pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11940 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Symplectic no-core configuration interaction framework for nuclear structure

Anna E. McCoy , Mark A. Caprio , Patrick J. Fasano , Tomas Dytrych This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords symplectic no-core configuration interactionSp(3,R) irreducible representationsnuclear structure calculationsrecurrence relationsU(3) tensor decompositiontwo-body operatorsnuclear collectivity and deformation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nuclear many-body calculations proceed directly in Sp(3,R) symplectic bases by using recurrence relations for two-body operator matrix elements.

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

The paper develops the symplectic no-core configuration interaction framework to solve the nuclear many-body problem in a basis that encodes Sp(3,R) symmetries for nuclear collectivity. Matrices for the Hamiltonian and similar operators are found using a recurrence that builds from states with fewer quanta, after first decomposing the operators into U(3) tensor components. This removes the need to expand every Sp(3,R) state into a U(3) basis, which would be computationally heavy. Sympathetic readers would care because it offers a way to include collective effects in ab initio nuclear structure work more efficiently.

Core claim

In the SpNCCI framework, realistic relative two-body operators such as the nuclear Hamiltonian have their matrices computed directly in the Sp(3,R) many-body basis through a recurrence relation that relates matrix elements to those involving basis states with fewer oscillator quanta, after the operator has been expanded in U(3) tensor components; this avoids expanding all Sp(3,R) states into a U(3)-coupled configuration basis.

What carries the argument

Recurrence relation for matrix elements of U(3)-tensor-decomposed relative two-body operators within Sp(3,R) irreducible representations.

If this is right

  • Large-scale calculations become feasible for nuclei where collectivity and deformation play key roles.
  • Symmetries associated with nuclear deformation are built into the basis from the start.
  • Realistic interactions can be applied without the overhead of full configuration expansions.
  • Extensions to other many-body operators follow the same decomposition and recurrence procedure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such a method may allow calculations for heavier nuclei than currently practical with standard no-core methods.
  • Verification on light nuclei could confirm the accuracy by matching known results from other approaches.
  • Broader use in quantum mechanics could apply similar recurrence techniques to other symmetry groups.
  • Links to traditional shell-model or collective model calculations might be established through this algebraic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The recurrence relation, after U(3) tensor decomposition, gives the correct matrix elements of realistic two-body operators for the Sp(3,R) states without requiring full expansion or adding approximations.

What would settle it

For a simple test case with a few particles and a known operator, calculate the same matrix element both via the recurrence and by direct expansion of the states, then compare the numerical values for agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11940 by Anna E. McCoy, Mark A. Caprio, Patrick J. Fasano, Tomas Dytrych.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. U(3) irreps in the Sp(3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Form of the matrix used to obtain the expansion of the CMF LGIs with labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the symplectic no-core configuration interaction (SpNCCI) framework, in which the nuclear many-body problem is solved a symmetry-adapted basis that explicitly encodes approximate symmetries associated with nuclear collectivity and deformation. In this framework, calculations are carried out in a basis organized into Sp(3,R) irreducible representations (irreps), each of which can be expressed as an infinite tower of U(3) irreps. In this framework, matrices of realistic relative two-body operators, such as the nuclear Hamiltonian, are computed directly in the Sp(3,R) many-body basis, obviating the need to expand all Sp(3,R) many-body states in, e.g., a U(3)-coupled configuration basis. Instead, many-body matrix elements are obtained via a recurrence relation that expresses a given matrix element in terms of matrix elements between basis states with fewer oscillator quanta. To use this recurrence method for computing matrix elements of relative two-body operators, we must first expand each operator into components of U(3) tensors. To this end, we present a method for decomposing arbitrary operators into U(3) tensor components.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the symplectic no-core configuration interaction (SpNCCI) framework for solving the nuclear many-body problem in a basis of Sp(3,R) irreducible representations. Each Sp(3,R) irrep is an infinite tower of U(3) irreps. The central technical contribution is a procedure to compute matrix elements of realistic relative two-body operators (such as the nuclear Hamiltonian) directly in the Sp(3,R) basis via a recurrence relation that reduces a given matrix element to ones involving states with fewer oscillator quanta, after first decomposing the operator into U(3) tensor components. This is claimed to avoid the need to expand the full Sp(3,R) many-body states into a U(3)-coupled configuration basis.

Significance. If the recurrence and decomposition can be shown to deliver exact matrix elements for realistic interactions without auxiliary expansions or uncontrolled approximations, the framework would constitute a meaningful advance in symmetry-adapted nuclear many-body methods. It would allow calculations that explicitly incorporate approximate symplectic symmetry for collective degrees of freedom while remaining computationally tractable. The general method for decomposing arbitrary operators into U(3) tensor components is a reusable technical tool. The procedure is self-contained with no free parameters or fitted entities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and recurrence description] Abstract and recurrence description: the claim that matrix elements are obtained 'directly in the Sp(3,R) many-body basis' without expanding into a U(3)-coupled configuration basis is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate how the seed (lowest-quanta) matrix elements of realistic two-body operators are evaluated inside a given Sp(3,R) irrep without reverting to the U(3) expansion the method is intended to avoid or introducing truncations.
  2. [Validation section] Validation section: no numerical benchmarks, reproduction of known results for standard realistic interactions (e.g., chiral EFT Hamiltonians), or error analysis are supplied to confirm that the U(3) tensor decomposition plus recurrence accurately recovers the correct matrix elements.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction] The notation used for Sp(3,R) and U(3) irreps and for the tensor decomposition could be illustrated with a short explicit example early in the text to improve readability for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of the SpNCCI framework. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the exposition of the technical contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and recurrence description] the claim that matrix elements are obtained 'directly in the Sp(3,R) many-body basis' without expanding into a U(3)-coupled configuration basis is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate how the seed (lowest-quanta) matrix elements of realistic two-body operators are evaluated inside a given Sp(3,R) irrep without reverting to the U(3) expansion the method is intended to avoid or introducing truncations.

    Authors: The central claim is that the recurrence relation allows matrix elements involving higher-quanta states in the Sp(3,R) irrep to be obtained without expanding those states into the full U(3)-coupled configuration basis. The seed matrix elements at the lowest weight are evaluated by applying the U(3) tensor decomposition of the operator directly to the lowest U(3) states within the irrep; because these states constitute the finite-dimensional starting point of the infinite tower, no expansion of the entire Sp(3,R) many-body states is required. We acknowledge that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit worked example of this seed evaluation for a realistic two-body operator. We will add a dedicated subsection illustrating the procedure for the lowest-weight matrix elements, confirming that the method remains free of uncontrolled truncations and does not expand the full tower. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Validation section] no numerical benchmarks, reproduction of known results for standard realistic interactions (e.g., chiral EFT Hamiltonians), or error analysis are supplied to confirm that the U(3) tensor decomposition plus recurrence accurately recovers the correct matrix elements.

    Authors: The present manuscript focuses on the formal development of the operator decomposition and recurrence procedure. We agree that explicit numerical validation would strengthen the work. In the revised version we will include a validation section with benchmarks on small systems (e.g., light nuclei in a truncated model space) using standard realistic interactions, together with direct comparisons to results obtained via conventional U(3)-coupled NCCI calculations and an accompanying error analysis demonstrating that the recurrence recovers the exact matrix elements within numerical precision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the SpNCCI framework derivation

full rationale

The paper presents an algorithmic framework for computing many-body matrix elements of relative two-body operators directly in the Sp(3,R) basis via recurrence after U(3) tensor decomposition of the operator. This is described as obviating full expansion into a U(3)-coupled basis, with the recurrence expressing elements in terms of those with fewer quanta. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatze imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation is self-contained as a computational procedure without renaming known results or self-definitional loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that Sp(3,R) irreps capture useful approximate symmetries of nuclear collectivity; no free parameters are introduced and no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Sp(3,R) provides a useful approximate symmetry for nuclear collectivity and deformation
    The entire basis construction and recurrence method are organized around encoding these symmetries explicitly.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5508 in / 1225 out tokens · 57428 ms · 2026-05-10T15:17:26.903894+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

204 extracted references · 204 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (75) 20 See, e.g., Appendix A.5 of Ref

    ρ′′ 0 ω ρ′ 0] × ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ | h O(λ0µ0)S0 ×A ′(2,0) i(λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0 × | συ1ω1ΣS⟩ ρ′′ 0 ω′S′ . (75) 20 See, e.g., Appendix A.5 of Ref. [157] for the analogous relation in the case of SU(2) RMEs. 23 We can then commute the raising operator through, thereby introducing a coupled commutator [defined in (B4)]. Using the expression for an SU(3) coupled commutat...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (76) Note, the phase factor Φ[(λ 0µ0)(2,0)(λ ′ 0µ′ 0)] appearing in the second term evaluates to +1

    ρ′′ 0 ω ρ′ 0] ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ | " A′(2,0) × O(λ0µ0)S0 (λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0 + Φ[(λ0µ0)(2,0)(λ ′ 0µ′ 0)] O(λ0µ0)S0 , A ′(2,0) (λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0 × | συ1ω1ΣS⟩ #ρ′′ 0 ω′S′ . (76) Note, the phase factor Φ[(λ 0µ0)(2,0)(λ ′ 0µ′ 0)] appearing in the second term evaluates to +1. We can then re-express the overlap (which now involves the coupled commutator) and rewrite the overlap...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (77) What remains is to derive the expressions for evaluating these RMEs

    ρ′′ 0 ω ρ′ 0] X ρ00 Φρ′′ 0 ρ00[(λ′ 0µ′ 0)ω1ω′] × n ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ A′(2,0) × O(λ0µ0)S0 (λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0 ∥ συ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ00 +⟨ γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ O(λ0µ0)S0 , A′(2,0) (λ′ 0µ00)S0 ∥ συ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ00 o . (77) What remains is to derive the expressions for evaluating these RMEs. The first RME on the right hand side can be evaluated using the Racah reduction formula (26). To eval...

    work page

  4. [4]

    mX l=1 xl −mx m+1 # ηm = 1p m(m+ 1)

    ρ′′ 0 ω ρ′ 0] X ρ00 Φρ′′ 0 ρ00[(λ′ 0µ′ 0)ω1ω′] × n ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ A′(2,0) × U (λ0µ0)S0( ¯N ′ ¯Σ′ ¯S, ¯N ¯Σ ¯S) (λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0 ∥ συ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ00 +⟨ γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ U(λ0µ0)S0( ¯N ′ ¯Σ′ ¯S, ¯N ¯Σ ¯S), A′(2,0) (λ′ 0µ00)S0 ∥ συ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ00 o . (78) C. Evaluating the coupled commutator ofA ′(2,0) andU (λ0µ0)S0 To evaluate the second RME appearing on the right hand side ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    dim( ¯N ,0) dim(λ0µ0) 1 2 ×U[ω 1(2,0)ω ′(λ0µ0);ω ρ0; (λ′ 0µ′

    work page

  6. [6]

    ρ′ 0]U[( ¯N ′,0)(0, ¯N)(λ ′ 0µ′ 0)(2,0); (λ0µ0) ; (0, ¯N−2) ] ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ U(λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0( ¯N ′ ¯Σ′ ¯S′, ¯N−2 ¯Σ ¯S) ∥ γσυ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ′ 0 ! −(−1) ω+ω1(−1)ω0+ω′ 0 X ρ′ 0ω′ 0 dim( ¯N ′,0) 2 dim(λ′ 0µ′ 0) dim(2,0) dim( ¯N ,0) 1 2 ×U[ω 1(2,0)ω ′(λ0µ0);ω ρ0; (λ′ 0, µ′

    work page

  7. [7]

    (84) In the summation overω 1 andω 2, note thatN ω1 =N ω −2 andN ω2 =N ω′ −2

    ρ′ 0]U[( ¯N ′ + 2,0)(0, ¯N ′)(λ′ 0µ′ 0)(λ0µ0); (2,0) ; (0, ¯N) ] ⟨γ′σ′υ′ω′Σ′S′ ∥ U(λ′ 0µ′ 0)S0( ¯N ′ + 2 ¯Σ′ ¯S′, ¯N ¯Σ ¯S) ∥ γσυ1ω1ΣS⟩ρ′ 0 !) . (84) In the summation overω 1 andω 2, note thatN ω1 =N ω −2 andN ω2 =N ω′ −2. The recurrence relation above does not depend on ΣS. Thus, in the isospin scheme, if the operators are decomposed in terms of SU(3)×SU...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The relation between the bases is given by the Talmi-Moshinsky transformation for an SU(3) coupled basis [125, 182, 183]: ⟨[ ¯N ′ 1 ¯N ′ 2]¯ω′ ¯Σ′ ¯S′ ∥ U(λ0,µ0)S0( ¯N ′ ¯Σ′ ¯S′, ¯N ¯Σ ¯S) ∥ [ ¯N1 ¯N2]¯ω¯Σ ¯S⟩ρ0 = X Ncm 2 (−) ¯N+ ¯N ′+¯ω+¯ω′ q (1 +δ ¯N1, ¯N2)(1 +δ ¯N ′ 1 ¯N ′ 2 ) ¯N1 ¯N2 ¯ω ¯N ¯Ncm ¯ω ¯N ′ 1 ¯N ′ 2 ¯ω′ ¯N ′ ¯Ncm ¯ω ×U ( ¯Ncm,0)( ¯N ,0)¯ω′...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Decomposing operators in terms ofSU(2)unit tensors To decompose an operator with definiteM T in terms of SU T (2) tensors, we start with the matrix elements of this operatorV MT in the relative harmonic oscillator basis with states labeled by| [f]N LSJ M T MT ⟩. For the purpose of decomposing the operator in terms of SU T (2) unit tensors, most of these l...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Our goal now is to expand the operator of interest in terms of SU(3)×SU S(2) unit tensors defined with respect to the relative harmonic oscillator basis with states| N LΣSJ MJ ⟩

    Decomposing operators in terms ofSU(3)×SU S(2)unit tensors We now turn to the more complicated case, which is decomposing a given operator in terms of SU(3)×SU S(2) relative unit tensors. Our goal now is to expand the operator of interest in terms of SU(3)×SU S(2) unit tensors defined with respect to the relative harmonic oscillator basis with states| N L...

    work page

  11. [11]

    contraction

    Decomposing operators in terms ofSU(3)×SU(4)unit tensors One may follow a similar derivation when working in an isospin scheme, to decompose the relative operator in terms of SU(3)×SU(4) unit tensors (68). Here we assume the operator is already a good angular momentum and isospin tensor, i.e., a good SU J(2)×SU T (2) tensor, and we start from SU J(2)×SU T...

    work page

  12. [12]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Strumpf, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Gysbers, G

    P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navr´ atil, T. Papenbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. R. Stroberg, and K. A. Wendt, Nature Physics15, 428 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Engel, R. Wirth, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 232501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekstrom, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon, Nature Physics18, 1196 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Hergert, Frontiers in Physics8, 1 (2020)

    H. Hergert, Frontiers in Physics8, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Belley, C

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

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C110, L011302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B719, 179 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    M. A. Caprio, P. J. Fasano, A. E. McCoy, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Bulg. J. Phys.46, 445 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    M. A. Caprio, A. E. McCoy, P. J. Fasano, and T. Dytrych, Bulg. J. Phys.49, 057066 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    M. A. Caprio, P. J. Fasano, P. Maris, A. E. McCoy, and J. P. Vary, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 120 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, and R. Smith, Int. J. Mod. Phys.24, 1541002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Zbikowski, C

    R. Zbikowski, C. W. Johnson, A. E. McCoy, M. A. Caprio, and P. J. Fasano, J. Phys. G48, 075102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    A. E. McCoy, M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, and P. J. Fasano, Phys. Lett. B856, 138870 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Maris, M

    P. Maris, M. A. Caprio, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C91, 014310 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Maris, M

    P. Maris, M. A. Caprio, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C99, 029902(E) (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C93, 051301(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Dytrych, K

    T. Dytrych, K. D. Launey, J. P. Draayer, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, E. Saule, U. Catalyurek, M. Sosonkina, D. Langr, and M. A. Caprio, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 252501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    G. R. Jansen, M. D. Schuster, A. Signoracci, G. Hagen, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C94, 011301 (R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    A. E. McCoy, M. A. Caprio, and T. Dytrych, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 102505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    S. C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C70, 054325 (2004)

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Neff and H

    T. Neff and H. Feldmeier, Nucl. Phys. A738, 357 (2004)

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Maris, J

    P. Maris, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.402, 012031 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Yoshida, N

    T. Yoshida, N. Shimizu, T. Abe, and T. Otsuka, Few-Body Syst.54, 1465 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Romero-Redondo, S

    C. Romero-Redondo, S. Quaglioni, P. Navr´ atil, and G. Hupin, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 222501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero-Redondo, and A. Calci, Phys. Scr.91, 053002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162503 (2025). 35

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    S. J. Novario, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C102, 051303R (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Z. H. Sun, T. R. Dj¨ arv, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C111, 044304 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. X15, 011028 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 032502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 096302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´ atil, and J. P. Vary, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    S. C. Pieper, K. Varga, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C66, 044310 (2002)

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    R. R. Whitehead, A. Watt, B. J. Cole, and I. Morrison, Adv. Nucl. Phys.9, 123 (1977)

    work page 1977

  49. [49]

    Brussard and P

    P. Brussard and P. Glaudemans,Shell-model applications in nuclear spectroscopy(North-Holland Publishing Co., Ams- terdam, 1977)

    work page 1977

  50. [50]

    M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C86, 034312 (2012)

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C90, 034305 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    M. A. Caprio, P. J. Fasano, P. Maris, and A. E. McCoy, Phys. Rev. C104, 034319 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    P. J. Fasano, C. Constantinou, M. A. Caprio, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C105, 054301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    M. A. Caprio, Phys. Rev. C105, L061302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    M. A. Caprio and P. J. Fasano, Phys. Rev. C106, 034320 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Pervin, S

    M. Pervin, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C76, 064319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  57. [57]

    S. K. Bogneret al., Nucl. Phys. A801, 21 (2008)

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Maris and J

    P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330016 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Odell, T

    D. Odell, T. Papenbrock, and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. C93, 044331 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Roth and M

    R. Roth and M. Petri, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London) A382, 20230119 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Scalesi, T

    A. Scalesi, T. Duguet, M. Frosini, and V. Soma, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Tichai, J

    A. Tichai, J. Muller, K. Vobig, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C99, 034321 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Hoppe, A

    J. Hoppe, A. Tichai, M. Heinz, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C103, 014321 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Dytrych, K

    T. Dytrych, K. D. Sviratcheva, J. P. Draayer, C. Bahri, and J. P. Vary, J. Phys. G35, 123101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    Dytrych, P

    T. Dytrych, P. Maris, K. D. Launey, J. P. Draayer, J. P. Vary, D. Langr, E. Saule, M. A. Caprio, U. Catalyurek, and M. Sosonkina, Comput. Phys. Commun.207, 202 (2016)

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.89, 101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    A. E. McCoy, M. A. Caprio, and T. Dytrych, Ann. Acad. Rom. Sci. Ser. Chem. Phys. Sci.3, 17 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    A. E. McCoy,Ab initio multi-irrep symplectic no-core configuration interaction calculations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Notre Dame (2018)

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    J. P. Elliott, Proc. R. Soc. A245, 128 (1958)

    work page 1958

  71. [71]

    J. P. Elliott, Proc. R. Soc. A245, 562 (1958)

    work page 1958

  72. [72]

    J. P. Elliott and M. Harvey, Proc. R. Soc. A272, 557 (1963)

    work page 1963

  73. [73]

    Harvey, The nuclearSU 3 model, inAdv

    M. Harvey, The nuclearSU 3 model, inAdv. Nucl. Phys., Vol. 1, edited by M. Baranger and E. Vogt (Plenum, New York,

    work page

  74. [74]

    Rosensteel and D

    G. Rosensteel and D. J. Rowe, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 10 (1977)

    work page 1977

  75. [75]

    Rosensteel and D

    G. Rosensteel and D. J. Rowe, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)126, 343 (1980)

    work page 1980

  76. [76]

    D. J. Rowe, Rep. Prog. Phys.48, 1419 (1985)

    work page 1985

  77. [77]

    Rosensteel and D

    G. Rosensteel and D. J. Rowe, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 223 (1981)

    work page 1981

  78. [78]

    Le Blanc, J

    R. Le Blanc, J. Carvalho, and D. J. Rowe, Phys. Lett. B140, 155 (1984)

    work page 1984

  79. [79]

    K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, G. H. Sargsyan, R. B. Baker, and J. P. Draayer, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics229, 2429 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    K. S. Becker, K. D. Launey, A. Erkstrom, and T. Dytrych, Front. Phys.11, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.