Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Adding one d3/2 orbital restores the measured two-neutrino decay rate of 48Ca and doubles its neutrinoless-decay matrix element.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:47 UTC pith:X4BGEFLW

load-bearing objection The enlarged d3/2pf result is the real news — it fixes the 2νββ under-prediction and roughly doubles the 0νββ NME — but the convergence support is thinner than the headline suggests, so read the factor-of-two as a strong hint, not a final number. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11733 v2 pith:X4BGEFLW submitted 2026-07-13 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Ab initio calculations of two-neutrino and neutrinoless double-boldsymbol{β} decay of ⁴⁸Ca and related Gamow-Teller strength distributions

Zhen Li , Lotta Jokiniemi , Achim Schwenk This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex PACS 23.40.Hc21.60.Cs
keywords double-beta decayneutrinoless double-beta decaynuclear matrix elementVS-IMSRGGamow-Teller strengthcalcium-48valence spacechiral effective field theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG) with chiral effective field theory interactions to compute double-beta decay matrix elements for 48Ca. The standard pf-shell valence space, widely used for this nucleus, significantly underestimates the two-neutrino double-beta (2νββ) matrix element relative to experiment. When the valence space is enlarged to include the d3/2 orbital, the calculated 2νββ matrix element agrees with experiment without any adjustments, and the predicted Gamow-Teller strength distributions match charge-exchange data better. In the enlarged space, the neutrinoless double-beta (0νββ) matrix element is roughly twice as large as in the pf shell, which would shorten the predicted 0νββ half-life by a factor of about four. The paper argues that the choice of valence space is a dominant, underappreciated source of uncertainty in ab initio double-beta decay calculations.

Core claim

Central claim: the valence-space truncation, not the chiral interaction, drives the long-standing underprediction of the 48Ca 2νββ NME. In the pf shell, VS-IMSRG(2) with the 1.8/2.0 (EM) and ΔN2LOGO (394) interactions including two-body currents yields |M2ν| = 0.0125 and 0.0106 MeV⁻¹, far below the experimental value (~0.04). In the enlarged d3/2pf space, the same interactions give 0.0395 and 0.0458 MeV⁻¹, matching experiment. The improvement is traced to the Gamow-Teller strength distributions: the enlarged space shifts the dominant Ti→Sc strength to lower excitation energies and reduces a destructive contribution near 8.5 MeV, producing a steadier running sum. For 0νββ decay, the enlarged

What carries the argument

Key machinery: the VS-IMSRG(2) evolution that dresses the Hamiltonian and the Gamow-Teller operator for a chosen valence space, followed by shell-model diagonalization. The central comparison is between the conventional pf space (0f7/2, 1p3/2, 0f5/2, 1p1/2) and an enlarged d3/2pf space (adding 0d3/2 above a 32S core). The diagnostic is the running sum of M2ν over intermediate 1+ states in 48Sc: the pf space yields a peak-then-cancel pattern that suppresses the NME, while the d3/2pf space yields a larger, steadier accumulation. The underlying quantities are the GT transition strengths from 48Ca and 48Ti to 48Sc; the enlarged space moves the Ti→Sc strength downward in energy and weakens the Ca

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical approximations in the d3/2pf calculation—the 4ℏω truncation, the 250-state intermediate sum, and the normal-ordered two-body truncation of the evolved operators—leave errors much smaller than the factor-of-two effect the paper attributes to the valence-space enlargement.

What would settle it

A fully converged calculation in the d3/2pf space (no 4ℏω truncation, all intermediate 1+ states, and IMSRG(3) operator evolution) that returns the 2νββ NME to the pf-shell value and the 0νββ NME to near 0.8 would falsify the claim that the enlarged valence space is responsible. A high-resolution 48Sc GT-strength measurement showing no low-energy shift of the dominant peaks would also undermine the proposed mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The measured 2νββ half-life of 48Ca is reproduced without any phenomenological quenching of gA once the d3/2 orbital is included in the valence space.
  • The 0νββ NME doubles when the valence space is enlarged, which shortens the predicted half-life by roughly a factor of four for a fixed Majorana mass.
  • The enlarged-space GT strength distributions agree substantially better with charge-exchange reaction data, indicating the 2νββ improvement reflects real nuclear-structure physics.
  • Pf-shell ab initio calculations of 48Ca, and plausibly single-shell valence-space calculations for heavier ββ emitters, systematically underpredict NMEs because they omit important correlations.
  • Because 2νββ and 0νββ NMEs are correlated, accurate 2νββ half-life measurements can serve as a practical benchmark for validating the valence spaces used in 0νββ predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the valence-space effect seen in 48Ca carries over to heavier emitters (76Ge, 100Mo, 130Te, 136Xe), the spread in ab initio 0νββ NMEs may be larger than current error bars admit, widening the uncertainty on neutrino-mass limits from experiments like LEGEND and nEXO.
  • The factor-of-two NME increase suggests that future ab initio work should prioritize extended multi-shell valence spaces over further chiral-interaction refinement, since the former dominates the NME uncertainty for 48Ca.
  • A high-resolution measurement of the 48Sc GT strength distribution could test the predicted low-energy shift of the dominant peaks below about 7 MeV; if the shift is absent, the mechanism behind the NME restoration would be called into question.
  • The observation that a single added orbital rescues the pf-shell result hints that a systematic 'valence-space convergence' pattern might exist across the calcium isotopes, which could be mapped by a series of VS-IMSRG calculations with progressively larger spaces.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VS-IMSRG(2) calculations of the 2νββ and 0νββ decay NMEs of 48Ca using two chiral NN+3N interactions and including leading two-body weak currents. In the standard pf-shell valence space, the 2νββ NME is significantly smaller than the experimental value, whereas an enlarged d3/2pf valence space yields M2ν ≈ 0.040–0.046 MeV^-1, consistent with experiment. The enlarged space also improves the computed GT strength distributions relative to charge-exchange data, and increases the 0νββ NME by roughly a factor of two (or more) relative to the pf-shell result. The authors interpret this as evidence that standard ab initio valence spaces may underestimate 0νββ NMEs, and call for extended-space studies in heavier candidates.

Significance. If the enlarged-space results are robust, the paper makes an important point: valence-space truncation, not only the many-body method or the operator, can change 2νββ and 0νββ NMEs by large factors. The use of two chiral interactions, the consistent inclusion of two-body currents, the comparison with independent charge-exchange GT data, and the explicit comparison with many other many-body methods are all strengths. The work also provides tabulated NMEs, allowing others to benchmark. However, the central quantitative claim—that the enlarged space removes most of the 2νββ discrepancy—currently rests on truncations and sensitivity checks that are not fully converged or quantified. The paper is therefore significant if the missing error budget can be supplied, but the present evidence is not yet at the level of a definitive claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Results for 2νββ decay; Fig. 2; Table I] The central d3/2pf result, M2ν ≈ 0.040–0.046 MeV^-1 versus the pf-shell 0.011–0.013, is obtained with a 4ℏω truncation and 250 intermediate states. No convergence test for either truncation is provided. The 'exact diagonalization' benchmark in Fig. 2 is truncated to 40 intermediate states, whereas the quoted NMEs use 250; the tail between 40 and 250 states is therefore not validated. Because the claimed effect is ~0.03 MeV^-1, an unquantified shift of ~0.01 MeV^-1 is material. Please provide a systematic convergence study or a quantitative bound on truncation error.
  2. [Table I; Fig. 2 (right panel)] No error bars or uncertainty ranges are given for any 2νββ NME. For 0νββ, Table II reports ranges from emax/reference variations, but Table I does not. The right panel of Fig. 2 varies one parameter at a time at 100 intermediate states; this does not bound the combined uncertainty from basis, IMSRG generator, normal-ordering reference, and truncation effects. The 2νββ claim of 'very good agreement with experiment' needs a corresponding error estimate.
  3. [Theoretical framework; Implications for 0νββ decay] All results, including the factor-of-two 0νββ conclusion, use VS-IMSRG(2), i.e., operators are truncated at the normal-ordered two-body level. Induced three-body operators in the evolved GT and 0νββ operators are neglected, with no estimate. Since the paper's main message is that missing correlations change NMEs by factors of two, the same operator-truncation issue could affect the enlarged-space result. Please quantify this using, e.g., normal-ordering reference variations (as partly done for 0ν) or a direct check of three-body contributions.
  4. [GT strengths and charge-exchange reactions; Fig. 3] The text explicitly states that the weak-interaction 2BCs 'may not be fully appropriate for charge-exchange reactions,' yet the comparison with experimental B(GT) includes 1BC+2BC results. This makes the validation ambiguous: the apparent improvement with the enlarged space could be partly an artifact of applying an operator not valid for the observable. Please separate the 1BC and 1BC+2BC comparisons, or justify the use of weak 2BCs in (p,n)/(n,p) reactions.
  5. [Abstract; Results for 2νββ decay] The claim that the d3/2pf result is obtained 'without any adjustments' is too strong, because the enlarged space was selected after the pf-shell underestimate was already known. This is not circular, thanks to the independent charge-exchange GT data used for validation, but the valence-space choice is a model-selection step. A systematic comparison of several enlarged spaces, or an a priori criterion for selecting the space, would make the 'no adjustments' statement defensible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theoretical framework] The notation '4ℏω truncation' is defined only in words ('limiting the number of nucleons excited from the 0d3/2 orbital to the pf shell to 4'); it would be clearer to state this in equation or configuration-count form. Also define E3max when first used.
  2. [Table I] Table I lists |M2ν|, but the text discusses a negative NME for the ΔN2LOGO(394) pf-shell case. Please indicate signs or note that the table gives absolute values.
  3. [Fig. 3] The figure caption describes 'upper two rows' and 'lower two rows' but the layout is not obvious; please label panels explicitly (a)–(h) and refer to them in the text.
  4. [Implications for 0νββ decay] The statement that 'we exclude higher-order corrections ... (whose effects are negligible)' is supported by a single reference; a brief quantitative estimate would be more convincing.
  5. [References] There are several upcoming/2026 references; please check that all are publicly available or add arXiv identifiers (e.g., Refs. [1], [5], [6], [37], [65], [78]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the a posteriori valence-space choice is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The 2νββ NME is computed from Eq. (1) with VS-IMSRG(2) wave functions generated from two chiral interactions; neither the Hamiltonian nor the valence-space parameters are fitted to the experimental half-life. The d3/2pf space was selected after the pf-shell shortfall was known, but this is a model-selection issue rather than a circular reduction: no equation is defined in terms of the target result, and the same calculation independently reproduces the shape of the experimental GT strength distributions (Fig. 3) and the compressed 48Sc spectrum. The 0νββ result is a separate full-diagonalization calculation and does not depend on the 2νββ outcome. Self-citations (VS-IMSRG [52-56], 2BC implementation [41]) are standard peer-reviewed methodology; Ref. [41] is constrained by N=50 β-decay half-lives and the 2BC operators trace to chiral EFT [61-63], while the 0νββ SR term comes from external matching [77,90,91]. Remaining concerns—the 4ℏω truncation, the 250-state sum, the 40-state exact diagonalization benchmark, and VS-IMSRG(2) operator truncation—are convergence/uncertainty issues, not identity-by-construction circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard ab initio assumptions (χEFT validity, VS-IMSRG(2) truncation) plus hand-chosen numerical parameters of the enlarged-space calculation (β, Δ, basis/truncation choices, smoothing width). No new physical entities are introduced; the numerical parameters are tested for sensitivity but are not part of a full systematic error budget.

free parameters (5)
  • Center-of-mass constraint strength β = β = 2
    Added to H' = H + β H_c.m. in the d3/2pf calculation to remove spurious center-of-mass motion; tested at β=3 in Fig. 2. Hand-chosen numerical parameter, not fitted to beta-decay data.
  • IMSRG generator energy shift Δ = 5 MeV
    Shift in the denominator of the IMSRG generator for the d3/2pf valence space (Ref. [73]); tested at 10 MeV in Fig. 2. Chosen by hand to control convergence.
  • Basis parameters emax, ℏω, E3max = emax=12, ℏω=16 MeV, E3max=24
    Harmonic-oscillator basis size and 3N truncation; tested with emax=14 and ℏω=12 MeV in Fig. 2. Chosen for convergence, not fitted to double-beta observables.
  • 4ℏω truncation and 250 intermediate states = 4ℏω; up to 250 states
    Truncation of the number of nucleons excited from 0d3/2 to the pf shell, and number of 1+ states used in the 2νββ running sum; tested against exact diagonalization with 40 states and 100-state truncated sums in Fig. 2.
  • Gaussian smoothing width for B(GT) = 0.25 MeV
    Used to smooth GT strength distributions for comparison with experimental charge-exchange strengths; width chosen by hand and affects apparent peak heights in Fig. 3.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT NN+3N interactions and N2LO axial two-body currents accurately describe weak transitions in 48Ca relevant for double-beta decay.
    The entire calculation rests on χEFT; 2BCs are included for 2νββ but not for 0νββ, and the paper estimates neglected corrections below 10%.
  • domain assumption VS-IMSRG(2) truncation of evolved operators to the normal-ordered two-body level is accurate.
    All operators (Hamiltonian, GT, 0νββ LR/SR) are truncated at two-body level; the paper notes neglected higher-body operators can carry important correlations, which the enlarged space is claimed to restore.
  • domain assumption The 4ℏω truncated diagonalization with 250 intermediate 1+ states converges the 2νββ running sum.
    Feasibility truncation in the d3/2pf space; the exact-diagonalization check uses only 40 states, so full convergence is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The short-range contact-term coupling for 0νββ from Ref. [77] (with synthetic data from Refs. [90,91]) is valid for 48Ca in this framework.
    Used for M0ν_SR; the coupling is not derived in this paper and contributes roughly half of the LR+SR value in the enlarged space.
  • standard math The Fermi contribution to the 2νββ NME is negligible for 48Ca.
    The double-Fermi transition mainly occurs between isobaric analog states and is suppressed for the ground-state-to-ground-state transition in 48Ca; standard result (Ref. [57]).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14646 in / 16610 out tokens · 158360 ms · 2026-08-02T06:47:37.931007+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present ab initio calculations of two-neutrino double-beta ($2\nu\beta\beta$) decay of $^{48}$Ca and the related Gamow-Teller (GT) strength functions in $^{48}$Sc using the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG) with nuclear interactions and electroweak currents based on chiral effective field theory. We find that the usual $pf$-shell valence space significantly underestimates the nuclear matrix element (NME) of $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay compared to experiment, while an enlarged $d_{3/2}pf$ valence space yields very good agreement with the experimental value without any adjustments. We trace this to an improved description of the involved GT strength distributions, so that the enlarged valence space captures important correlations. The enlarged $d_{3/2}pf$ valence space leads to neutrinoless $\beta\beta$ NMEs of $^{48}$Ca that are twice as large compared to the $pf$-shell calculation. Our findings suggest that studies with different valence spaces and related GT strengths are important for assessing ab initio NME calculations of heavier $\beta\beta$ decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11733 by Achim Schwenk, Lotta Jokiniemi, Zhen Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Running sum of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. VS-IMSRG(2) results for GT transition strength distributions with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Two-neutrino double-weak decays of $^{126}$Xe and $^{134}$Xe from different many-body methods

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    pnQRPA, shell model, IBM-2, and heavy-nucleus EFT give mutually consistent 2ν half-life ranges for 126Xe ECEC and 134Xe ββ, with 134Xe lower bounds below ~2×10^24 y.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kakkar, D

    S. Kakkar, D. Perera, J. Ash, B. Ashrafkhani, J. Car- dona, C. Chambers, A. Czihaly, G. Gwinner, Z. Hock- enbery, M. Horoi, A. Kwiatkowski, E. Leistenschneider, M. Lykiardopoulou, F. M. Millan, A. Mollaebrahimi, S. Paul, W. S. Porter, D. Ray, M. Redshaw, R. Ringle, C. Walls, and A. Weaver, First direct measurement of 48Ca singleβ-decayQvalue with the TITA...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Goeppert-Mayer, Double beta-disintegration, Phys

    M. Goeppert-Mayer, Double beta-disintegration, Phys. Rev.48, 512 (1935)

    1935

  3. [3]

    Barabash, Precise half-life values for two-neutrino double-βdecay: 2020 review, Universe6, 159 (2020)

    A. Barabash, Precise half-life values for two-neutrino double-βdecay: 2020 review, Universe6, 159 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Pritychenko and V

    B. Pritychenko and V. I. Tretyak, Comprehensive review of 2βdecay half-lives, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables161, 101694 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    D. Q. Adamset al.(CUORE Collaboration), Half-life and precision shape measurement of 2νββdecay of 130Te (2025), arXiv:2503.24137 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Yuanet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Precise 136Xe double beta decay measurement in PandaX-4T with im- plications on the nuclear matrix elements and Majorons, Phys

    Z. Yuanet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Precise 136Xe double beta decay measurement in PandaX-4T with im- plications on the nuclear matrix elements and Majorons, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 162501 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Hirsch, S

    M. Hirsch, S. Kovalenko, and I. Schmidt, Extended black box theorem for lepton number and flavor violating pro- cesses, Phys. Lett. B642, 106 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Neu- trinoless double-beta decay: Status and prospects, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 219 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    The 0νββNME at leading order in χEFT [29–31] is written asM 0ν =M 0ν LR +M 0ν SR, with a long-range (LR) termM 0ν LR and a short-range (SR) contact termM 0ν SR

    with effective Majorana massm ββ and phase-space factorG 0ν [59]. The 0νββNME at leading order in χEFT [29–31] is written asM 0ν =M 0ν LR +M 0ν SR, with a long-range (LR) termM 0ν LR and a short-range (SR) contact termM 0ν SR. The LR term (with N 2LO correc- tions to the 1BCs) has the same expression as in the phenomenological formalism [21] but without t...

    2020

  10. [10]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Men´ endez, and F. Vissani, Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinolessββdecay, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    J. J. G´ omez-Cadenas, J. Mart ´ ın-Albo, J. Men´ endez, M. Mezzetto, F. Monrabal, and M. Sorel, The search for neutrinoless double-beta decay, Riv. Nuovo Cimento46, 619 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Antonet al.(EXO-200 Collaboration), Search for neutrinoless double-βdecay with the complete EXO-200 dataset, Phys

    G. Antonet al.(EXO-200 Collaboration), Search for neutrinoless double-βdecay with the complete EXO-200 dataset, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161802 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Final results of GERDA on the search for neutrinoless double-βdecay, Phys

    M. Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Final results of GERDA on the search for neutrinoless double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 252502 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Albaneseet al.(SNO+ Collaboration), The SNO+ experiment, J

    V. Albaneseet al.(SNO+ Collaboration), The SNO+ experiment, J. Instrum.16, P08059 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    D. Q. Adamset al.(CUORE Collaboration), Con- straints on lepton number violation with the 2 tonne·year CUORE dataset, Science390, 1029 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Abeet al.(KamLAND-Zen Collaboration), Search for Majorana neutrinos with the complete KamLAND-Zen dataset, Phys

    S. Abeet al.(KamLAND-Zen Collaboration), Search for Majorana neutrinos with the complete KamLAND-Zen dataset, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 262501 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Acharyaet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), First re- sults on the search for lepton number violating neutrino- less double-βdecay with the LEGEND-200 experiment, Phys

    H. Acharyaet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), First re- sults on the search for lepton number violating neutrino- less double-βdecay with the LEGEND-200 experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 022701 (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    Adhikariet al.(nEXO Collaboration), nEXO: neutri- noless double beta decay search beyond 1028 year half-life sensitivity, J

    G. Adhikariet al.(nEXO Collaboration), nEXO: neutri- noless double beta decay search beyond 1028 year half-life sensitivity, J. Phys. G49, 015104 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Abgrallet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), LEGEND-1000 Preconceptual Design Report (2021), arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det]

    N. Abgrallet al.(LEGEND Collaboration), LEGEND-1000 Preconceptual Design Report (2021), arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Trotta (CUPID Collaboration), The CUPID neutrino- less double-beta decay experiment, Nucl

    D. Trotta (CUPID Collaboration), The CUPID neutrino- less double-beta decay experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res. A1066, 169657 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD Collaboration), Neutrinoless double beta decay sensitivity of the XLZD rare event observatory, J

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD Collaboration), Neutrinoless double beta decay sensitivity of the XLZD rare event observatory, J. Phys. G52, 045102 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Status and future of nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double-beta decay: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 046301 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    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)

    2020

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    Ekstr¨ om, C

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

    2023

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field the- ory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

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

    2020

  29. [29]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, High-precision nuclear forces from chiral EFT: State-of-the-art, chal- lenges and outlook, Front. in Phys.8, 98 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and A. Walker- Loud, Neutrinoless double-βdecay in effective field the- ory: The light-Majorana neutrino-exchange mechanism, Phys. Rev. C97, 065501 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore, and U. van Kolck, New leading contribution to neutrinoless double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 202001 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser, and E. Mereghetti, A neutrinoless double beta decay master formula from effective field theory, JHEP2018(12), 97

  33. [33]

    J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Engel, R. Wirth, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, and H. Hergert,Ab initiotreatment of collective corre- lations and the neutrinoless double beta decay of 48Ca, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 232501 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Belley, C

    A. Belley, C. G. Payne, S. R. Stroberg, T. Miyagi, and J. D. Holt,Ab initioneutrinoless double-beta decay ma- trix elements for 48Ca, 76Ge, and 82Se, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 042502 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Novario, P

    S. Novario, P. Gysbers, J. Engel, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navr´ atil, T. Papenbrock, and S. Quaglioni, Coupled-cluster calculations of neutrinoless double-βdecay in 48Ca, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 182502 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Belley, T

    A. Belley, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt,Ab initiocalculations of neutrinolessββdecay refine neu- trino mass limits (2023), arXiv:2307.15156 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Belley, J

    A. Belley, J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Pitcher, J. Engel, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, T. Miyagi, T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, A. M. Romero, S. R. Stroberg, and X. Zhang,Ab initiouncer- tainty quantification of neutrinoless double-beta decay in 76Ge, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182502 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    X. Lian, C. R. Ding, C. L. Bai, and J. M. Yao,Ab ini- tiocorrelations between neutrinoless and two-neutrino double-beta decays in 48Ca (2026), arXiv:2605.19479 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Gysbers, G

    P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navr´ atil, T. Papenbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. Stroberg,et al., Discrepancy between ex- perimental and theoreticalβ-decay rates resolved from first principles, Nat. Phys.15, 428 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    G. B. King, L. Andreoli, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, R. Schi- avilla, R. B. Wiringa, J. Carlson, and S. Gandolfi, Chiral Effective Field Theory Calculations of Weak Transitions in Light Nuclei, Phys. Rev. C102, 025501 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    G. B. King and S. Pastore, Recent Progress in the Elec- troweak Structure of Light Nuclei Using Quantum Monte 7 Carlo Methods, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 343 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Z. Li, T. Miyagi, and A. Schwenk,Ab initiocalcula- tions ofβ-decay half-lives forN= 50 neutron-rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 182501 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Men´ endez, D

    J. Men´ endez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Chiral two-body currents in nuclei: Gamow-Teller transitions and neutri- noless double-beta decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062501 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    L.-J. Wang, J. Engel, and J. M. Yao, Quenching of nu- clear matrix elements for 0νββdecay by chiral two-body currents, Phys. Rev. C98, 031301(R) (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Jokiniemi, B

    L. Jokiniemi, B. Romeo, P. Soriano, and J. Men´ endez, Neutrinolessββ-decay nuclear matrix elements from two- neutrinoββ-decay data, Phys. Rev. C107, 044305 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Chambers-Wall, J

    G. Chambers-Wall, J. Lieffers, G. B. King, E. Mereghetti, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, and R. B. Wiringa, Three-nucleon lepton-number-violating potentials in chiral effective field theory and their matrix elements in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C113, 025502 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    C. G. Payne,Ab initio theory for two-neutrino and neu- trinoless double-beta decay, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    R. A. Sen’kov and M. Horoi, Accurate shell-model nu- clear matrix elements for neutrinoless double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C90, 051301 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Statistical analy- sis for the neutrinoless double-β-decay matrix element of 48Ca, Phys. Rev. C106, 054302 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Predicting the neu- trinoless double-β-decay matrix element of 136Xe using a statistical approach, Phys. Rev. C107, 045501 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Neacsu and M

    A. Neacsu and M. Horoi, Neutrinoless double-beta decay investigations of 82Se using three shell model Hamiltoni- ans, Symmetry16, 974 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Horoi and A

    M. Horoi and A. Neacsu, Uncertainty quantification of the 76Ge neutrinoless double-beta decay nuclear matrix element (2026), arXiv:2605.21657 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, In-medium similarity renormalization group for nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 222502 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, In-medium similarity renormalization group for open-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C85, 061304(R) (2012)

    2012

  55. [55]

    Hergert, S

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

    2016

  56. [56]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Nucleus-dependent valence-space approach to nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 032502 (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    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

  58. [58]

    Suhonen and O

    J. Suhonen and O. Civitarese, Weak-interaction and nuclear-structure aspects of nuclear double beta decay, Phys. Rep.300, 123 (1998)

    1998

  59. [59]

    el Morabit, R

    S. el Morabit, R. Bouabid, V. Cirigliano, J. de Vries, L. Gr´ af, and E. Mereghetti, 2νββspectrum in chiral ef- fective field theory, JHEP2025(6), 1

  60. [60]

    Kotila and F

    J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phase-space factors for double- βdecay, Phys. Rev. C85, 034316 (2012)

    2012

  61. [61]

    Kotila and F

    J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phase space factors forβ +β+ decay and competing modes of double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C87, 024313 (2013)

    2013

  62. [62]

    T.-S. Park, L. E. Marcucci, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, K. Kubodera, D.-P. Min, and M. Rho, Parameter-free effective field theory calculation for the solar proton-fusion and hep processes, Phys. Rev. C67, 055206 (2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Krebs, E

    H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Nuclear ax- ial current operators to fourth order in chiral effective field theory, Ann. Phys.378, 317 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: EFT analysis and nu- clear responses, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    ˇSimkovic, R

    F. ˇSimkovic, R. Dvornick´ y, D. Stef´ anik, and A. Faessler, Improved description of the 2νββ-decay and a possibility to determine the effective axial-vector coupling constant, Phys. Rev. C97, 034315 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    Castillo, D

    D. Castillo, D. Frycz, B. Benavente, and J. Men´ endez, Two-neutrinoββdecay to excited states at next-to- leading order, Phys. Lett. B875, 140306 (2026)

    2026

  67. [67]

    Hebeler, S

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

    2011

  68. [68]

    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 ∆ isobars, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020)

    2020

  69. [69]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Convergedab initiocalculations of heavy nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    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)

    2023

  71. [71]

    S. R. Stroberg,https://github.com/ragnarstroberg/ imsrg

  72. [72]

    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)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Gloeckner and R

    D. Gloeckner and R. Lawson, Spurious center-of-mass motion, Phys. Lett. B53, 313 (1974)

    1974

  74. [74]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, and N. Shimizu, Ab initiomultishell valence-space Hamiltonians and the island of inversion, Phys. Rev. C102, 034320 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  76. [76]

    W. C. Haxton, K. M. Nollett, and K. M. Zurek, Piecewise moments method: Generalized lanczos technique for nu- clear response surfaces, Phys. Rev. C72, 065501 (2005)

    2005

  77. [77]

    K. Yako, M. Sasano, K. Miki, H. Sakai, M. Dozono, D. Frekers, M. B. Greenfield, K. Hatanaka, E. Ihara, M. Kato, T. Kawabata, H. Kuboki, Y. Maeda, H. Mat- subara, K. Muto, S. Noji, H. Okamura, T. H. Okabe, S. Sakaguchi, Y. Sakemi, Y. Sasamoto, K. Sekiguchi, Y. Shimizu, K. Suda, Y. Tameshige, A. Tamii, T. Ue- saka, T. Wakasa, and H. Zheng, Gamow-Teller stre...

    2009

  78. [78]

    Wirth, J

    R. Wirth, J. M. Yao, and H. Hergert,Ab initiocalcula- tion of the contact operator contribution in the standard 8 mechanism for neutrinoless double beta decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242502 (2021)

    2021

  79. [79]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon,Ab initiopredictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nat. Phys.18, 1196 (2022), [Erratum: Nat. Phys. 20, 169 (2024)]

    2022

  80. [80]

    Castillo, L

    D. Castillo, L. Jokiniemi, P. Soriano, and J. Men´ endez, Neutrinolessββdecay nuclear matrix elements complete up to N 2LO in heavy nuclei, Phys. Lett. B860, 139181 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.