Phys.Rev.Lett.135,222504 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    E. H. Lieb, The stability of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.48, 553 (1976)

    1976

  63. [63]

    Freer, H

    M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En’yo, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Microscopic clustering in light nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035004 (2018)

    2018

  64. [64]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Volya, and N. Itagaki, Theoretical studies of α clustering in nuclei and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. A62, 108 (2026), arXiv:2602.24175 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Lat- tice calculations for A = 3 , 4, 6, 12 nuclei using chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A45, 335 (2010)

    2010

  66. [66]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Lat- tice effective field theory calculations forA = 3, 4, 6, 12 nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 142501 (2010)

    2010

  67. [67]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Ab InitioCalculation of the Hoyle State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 192501 (2011)

    2011

  68. [68]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Structure and rotations of the Hoyle state, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 252501 (2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Viability of carbon-based life as a function of the light quark mass, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 112502 (2013)

    2013

  70. [70]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Ab initio calculation of the spec- trum and structure of16O, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 102501 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body sys- tems, Prog

    D. Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body sys- tems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63, 117 (2009)

    2009

  72. [72]

    R.J.Furnstahl, N.Klco, D.R.Phillips,andS.Wesolowski, Quantifying truncation errors in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C92, 024005 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    determined by fitting to the low-energy nucleon-nucleon phase shifts, the observed deuteron energy, and the low-energy alpha- alpha S-wave phase shifts

    C. Mishra, A. Ekström, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, and L. Platter, Two-pion exchange as a leading-order contri- bution in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C106, 024004 (2022). 8 END MA TTER Details about the Hamiltonians.—The Hamiltonians employed in this work are described in detail in Refs. [19– 21]. We list the relevant expressions here for compl...

    2022