Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Clustering of Four-Component Unitary Fermions

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At unitarity, eight four-component fermions arrange into two four-particle clusters, with zero-range energy ratio $E_8/E_4 = 2.04 \pm 0.05$.

desk verdict Solid new DMC result for eight four-component unitary fermions, but the clustering conclusion is partly baked into the trial wave function. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04288 v2 pith:U6VT2GFE submitted 2019-08-12 cond-mat.quant-gas nucl-thphysics.atm-clus

William G. Dawkins , J. Carlson , U. van Kolck , Alexandros Gezerlis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnucl-thphysics.atm-clus
keywords four-componentfermionsunitaryFermigaslimitclusteringquantumMonteCarlodiffusionscaleinvariancenuclearanalog
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 Letter asks what happens to eight four-component fermions at unitarity, the scale-invariant limit of infinite two-body scattering length. Using variational and fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo with microscopic two- and three-body interactions, it finds that the ground state is essentially two weakly interacting four-particle clusters: the extrapolated zero-range ratio is $E_8/E_4 = 2.04 \pm 0.05$, statistically indistinguishable from $2E_4$. The result is independent of the strength of the three-body force, suggesting a universal feature of the unitary limit rather than a detail of the interaction. That matters because it turns the $\alpha$-clustering of $^8$Be near its two-$\alpha$ threshold into a cold-atom-accessible phenomenon and supports the idea of treating nuclear binding and clustering as small corrections to a unitary, component-symmetric limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trial wave function $\psi_C^T$ of Eq. (8): an antisymmetrized product of cluster-Jastrow factors $f_J$ for each four-particle cluster, an intercluster center-of-mass factor $F$ (Eq. 9), and intercluster pair correlations $g$ (Eq. 11). It is the only form tested that lets the four-particle clusters deform and communicate while keeping the nodal structure flexible enough for DMC to approach the breakup threshold; the simpler BCS-based $\psi_A$ and cluster-only $\psi_B$ both leave $E_8/E_4$ measurably above 2. The central observable is the dimensionless ratio $E_8/E_4$, extrapolated with Eq. (12) to the zero-range limit.

What would settle it

Measure $E_8/E_4$ for a trapped four-component unitary Fermi gas with eight atoms: a zero-range value outside $2.04 \pm 0.05$ would contradict the clustering claim. As a numerical check, run fixed-node DMC with a nodal surface built from a fully antisymmetrized eight-body determinant with no cluster bias; if it yields $E_8$ clearly below $2E_4$, the reported clustering is an artifact of the $\psi_C$ nodal ansatz.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Letter claims that at unitarity, where the two-body scattering length diverges and the Hamiltonian is scale invariant, the ground state of eight four-component fermions with two particles per component is essentially a pair of weakly interacting four-particle clusters. Using fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo with microscopic two- and three-body Gaussian potentials, the authors find that only their most elaborate trial wave function, an antisymmetrized cluster state with Jastrow correlations and explicit intercluster center-of-mass and pair correlations, lowers the eight-body energy to within one or two standard deviations of twice the four-body energy. Extrapolating the ratio $E_8/E_4$ to zero range via a polynomial in $1/(\mu R_4)$ gives $2.04 \pm 0.05$, and the ratio is statistically independent of the three-body force strength $V_3$. The authors conclude that eight unitary four-component fermions cluster into two four-body subsystems, the direct analog of $^8$Be near its two-$\alpha$ threshold, and suggest that clustering is a universal feature of weakly bound multicomponent fermion systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed-node trial wave function's nodal surface is not so restrictive that it forces a two-cluster answer; because DMC energies are upper bounds, a too-constricting nodal ansatz could hide a genuinely different eight-body ground state, and the quoted zero-range ratio also inherits the polynomial fit's form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The eight-particle energy is statistically equal to twice the four-particle energy, so the eight-body unitary system sits at, or just above, the threshold for breakup into two four-body clusters.
  • Only the cluster wave function with intercluster correlations reproduces this near-threshold behavior; the BCS-based wave function does not, so the choice of trial state is decisive for seeing clustering in quantum Monte Carlo.
  • $E_8/E_4$ is independent of the three-body force strength and of the interaction range within errors, supporting the universality of the ratio at unitarity.
  • The result makes the alpha-cluster structure of $^8$Be an analogy that cold-atom experiments could realize directly: tuning four components to unitarity should show two-cluster spatial configurations.
  • The success of a single four-body scale $E_4$ or length $R_4$ in organizing $E_8$ supports the program of computing nuclear binding and clustering as small perturbations around the unitary limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If clustering is driven only by the bosonic character of the four-particle unit, systems with 12 or 16 four-component fermions should show multiple weakly bound clusters rather than a single saturated body; DMC on those systems would test the extension.
  • Because the four-particle cluster is a boson, the two-cluster threshold resembles a weakly bound dimer of bosonic molecules, so cluster-level universal relations, possibly with discrete scaling, could connect to Efimov-type physics, a direction the paper does not develop.
  • The ratio $E_8/E_4 = 2.04 \pm 0.05$ sits slightly above 2; if this small excess is real rather than a fit artifact, it implies a weak repulsive cluster-cluster interaction at zero range, which could be extracted from the intercluster correlation parameters in $\psi_C$.
  • A direct experimental realization with four hyperfine states of a fermionic isotope would test whether the clustering survives in a trapped, inhomogeneous system, where the trap energy scale may compete with the tiny cluster-cluster binding.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports quantum Monte Carlo (VMC and fixed-node DMC) calculations for eight four-component fermions at unitarity, interacting through finite-range two- and three-body Gaussian potentials with the two-body strength tuned to unitarity. The authors test three trial wave functions: a BCS-type ansatz, a cluster ansatz, and a more elaborate cluster ansatz with intercluster correlations. For the most elaborate ansatz, the DMC energy ratio E8/E4 is found to be close to 2 and, after a polynomial extrapolation in the dimensionless range parameter µR4, the authors quote a zero-range value 2.04 ± 0.05. They interpret this as evidence that eight four-component unitary fermions cluster into two four-particle subsystems, analogous to 8Be near the two-alpha threshold, and discuss implications for pionless EFT and cold-atom experiments.

Significance. If the clustering claim holds, this is a valuable step toward understanding universal few-body behavior in multicomponent fermions and could inform the program of treating nuclear binding as a perturbation around the unitary limit. The paper has real strengths: it is the first study of four-component unitary systems with more than four fermions, it uses explicitly antisymmetrized trial states, it benchmarks E4 against four-boson results, it checks independence of the ratio on V3 in the Supplemental Material, and it reports statistical running averages with multiple trial functions. The main result, however, is less secure than the abstract's wording suggests, because the key trial wave function already contains a two-cluster structure and the fixed-node approximation is acknowledged as potentially constricting. The quantitative zero-range value is also a fitted coefficient of a model-dependent extrapolation. With appropriate reframing and additional checks, the paper could be an interesting contribution; as written, the central claim is overstated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Eq. (12) and Fig. 3] The zero-range result 2.04 ± 0.05 is not a direct zero-range calculation but the leading coefficient c0 of the three-parameter polynomial fit in Eq. (12) to finite-range DMC data over roughly µR4 ∈ [10, 22]. The manuscript does not report the number of data points, the fit parameters, or the quality of the fit, so the extrapolation's reliability is hard to assess. The authors state that lower- or higher-degree fits do not qualitatively change the result, but no residuals, chi-squared values, or alternative functional forms are shown. This is a load-bearing quantitative claim, so the fit details should be reported and the language describing the zero-range limit should be tempered accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label appears to be typeset as 'E4' followed by the numeric scale; the axis is the running average of E8/E4, so the label should read 'E8/E4'.
  2. [Main text after Fig. 2] The sentence saying ψC_T 'converged just below the 2 E4 value' and the later statement that the result is 'one or two standard deviations away from breakup' should specify at which µR4 value and in which direction, because the finite-range running average and the zero-range extrapolated value differ in sign relative to 2.
  3. [Eq. (8)] Please define explicitly in the text that in g(r_nm) the index n runs over particles in the first cluster and m over those in the second, since the notation is only implied by the product limits.
  4. [Ref. [80]] The Supplemental Material URL contains the placeholder '10.1103/PhysRevLett.000.000000' and should be replaced with the actual DOI before publication.
  5. [Eq. (12)] Please report the fitted values of c0, c1, and c2 with their uncertainties, and state how many finite-range points are included in the fit.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The clustering claim is largely carried by a two-cluster trial wave function, and the zero-range ratio is a fitted coefficient, giving partial circularity.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (8) and the paragraph after Eq. (11); concluding paragraph before acknowledgments]
    "Third, we improved the trial wave function of Eq. (7) by extending it to also allow for more complicated correlations: ψC_T = A[F (r1,3,5,7_CM − r2,4,6,8_CM)×fJ(r1, r3, r5, r7)× fJ(r2, r4, r6, r8)× ∏ g(rnm)] (8). ... In this context we are using this function to account for the formation of four-particle clusters ... that we suspect will occur in the eight-particle case. ... DMC computations impose a nodal Ansatz: if this is sufficiently constricting, then the intuitively expected state of matter may not materialize."

    The trial wave function that produces the headline result is, by construction, an antisymmetrized product of two four-particle clusters with intercluster correlations. Fixed-node DMC cannot leave the nodal surface imposed by this ansatz, so the computed E8/E4 is an upper bound constrained to the two-cluster channel. The conclusion that eight four-component fermions 'do cluster into two four-particle subsystems' is therefore a property of the chosen variational structure rather than an independent determination of the true ground state. The paper's own caveat that a sufficiently constricting nodal ansatz may prevent the expected state from materializing concedes exactly this limitation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (12) and the sentence immediately following it]
    "In order to extrapolate, we fit our DMC results to the form: E8/E4 = c0 + c1/[µR4(µ)] + c2/[µR4(µ)]^2. In the limit of µR4(µ) going to infinity, namely a zero-range interaction, the ratio of the eight-particle to four-particle system goes to 2.04 ± 0.05 where we carried out standard error propagation."

    The zero-range 'result' 2.04 ± 0.05 is the leading coefficient c0 of a polynomial fit to finite-range DMC values of E8/E4. It is not obtained from a zero-range calculation or from the Hamiltonian in the zero-range limit; it is the fitted value of the fit's intercept. Thus the headline zero-range ratio is an output of the fitting procedure rather than an independently predicted quantity. While finite-range extrapolation is a standard and defensible procedure, presenting the fitted c0 as the universal zero-range ratio makes the claim partly an artifact of the chosen fit form and of the already cluster-biased input data.

full rationale

The paper performs genuine DMC calculations and does not merely fold externally fitted parameters into the central energy ratio; E8/E4 is computed from a microscopic Hamiltonian with tuned potentials. However, the central clustering conclusion is strongly shaped by the trial wave function: the only form that yields E8/E4 near 2 is ψC_T of Eq. (8), which explicitly imposes a two-cluster structure, and the fixed-node approximation inherits that nodal constraint. The paper itself acknowledges that a constricting nodal Ansatz can prevent the true state from materializing. Additionally, the zero-range value 2.04 is the intercept c0 of the fit in Eq. (12), so the headline zero-range number is a fitted quantity. The self-citation to Ref. [47] for the E4 benchmark is not load-bearing for the E8/E4 ratio, and the comparison among trial wave functions gives some independent content. On balance, the central claim is partially circular, but not fully reducible to its inputs, because the energy ratio is still a nontrivial Monte Carlo result that could in principle have differed. Score 4 reflects this partial, not total, circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QMC assumptions (fixed-node approximation, universality of the unitary limit), hand-set potential strengths, optimized variational parameters, and a polynomial extrapolation whose leading coefficient is quoted as the zero-range result.

free parameters (4)
  • V2 (two-body potential strength) = tuned to two-body unitarity
    Set so the two-body scattering length diverges (Eq. 2); a required input to define the unitary limit.
  • V3 (three-body potential strength) = 3.0 (varied 4-18 in Supplemental)
    Hand-chosen repulsion to prevent Thomas collapse; E8/E4 was found independent of V3 within statistical errors.
  • Variational parameters in ψ_C = optimized in VMC
    The parameters β0, β1, n, α, γ, αJ, µJ, d, uJ, rJ, γg and αg are adjusted to minimize the VMC energy; they determine the nodal surface and therefore affect the fixed-node DMC upper bound.
  • c0, c1, c2 (Eq. 12 polynomial coefficients) = c0 = 2.04 ± 0.05; c1 and c2 not reported
    Fit to finite-range DMC data for extrapolation to zero range; the headline zero-range E8/E4 ratio is the fitted coefficient c0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fixed-node DMC energies are variational upper bounds that converge to the ground-state energy as the trial nodal surface improves.
    All reported E8/E4 values are fixed-node results, so they are upper bounds; the accuracy of the central claim depends on how close the ψ_C nodal surface is to the true one.
  • domain assumption A finite-range Gaussian Hamiltonian tuned to two-body unitarity belongs to the same universality class as the zero-range unitary limit, with corrections governed by µR4.
    The extrapolation in Eq. (12) and the claim that V3 variations do not matter rely on this universality assumption.
  • standard math Four is the maximum number of four-component fermions in relative S waves.
    This Pauli-principle argument motivates expecting N=4 clusters and the 8=4+4 structure.
  • domain assumption A repulsive three-body potential is required to prevent Thomas collapse of the four-body system at unitarity.
    The Hamiltonian includes V3 by construction, citing Refs. [33-35]; this stabilizes the system.
  • domain assumption The known four-boson energy E4 = 4.611E3 from Ref. [40] is accurate and serves as a valid benchmark for the four-particle subsystem.
    The paper uses E4 as the normalizing scale and checks its DMC value against four-boson results from Ref. [47].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustering of Four-Component Unitary Fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6VT2GFE

@misc{pith2026190804288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustering of Four-Component Unitary Fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6VT2GFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04288}
}
read the original abstract

Ab initio nuclear physics tackles the problem of strongly interacting four-component fermions. The same setting could foreseeably be probed experimentally in ultracold atomic systems, where two- and three-component experiments have led to major breakthroughs in recent years. Both due to the problem's inherent interest and as a pathway to nuclear physics, in this Letter we study four-component fermions at unitarity via the use of quantum Monte Carlo methods. We explore novel forms of the trial wave function and find one which leads to a ground state of the eight-particle system whose energy is almost equal to that of two four-particle systems. We investigate the clustering properties involved and also extrapolate to the zero-range limit. In addition to being experimentally testable, our results impact the prospects of developing nuclear physics as a perturbation around the unitary limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04288 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. DMC running average for all three forms of trial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DMC results for the ratio of the eight-particle system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. DMC results for the ratio of the eight-particle system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Phys. Rep. 428, 259 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Giorgini, L

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1215 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Levinsen and M

    J. Levinsen and M. M. Parish, Annu. Rev. Cold At. Mol. 3, 1 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Naidon and S

    P. Naidon and S. Endo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 056001 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 050401 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200404 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    von Stecher, C

    J. von Stecher, C. H. Greene, and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. A 77, 043619 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    M. M. Forbes, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 235303 (2011)

    2011

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Bertaina and S

    G. Bertaina and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 110403 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    E. R. Anderson and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 115301 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    H. Shi, S. Chiesa, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033603 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Galea, H

    A. Galea, H. Dawkins, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023602 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    H. Shi, P. Rosenberg, S. Chiesa, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 040401 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Lacroix, Phys

    D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. A 94, 043614 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Blume, S

    D. Blume, S. T. Rittenhouse, J. von Stecher, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033627 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    W. G. Dawkins and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 96, 043619 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    J. E. Drut, J. R. McKenney, W. S. Daza, C. L. Lin, and C. R. Ord´ o˜ nez, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 243002 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Horikoshi, M

    M. Horikoshi, M. Koashi, H. Tajima, Y. Ohashi, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Gezerlis and J

    A. Gezerlis and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 77, 032801(R) (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Gezerlis and J

    A. Gezerlis and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 81, 025803 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2012 01A209

    2012

  14. [22]

    Gandolfi, A

    S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, and J. Carlson, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 303 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Lacroix, A

    D. Lacroix, A. Boulet, M. Grasso, and C.-J. Yang Phys. Rev. C 95, 054306 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    G. C. Strinati, P. Pieri, G. Roepke, P. Schuck, and M. Urban, Phys. Rep. 738, 1 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    K¨ onig, H

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Griesshammer, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 202501 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    K¨ onig, J

    S. K¨ onig, J. Phys. G44, 064007 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    van Kolck, Few Body Syst

    U. van Kolck, Few Body Syst. 58, 112 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Kievsky, M

    A. Kievsky, M. Viviani, D. Logoteta, I. Bombaci, and L. Girlanda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 072701 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Rupak, A

    G. Rupak, A. Vaghani, R. Higa and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 791, 414 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Gattobigio, A

    M. Gattobigio, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034004 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    K¨ onig, arXiv:1910.12627

    S. K¨ onig, arXiv:1910.12627

    1910 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, arXiv:1906.12122

    1906 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L. H. Thomas, Phys. Rev. 47, 903 (1935)

    1935

  26. [34]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 463 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A646, 444 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Efimov, Phys

    V. Efimov, Phys. Lett. 33B, 563 (1970)

    1970

  29. [37]

    Platter, H.-W

    L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and Ulf-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052101 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Hammer and L

    H.-W. Hammer and L. Platter, Eur. Phys. J. A 32, 113 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Schmidt and S

    R. Schmidt and S. Moroz, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052709 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Deltuva, Phys

    A. Deltuva, Phys. Rev. A 82, 040701(R) (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    von Stecher, J

    J. von Stecher, J. Phys. B 43, 101002 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    A. N. Nicholson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 073003 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Kievsky, N

    A. Kievsky, N. K. Timofeyuk, and M. Gattobigio, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032504 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Yan, and D

    Y. Yan, and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033626 (2015). 6

    2015

  37. [45]

    Bazak, M

    B. Bazak, M. Eliyahu, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052502 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Bazak, J

    B. Bazak, J. Kirscher, S. K¨ onig, M. Pav´ on Valderrama, N. Barnea, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 143001 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, U. van Kolck, and S. A. Vitiello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223002 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Platter, H.-W

    L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 607, 254 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Stetcu, B

    I. Stetcu, B. R. Barrett, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 653, 358 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    Kirscher, H

    J. Kirscher, H. W. Grießhammer, D. Shukla, and H. M. Hofmann, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 239 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Lensky, M

    V. Lensky, M. C. Birse, and N. R. Walet, Phys. Rev. C 94, 034003 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Contessi, A

    L. Contessi, A. Lovato, F. Pederiva, A. Roggero, J. Kirscher, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 772, 839 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Bansal, S

    A. Bansal, S. Binder, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054301 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014314 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 032501 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Coraggio, J

    L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Machleidt, and F. Sammarruca, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014322 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. A. Wendt, G. Baardsen, S. Gandolfi, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 89, 014319 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, M. Freunek, S. Gan- dolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054323 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Carbone, A

    A. Carbone, A. Rios, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054322 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Roggero, A

    A. Roggero, A. Mukherjee, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 221103 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Wlaz/suppress lowski, J

    G. Wlaz/suppress lowski, J. W. Holt, S. Moroz, A. Bulgac, and K. J. Roche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 182503 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Som` a, A

    V. Som` a, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, P. Navr´ atil, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C 89, 061301(R) (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Elhatisari, D

    S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, T. Luu, and U.-G. Meißner, Nature (Lon- don) 528, 111 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 93, 024305 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Piarulli, A

    M. Piarulli, A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, Ewing Lusk, L.E. Marcucci, Steven C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 052503 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Lonardoni, J

    D. Lonardoni, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, J. E. Lynn, K. E. Schmidt, A. Schwenk, and X. B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 122502 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    J.E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and A. Lovato, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 279 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

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

    2019

  61. [69]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

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

    2018

  62. [70]

    Sammarruca, L

    F. Sammarruca, L. E. Marcucci, L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, and R. Machleidt, arXiv:1807.06640

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Machleidt, P

    R. Machleidt, P. Liu, D. R. Entem, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024001 (2010)

    2010

  64. [72]

    Elhatisari, N

    S. Elhatisari, N. Li, A. Rokash, J. M. Alarc´ on, D. Du, N. Klein, B.-N. Lu, Ulf-G. Meißner, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 132501 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    Elhatisari, E

    S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-N. Lu, Ulf-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222505 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    B.-n. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134863 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    J. Benn, E. B. Dally, H. H. M¨ uller, R. E. Pixley, H. H. Staub, and H. Winkler, Nucl. Phys. A106, 296 (1967)

    1967

  68. [76]

    W¨ ustenbecker, H

    S. W¨ ustenbecker, H. W. Becker, H. Ebbing, W. H. Schulte, M. Berheide, M. Buschmann, C. Rolfs, G. E. Mitchell, and J. S. Schweitzer, Z. Phys. A 344, 205 (1992)

    1992

  69. [77]

    Sorella, Phys

    S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B 64, 024512 (2001)

    2001

  70. [78]

    Wildermuth and Th

    K. Wildermuth and Th. Kanellopoulos, Nucl. Phys. 9, 449 (1958/59)

    1958

  71. [79]

    R. B. Wiringa, S. C. Pieper, J. Carlson, and V. R. Pand- haripande, Phys. Rev. C 62, 014001 (2000)

    2000

  72. [80]

    org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.000.000000 for different choices of V3

    See the Supplemental Material at https://link.aps. org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.000.000000 for different choices of V3. Supplemental Material for: Clustering of Four-Component Unitary Fermions William G. Dawkins, 1 J. Carlson, 2 U. van Kolck, 3, 4 and Alexandros Gezerli...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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