Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Constructing Effective Interactions via Projection-Based Inversion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A projection-based inversion turns truncated nuclear spectra into scattering phase shifts and resonances.

desk verdict MEP inversion is a genuinely useful spectral-to-potential tool with solid light-system benchmarks, but the p-14O prediction leans on a reference-state assumption the authors themselves flag as unresolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03748 v1 pith:G2WXM3CL submitted 2026-08-04 nucl-th

Hang Yu , Serdar Elhatisari , Sebastian König , Dean Lee , Yuan-Zhuo Ma , Takayuki Miyagi This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords effectiveinteractionsmultiparametereigenvalueproblemscatteringfromdiscretespectracontactpotentialsCoulombnuclearresonancesemulatortruncatedHilbertspace
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 proposes a numerical prescription for turning the discrete energy levels of a truncated many-body calculation into continuum scattering information. The central idea is to invert the Schrödinger equation at the level of the effective interaction: rather than fitting a scattering amplitude, a Multiparameter Eigenvalue Problem emulator maps a small set of truncation-dependent energies directly to the coupling constants of a short-range contact potential. Because the outcome is a potential, the Coulomb interaction can be included non-perturbatively and no analytic quantization condition is required, so existing bound-state codes can be used for scattering without modification. The authors validate the approach on a solvable two-body model, neutron-alpha and alpha-alpha scattering, and apply it to predict proton-14O resonances from valence-space energies. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a cheap, general bridge from structure calculations to reactions near the drip line.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Multiparameter Eigenvalue Problem (MEP) emulator: a generalized eigenvalue equation whose eigenvalues are the coupling constants of a short-range effective interaction, with the many-body energies at different truncations entering as fixed parameters. The Schrödinger equation is reshuffled by subspace projection, so the forward solve (energies from couplings) is algebraically inverted into a mapping from energies to couplings. The projected reduced-order solution is built from training wave functions obtained by solving the forward problem at sampled couplings, and the resulting effective interaction is then used in a standard few-body scattering extraction such as

What would settle it

Take a two-body model with a known narrow resonance and a weakly coupled inelastic channel, run the MEP inversion using only the elastic truncated energies as input, and compare the extracted elastic phase shifts with the exact coupled-channel solution; any deviation beyond the stated truncation error shows the single-channel restriction is the breaking point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claimed is that the inverse mapping from truncated discrete spectra to an effective few-body interaction is exactly solvable as a Multiparameter Eigenvalue Problem: the coupling constants of a contact-potential expansion are the eigenvalues, and the energies measured at different truncations are the input parameters. Working at the interaction level rather than the amplitude level removes the need for analytic quantization conditions, and the Coulomb interaction is handled by putting it directly into the two-body Hamiltonian. The paper demonstrates that the same prescription reproduces the standard finite-volume quantization condition in a two-body box, matches experimental neu

Load-bearing premise

The method's load-bearing premise is that the discrete energies computed at a few basis truncations are controlled by a single two-body interaction of short-range contact form, so that matching a handful of energies determines that interaction; if the real system needs extra channels, longer-range forces, or three-body physics that cannot be absorbed into the contact couplings, the extracted phase shifts and resonances will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bound-state many-body codes become scattering tools: any method that can report energies at several basis truncations can feed the MEP inversion, with no changes to the solver.
  • Coulomb-dominated systems, such as alpha-alpha scattering, are handled by simply including the Coulomb potential in the two-body Hamiltonian; no perturbative or analytic corrections to a quantization condition are needed.
  • Because the inversion outputs an interaction rather than an amplitude, the same machinery should apply to coupled-channel and three-body truncations once the effective interaction is extended accordingly.
  • Resonance parameters of drip-line nuclei, like the proton-14O case shown, can be predicted from bound-state-style calculations of the same system, without building explicit continuum states.
  • The MEP emulator returns the whole map from truncated energies to couplings, so uncertainty propagation over truncation choices and operator expansions becomes a matter of sampling the input energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the validated cases, any truncated-space spectrum—from lattice QCD with dynamical QED, for example—could be fed into the same inversion, since the MEP emulator only consumes energies and is agnostic to how they were produced.
  • The proton-14O result carries an extra layer of assumption: the input relative energies are reference-state-dependent expectation values, and the paper itself flags that a consistent scheme is needed; until then, drip-line predictions from this route should be read as method demonstrations rather than final numbers.
  • Because the emulator returns the full spectrum-to-coupling mapping rather than a single fit, it becomes cheap to scan truncation choices and operator expansions; one could use the stability of the extracted resonance parameters under such scans as a diagnostic for missing physics.
  • A natural stress test is to apply the inversion to a narrow resonance coupled to an inelastic channel; if the single-channel contact form still reproduces elastic phase shifts the method is more robust than its assumptions, and if not, the failure pattern would show which operators to add.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a numerical procedure for constructing an EFT-inspired short-range effective interaction between clusters from discrete energies of truncated many-body calculations. The Multiparameter Eigenvalue Problem (MEP) emulator is used to invert a set of energies {E(T_j)} into coupling constants {C_0, C_2, ...} of contact interactions, either local Gaussian or non-local separable forms. The reconstructed interaction is then converted into scattering observables using R-matrix, hard-wall, or J-matrix/HORSE methods. The paper validates the method on a two-body periodic-box toy model against the Lüscher formula, on neutron-alpha and alpha-alpha scattering using NCSM and lattice inputs, and presents a proton-14O elastic-scattering prediction from VS-IMSRG energies. The central claims are that the method handles non-perturbative Coulomb interactions, does not require analytic quantization conditions, and ports directly to bound-state many-body codes without modification.

Significance. The MEP-based inversion is a clever and potentially useful reformulation: working at the level of the effective interaction rather than the scattering amplitude avoids several technical obstacles of standard quantization conditions, and the idea of using convergence-test energies from bound-state codes is appealing. The toy-model check against the Lüscher formula is a good internal consistency test, and the n-alpha and alpha-alpha benchmarks are encouraging. If the inversion premise is verified, the method could become a practical tool for extracting resonances near drip lines and for reusing NCSM/NLEFT/VS-IMSRG energy sequences already computed for structure studies. However, the current evidence does not yet support the strongest claims: the p-14O application relies on reference-state-dependent expectation values whose status as eigenvalues is unverified, and the two-point inversions do not overdetermine the assumed single-channel contact model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (4); Conclusions; Table I] Equation (4) is an exact inversion only if the input energies E(T_j) are eigenvalues of the truncated two-body Hamiltonian H_trunc(T_j). For the p-14O demonstration the input is E_rel(T) = <ψ_j|H(T) - a_j†H(T)a_j|ψ_j>, a reference-state-dependent expectation value, not the eigenvalue of a single-channel two-body Hamiltonian. The Methods text explicitly limits the framework to a single-channel two-body interaction, and the Conclusion defers 'consistent schemes' for methods with reference-state dependence. Table I's second uncertainty estimates sensitivity to reference states but does not test whether E_rel actually equals an eigenvalue of the assumed relative Hamiltonian. Thus the p-14O resonance parameters are currently an interpolation of computed numbers, not a validated inversion. I would require a controlled check of this mapping (e.g., comparing VS-IMSRG E_rel with true two-body eig
  2. [Results, neutron-alpha and alpha-alpha; toy model] The validation uses exactly two truncations per framework and two fitted couplings C_0 and C_2, i.e., m = n_par in Eq. (4). The inversion is then exactly determined; varying the truncation pair tests the sensitivity of a two-point interpolation, but it cannot reject the assumed single-channel contact form. In the toy model, the fact that the extracted points collapse onto the Lüscher curve is a useful numerical check, but the curve is constructed from the same energies that define q^2, so it is a consistency test rather than an independent prediction. I would like to see at least one system analyzed with m > n_par (three or more truncations) and a reported residual mismatch, or an explicit convergence study with increasing n_par, before accepting that the extraction is model-independent.
  3. [Results, alpha-alpha scattering] The lattice alpha-alpha results are included in Fig. 2 and the text states that lattice calculations use 'box sizes L=13.2 fm and L=15.8 fm.' Immediately afterwards, the authors say that the extension to lattice-based alpha-alpha calculations with non-perturbative Coulomb 'can introduce additional subtleties, including topological factors' and defer details to a forthcoming publication. This leaves the status of one of the two Coulomb benchmarks unresolved. Please state why the shown lattice alpha-alpha phase shifts are unaffected by those subtleties (e.g., because they concern only moving states or are exponentially suppressed), or explicitly label the corresponding points as preliminary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction; Conclusion] Typos: 'caclculations' in the Introduction and 'challanges' in the Conclusion should be corrected.
  2. [Proton-14O section] 'TheThere denotes' should be 'The T here denotes'.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The separable-potential expression is notationally ambiguous: please define the state |d>, the integration limits, and the normalization convention for |r> in the integral.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (4)] The notation E(T_j) does not specify which eigenstate at each truncation is used. Please state explicitly (e.g., the lowest state of the relevant partial wave) and how the state is identified across different T_j.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'the grey triangle marks all pairs both below (0.1, 0.2)' is unclear; please rephrase to indicate the region in energy space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the energy-to-coupling inversion is the stated fitting step, and the extracted phase shifts/resonances are derived from the reconstructed interaction rather than used as inputs.

full rationale

Equation (4) defines the couplings as the solution of an inverse problem that reproduces the input truncated energies; this is an intended fit, not a disguised prediction. The toy-model comparison to the Lüscher formula is explicitly labeled an internal-consistency check ('This shows that the inversion is internally consistent'), and the n-alpha/alpha-alpha validations compare phase shifts obtained from the reconstructed effective interaction against experiment over a range of energies, not only at the truncation energies used to set the couplings. The p-14O demonstration uses VS-IMSRG relative energies E_rel(T)=<psi_j|H(T)-a_j^†H(T)a_j|psi_j>, and the Conclusion explicitly defers 'consistent schemes for computing truncated relative energies in methods with reference-state dependence, such as coupled-cluster and IMSRG'; this is a stated correctness/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction, because the extracted 1/2+ and 5/2+ resonance parameters were not among the inputs. Self-citations (Refs. [32], [39], [57], [58]) point to the MEP emulator, eigenvector continuation, and a charged-particle bound-state result; the paper restates the MEP equations itself, so no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. No equation was found to be equivalent to another by construction beyond the intended energy-to-coupling mapping.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed single-channel contact form of the effective interaction, the standard relation between discrete spectra and scattering, and the accuracy of the MEP subspace projection. The couplings C0, C2 (and C4 for p-14O) are fitted to input truncated energies; the regulator scale Lambda is a chosen model parameter. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • C_0 (contact coupling) = determined by MEP from input energies; not quoted
    Coefficient of the leading contact interaction in Eqs. (2)/(3); fitted to reproduce the truncated energies E(T_j) via the MEP eigenvalue problem.
  • C_2 (range/derivative coupling) = not quoted
    Next-order contact interaction coefficient in Eqs. (2)/(3); determined together with C_0.
  • C_4 (four-derivative contact) = not quoted; included in p-14O uncertainty estimate
    Additional coupling included in the proton-14O analysis to assess model independence; its inclusion changes resonance parameters within quoted errors.
  • Regulator scale Lambda = Lambda^-1 = 0.8 in toy model (natural units); not fully specified for nuclear applications
    Momentum/coordinate regulator in the Gaussian and separable potentials; a chosen model parameter affecting truncation errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The MEP (4)-(5) has a well-posed solution: with m = n_par truncations, the generalized eigenvalue problem determines a unique coupling set reproducing the input energies.
    The entire inversion rests on this algebraic solvability; the paper states exact determinacy for m = n_par but does not prove uniqueness or stability.
  • domain assumption A single-channel two-body effective Hamiltonian with short-range contact interactions (Eqs. 2-3) can represent the relevant physics of the truncated many-body spectra within truncation errors.
    Explicitly stated: 'we limit our discussion to the single-channel two-body' and the effective interaction is a sum of contact operators.
  • domain assumption Truncation-dependent discrete spectra E(T_j) carry sufficient scattering information (the generalized Luscher/J-matrix/HORSE premise).
    The method inherits the standard relation between discrete spectra and continuum phase shifts; Refs [18,19,31] are invoked.
  • domain assumption Projection onto training wave functions from forward solves at sampled couplings gives a sufficiently accurate reduced-order model for the MEP (eigenvector continuation).
    The K_i matrices are projected onto a subspace spanned by training wave functions; accuracy depends on this subspace, reported as mean relative errors below 10^-4.
  • domain assumption The R-matrix matching at a channel radius with the short-range effective potential yields the correct phase shifts (Coulomb asymptotics handled separately).
    Used as primary tool for step (3); the paper cross-checks with spherical-wall and J-matrix/HORSE.
  • ad hoc to paper For VS-IMSRG, the operator form of the relative energy E_rel(T) faithfully represents the two-cluster truncation spectrum.
    The p-14O application uses expectation values with a reference state; the conclusion states consistent schemes for reference-state-dependent methods are future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructing Effective Interactions via Projection-Based Inversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2WXM3CL

@misc{pith2026260803748,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructing Effective Interactions via Projection-Based Inversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2WXM3CL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03748}
}
abstract

We present a numerical prescription for extracting continuum scattering information from discrete spectra by constraining effective interactions inspired by effective field theory (EFT). Using a Multiparameter Eigenvalue Problem (MEP) emulator, we map energies to a sum of contact potentials by recasting the inverse problem as a linear eigenvalue equation. Because our method determines the effective interaction rather than the scattering amplitude, it can handle non-perturbative Coulomb interactions and different types of truncated Hilbert spaces without analytic quantization conditions. It therefore allows standard bound-state codes to be used for scattering calculations without modification. We validate this prescription across multiple ab initio frameworks using neutron-alpha scattering, alpha-alpha scattering with full Coulomb, and a prediction of proton-$^{14}$O resonances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03748 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Toy-model benchmark of the MEP prescription [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differential cross section at 180◦ for proton-14O elastic scattering, comparing the MEP prediction from VS￾IMSRG calculations with experimental data [82]. The Hamil￾tonian is evolved into thevalence space with an 14O core. Alpha-alpha scattering The α-α system (hosting the 8Be resonance) provides a more stringent test for truncated-space calculations [79, 80]. With a Sommer￾feld parameter η = µαEMZ1Z2 k ∼ 1 (where µ… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Mariset al.(LENPIC), Nuclear properties with semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral interac- tions beyond N2LO, Phys

    P. Mariset al.(LENPIC), Nuclear properties with semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral interac- tions beyond N2LO, Phys. Rev. C106, 064002 (2022), arXiv:2206.13303 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Machleidt and F

    R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Recent advances in chiral EFT based nuclear forces and their appli- cations, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.137, 104117 (2024), arXiv:2402.14032 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front. Phys.8, 1 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Lee, Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei, Ann

    D. Lee, Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 109 (2025), arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    K. D. Launey, G. H. Sargsyan, A. Mercenne, J. E. Es- cher, and D. C. Mumma, Ab initio symmetry-adapted approaches to nuclear reactions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 148, 104233 (2026), arXiv:2510.15171 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    C. W. Johnson, K. D. Launey, N. Auerbach,et al., White paper: From bound states to the continuum, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics47, 123001 (2020), arXiv:1912.00451 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Perspectives on few-body cluster structures in exotic nuclei

    D. Bazinet al., Perspectives on Few-Body Cluster Struc- tures in Exotic Nuclei, Few Body Syst.64, 25 (2023), arXiv:2211.06281 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    H. L. Crawford, K. Fossez, S. K¨ onig, and A. Spyrou, A Vision for the Science of Rare Isotopes, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 141 (2024), arXiv:2312.09129 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero-Redondo, and A. Calci, Unified ab initio approaches to nuclear structure and reactions, Phys. Scripta91, 053002 (2016), arXiv:1601.03765 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Deltuva, A

    A. Deltuva, A. C. Fonseca, and P. U. Sauer, Nuclear Many-Body Scattering Calculations with the Coulomb Interaction, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.58, 27 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Leidemann and G

    W. Leidemann and G. Orlandini, Modern Ab Initio Approaches and Applications in Few-Nucleon Physics withA≥4, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.68, 158 (2013), arXiv:1204.4617 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Navr´ atil and S

    P. Navr´ atil and S. Quaglioni, Ab Initio Nuclear Reaction Theory with Applications to Astrophysics, inHandbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (Springer, Singapore, 2022) arXiv:2204.01187 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Elhatisari, D

    S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, T. Luu, and U.-G. Meißner, Ab ini- tio alpha-alpha scattering, Nature528, 111 (2015), arXiv:1506.03513 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Navratil, S

    P. Navratil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, M. Gennari, and K. Kravvaris, Halo Nuclei from Ab Initio Nuclear Theory, Particles9, 57 (2026), arXiv:2604.02612 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sarkar, S

    A. Sarkar, S. Elhatisari, T. A. L¨ ahde, and U.-G. Meißner, Ab initioα-αscattering with high-fidelity chiral interac- tions (2026), arXiv:2606.28987 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C. A. Bertulani, H.-W. Hammer, and U. Van Kolck, Ef- fective field theory for halo nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A712, 37 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0205063

    2002 arXiv

  10. [18]

    L¨ uscher, Volume Dependence of the Energy Spectrum in Massive Quantum Field Theories

    M. L¨ uscher, Volume Dependence of the Energy Spectrum in Massive Quantum Field Theories. 2. Scattering States, Commun. Math. Phys.105, 153 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    L¨ uscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl

    M. L¨ uscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl. Phys. B354, 531 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    R. A. Briceno, Z. Davoudi, and T. C. Luu, Two-Nucleon Systems in a Finite Volume: (I) Quantization Conditions, Phys. Rev. D88, 034502 (2013), arXiv:1305.4903 [hep- lat]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Barnea, L

    N. Barnea, L. Contessi, D. Gazit, F. Pederiva, and U. van Kolck, Effective Field Theory for Lattice Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 052501 (2015), arXiv:1311.4966 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. M. M. Hall, A. C. P. Hsu, D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Finite-volume matrix Hamil- tonian model for a ∆→N πsystem, Phys. Rev. D87, 094510 (2013), arXiv:1303.4157 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. M. M. Hall, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinweber, B. J. Menadue, B. J. Owen, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Lattice QCD Evidence that the Λ(1405) Resonance is an Antikaon-Nucleon Molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 132002 (2015), arXiv:1411.3402 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J.-J. Wu, T. S. H. Lee, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Finite-volume Hamiltonian method for coupled-channels interactions in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. C90, 055206 (2014), arXiv:1402.4868 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Scattering processes and resonances from lattice QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025001 (2018), arXiv:1706.06223 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Detmold and P

    W. Detmold and P. E. Shanahan, Few-nucleon matrix el- ements in pionless effective field theory in a finite volume, Phys. Rev. D103, 074503 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Meng and E

    L. Meng and E. Epelbaum, Two-particle scattering from finite-volume quantization conditions using the plane wave basis, JHEP10, 051, arXiv:2108.02709 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kirscher, N

    J. Kirscher, N. Barnea, D. Gazit, F. Pederiva, and U. van Kolck, Spectra and Scattering of Light Lattice Nuclei from Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. C92, 054002 (2015), arXiv:1506.09048 [nucl-th]. 7

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yaron, B

    R. Yaron, B. Bazak, M. Sch¨ afer, and N. Barnea, Spec- trum of light nuclei in a finite volume, Phys. Rev. D106, 014511 (2022), arXiv:2206.04497 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, and M. Wilkens, Two Cold Atoms in a Harmonic Trap, Found. Phys.28, 549 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    A. M. Shirokov, A. I. Mazur, S. A. Zaytsev, J. P. Vary, and T. A. Weber, Nucleon nucleon interaction in the J matrix inverse scattering approach and few nucleon systems, Phys. Rev. C70, 044005 (2004), arXiv:nucl- th/0312029

    2004

  24. [32]

    Yu and T

    H. Yu and T. Miyagi, An Efficient Learning Method to Connect Observables (2025), arXiv:2503.01684 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Davoudi and M

    Z. Davoudi and M. J. Savage, Finite-Volume Electromag- netic Corrections to the Masses of Mesons, Baryons and Nuclei, Phys. Rev. D90, 054503 (2014), arXiv:1402.6741 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. R. Beane and M. J. Savage, Two-Particle Elastic Scat- tering in a Finite Volume Including QED, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074511 (2014), arXiv:1407.4846 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Borsanyiet al., Ab initio calculation of the neutron- proton mass difference, Science347, 1452 (2015), arXiv:1406.4088 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyiet al., Ab initio calculation of the neutron- proton mass difference, Science347, 1452 (2015), arXiv:1406.4088 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Stellin and U.-G

    G. Stellin and U.-G. Meißner, P-wave two-particle bound and scattering states in a finite volume including QED, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 26 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle interactions in artificial traps, Phys

    P. Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle interactions in artificial traps, Phys. Rev. C103, 064611 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Guo and V

    P. Guo and V. Gasparian, Charged particles interaction in both a finite volume and a uniform magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D103, 094520 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    H. Yu, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Charged-Particle Bound States in Periodic Boxes, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 212502 (2023), arXiv:2212.14379 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. He, X. Feng, and C. Liu, Two particle states and the S-matrix elements in multi-channel scattering, JHEP07, 011, arXiv:hep-lat/0504019 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. Guo, J. Dudek, R. Edwards, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Coupled-channel scattering on a torus, Phys. Rev. D88, 014501 (2013), arXiv:1211.0929 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hadron Spectrum Collaboration, Efficient solution of the multichannel L¨ uscher determinant condition through eigenvalue decomposition, Phys. Rev. D101, 114505 (2020), arXiv:2001.08474 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Polejaeva and A

    K. Polejaeva and A. Rusetsky, Three particles in a finite volume, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 67 (2012), arXiv:1203.1241 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Expressing the three- particle finite-volume spectrum in terms of the three- to-three scattering amplitude, Phys. Rev. D92, 114509 (2015), arXiv:1504.04248 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hammer, J.-Y

    H.-W. Hammer, J.-Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, Three- particle quantization condition in a finite volume: 1. the role of the three-particle force, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 109 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Hammer, J.-Y

    H.-W. Hammer, J.-Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, Three- particle quantization condition in a finite volume: 2. gen- eral formalism and the analysis of data, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 115 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    M¨ uller, J.-Y

    F. M¨ uller, J.-Y. Pang, A. Rusetsky, and J.-J. Wu, Relativistic-invariant formulation of the nreft three- particle quantization condition, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 158 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

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

    2013

  41. [49]

    Hergert, In-medium similarity renormalization group for closed and open-shell nuclei, Phys

    H. Hergert, In-medium similarity renormalization group for closed and open-shell nuclei, Phys. Scripta92, 023002 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    S. R. Stroberg, S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical Interactions for the Nuclear Shell Model: An Update, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019), arXiv:1902.06154 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. J. Furnstahl, S. N. More, and T. Papenbrock, System- atic expansion for infrared oscillator basis extrapolations, Phys. Rev. C89, 044301 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    K¨ onig, S

    S. K¨ onig, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, S. N. More, and T. Papenbrock, Ultraviolet extrapolations in fi- nite oscillator bases, Phys. Rev. C90, 064007 (2014), arXiv:1409.5997 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Capel, D

    P. Capel, D. R. Phillips, and H. W. Hammer, Dissecting reaction calculations using halo effective field theory and abinitioinput, Phys. Rev. C98, 034610 (2018), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 019901 (2022)], arXiv:1806.02712 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Capel, Combining Halo-EFT Descriptions of Nuclei and Precise Models of Nuclear Reactions, Few Body Syst

    P. Capel, Combining Halo-EFT Descriptions of Nuclei and Precise Models of Nuclear Reactions, Few Body Syst. 63, 14 (2022), arXiv:2109.10741 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. W. Hammer, Theory of Halo Nuclei, inHandbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–30, arXiv:2203.13074 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Yu, G.-J

    K. Yu, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, and Z. Yang, Finite vol- ume Hamiltonian method for two-particle systems con- taining long-range potential on the lattice, JHEP04, 108, arXiv:2502.05789 [hep-lat]

  49. [57]

    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), arXiv:1711.07090 [nucl- th]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    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), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    P. Cook, D. Jammooa, M. Hjorth-Jensen, D. D. Lee, and D. Lee, Parametric matrix models (2024), arXiv:2401.11694 [physics.comp-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Curry, K

    R. Curry, K. Hebeler, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, A. Schwenk, R. Somasundaram, and I. Tews, Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of light nuclei with fully propa- gated theoretical uncertainties (2025), arXiv:2510.15860 [nucl-th]

    2025

  53. [61]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Svensson, S. De, A. E. Deneris, Y. Dietz, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Inferring three-nucleon couplings from multi-messenger neutron- star observations (2024), arXiv:2410.00247 [nucl-th]

    2024

  54. [62]

    J. M. Munoz, A. Belley, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, Linking Elec- tromagnetic Moments to Nuclear Interactions with a Global Physics-Driven Machine-Learning Emulator (2026), arXiv:2603.26905 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Descouvemont and D

    P. Descouvemont and D. Baye, The R-matrix theory, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 036301 (2010), arXiv:1001.0678 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B.-N. Lu, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Pre- cise determination of lattice phase shifts and mixing an- gles, Phys. Lett. B760, 309 (2016), arXiv:1506.05652 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Rothman, B

    M. Rothman, B. Johnson-Toth, G. Hagen, M. Heinz, and T. Papenbrock, NuLattice: Ab initio computations of 8 atomic nuclei on lattices, Eur. Phys. J. A62, 28 (2026), arXiv:2509.08771 [nucl-th]

    2026

  58. [66]

    Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys

    X. Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys. Rev. C101, 051602 (2020), arXiv:1905.05275 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, C. Gwak, J. A. Me- lendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and J. D. Holt, Ab Initio Calcula- tions of Low-Energy Nuclear Scattering Using Confining Potential Traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 112503 (2020), arXiv:2004.13575 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Elhatisari, F

    S. Elhatisari, F. Hildenbrand, and U.-G. Meißner, Ab initio lattice study of neutron–alpha scattering with chi- ral forces at N3LO, J. Phys. G52, 125102 (2025), arXiv:2507.08495 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. A. AFZAL, A. A. Z. AHMAD, and S. ALI, Systematic Survey of the alpha-alpha Interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 247 (1969)

    1969

  62. [70]

    Kravvaris, K

    K. Kravvaris, K. R. Quinlan, S. Quaglioni, K. A. Wendt, and P. Navratil, Quantifying uncertainties in neutron-αscattering with chiral nucleon-nucleon and three-nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. C102, 024616 (2020), arXiv:2004.08474 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Burrows, K

    M. Burrows, K. D. Launey, A. Mercenne, R. B. Baker, G. H. Sargsyan, T. Dytrych, and D. Langr, Ab initio translationally invariant nucleon-nucleus optical poten- tials, Phys. Rev. C109, 014616 (2024), arXiv:2307.00202 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Y. Yang, E. Epelbaum, J. Meng, L. Meng, and P. Zhao, Chiral Symmetry and Peripheral Neutron-αScattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 172502 (2025), arXiv:2502.09961 [nucl-th]

    2025

  65. [73]

    A. M. Shirokov, A. I. Mazur, I. A. Mazur, E. A. Mazur, I. J. Shin, Y. Kim, L. D. Blokhintsev, and J. P. Vary, Nucleon-αScattering and Resonances in 5He and 5Li with JISP16 and Daejeon16N Ninteractions, Phys. Rev. C98, 044624 (2018), arXiv:1808.03394 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. W. Johnson, W. E. Ormand, K. S. McElvain, R. Zbikowski, and H. Shan, BIGSTICK: A flexi- ble configuration-interaction shell-model code (updated) (2018), arXiv:1801.08432 [physics.comp-ph]

    2018

  67. [75]

    Maris, J

    P. Maris, J. P. Vary, and A. M. Shirokov, Ab initio no- core full configuration calculations of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C79, 014308 (2009), arXiv:0808.3420 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Maris and J

    P. Maris and J. P. Vary, ab initio nuclear structure calcu- lations of p-shell nuclei with JISP16, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330016 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, and P. D. Schwartz, ∆ isobars and nuclear saturation, Phys. Rev. C97, 024332 (2018), arXiv:1707.09028 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Accurate bulk properties of nuclei fromA= 2 to∞from potentials with ∆ iso- bars, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020), arXiv:2006.16774 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Elhatisari, T

    S. Elhatisari, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and T. Vonk, Alpha-alpha scattering in the Multiverse, JHEP 02, 001, arXiv:2112.09409 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Kravvaris, S

    K. Kravvaris, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, and P. Navratil, Ab initio framework for nuclear scattering and reactions induced by light projectiles, Phys. Lett. B856, 138930 (2024), arXiv:2012.00228 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    S. Bour, S. K¨ onig, D. Lee, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Topological phases for bound states moving in a finite volume, Physical Review D84, 091503 (2011), arXiv:1107.1272 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    De Granceyet al., An above-barrier narrow resonance in 15F, Phys

    F. De Granceyet al., An above-barrier narrow resonance in 15F, Phys. Lett. B758, 26 (2016), arXiv:1603.00436 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many-Body Theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many-Body Theory, Front. in Phys.8, 379 (2020), arXiv:2008.05061 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Miyagi, NuHamil : A numerical code to generate nu- clear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur

    T. Miyagi, NuHamil : A numerical code to generate nu- clear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 150 (2023), arXiv:2302.07962 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Girard-Alcindoret al., New narrow resonances ob- served in the unbound nucleus F15, Phys

    V. Girard-Alcindoret al., New narrow resonances ob- served in the unbound nucleus F15, Phys. Rev. C105, L051301 (2022), arXiv:2111.14412 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  78. [86]

    S. R. Stroberg, IMSRG++: In-medium similarity renor- malization group software for nuclear structure calcula- tions

  79. [87]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, Y. Utsuno, and Y. Tsunoda, Thick-Restart Block Lanczos Method for Large-Scale Shell-Model Calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 372 (2019), arXiv:1902.02064 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    C. W. Johnson, W. E. Ormand, K. S. McElvain, and H. Shan, BIGSTICK: A flexible configuration-interaction shell-model code

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.