pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.13209 · v2 · submitted 2024-08-23 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Statistical uncertainty quantification for multireference covariant density functional theory

X. Zhang , C. C. Wang , C. R. Ding , J. M. Yao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords covariant density functional theorystatistical uncertaintiesBayesian inferencenuclear structurelow-lying statesdeformed nucleisubspace projection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Statistical uncertainties in covariant density functional theory reproduce low-lying state observables for deformed nuclei but not near-spherical ones.

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

The paper introduces a Bayesian framework to quantify statistical uncertainties in a relativistic point-coupling energy density functional by sampling roughly one million parameter sets around the PC-PK1 values. Posterior distributions are obtained by conditioning on nuclear matter saturation properties, chiral force predictions, and measured B(E2) values, then propagated to finite nuclei through the subspace-projected CDFT method. This approach expands target wave functions in a subspace built from low-lying states of training parameterizations. The resulting uncertainty bands encompass the data for deformed nuclei 150Nd and 150Sm, while the same bands fail to cover the observables of near-spherical nuclei 136Xe and 136Ba.

Core claim

Sampling approximately one million parameter sets around PC-PK1 and inferring posteriors from nuclear matter properties and B(E2) data allows propagation via subspace-projected CDFT; the resulting statistical uncertainties bring calculated observables of low-lying states in 150Nd and 150Sm into agreement with experiment, whereas the same framework leaves the observables of 136Xe and 136Ba outside the uncertainty bands.

What carries the argument

The subspace-projected (SP)-CDFT approach, which expands the wave functions of target EDF parameter sets in a low-dimensional subspace spanned by low-lying states obtained from a set of training parameterizations.

If this is right

  • Observables of low-lying states in deformed nuclei 150Nd and 150Sm fall inside the calculated uncertainty bands once statistical errors are included.
  • Observables of low-lying states in near-spherical nuclei 136Xe and 136Ba remain outside the uncertainty bands.
  • Extending the model space to quasiparticle excitations is expected to reduce the discrepancy for the near-spherical cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same sampling and propagation procedure could be applied to additional nuclei to test whether the deformed-versus-spherical distinction persists across the chart.
  • Adding more experimental constraints such as excitation energies or radii would further narrow the posterior distributions and potentially alter the uncertainty bands.

Load-bearing premise

The limited subspace of low-lying states from the training parameterizations is assumed to be sufficient to represent the wave functions of the target parameter sets for the studied nuclei.

What would settle it

Performing the same Bayesian propagation with a substantially larger training subspace or with explicit quasiparticle excitations included would show whether the near-spherical nuclei observables remain outside the uncertainty bands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.13209 by C. C. Wang, C. R. Ding, J. M. Yao, X. Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) The speed-up factor of SP-CDFT calcula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) The min-max and mean values of the relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) Comparison of the ground-state properties and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The first-order sensitivity index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Same with Fig. 4 , but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) The energy per particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Histogram plots of nuclear-matter properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The correlation relation among di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Same as Fig. 9, for Nd 150 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The posterior distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig. 12, but replacing the data for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The correlations among the quantities of nuclear matter at saturation density, nuclear low-lying states and the NME of 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a theoretical framework to quantify statistical uncertainties in covariant density functional theory (CDFT) for both nuclear matter and finite nuclei, based on a relativistic point-coupling energy density functional (EDF). By sampling approximately one million parameter sets, with nine parameters varied around their values in the PC-PK1 functional, we construct a probability density function for nuclear matter properties. Incorporating empirical values of nuclear matter at saturation density and those of predictions from chiral nuclear forces, and measured $B(E2)$ values of finite nuclei, we infer posterior distributions for the model parameters within a Bayesian framework. These posterior distributions are then propagated to the low-lying states of finite nuclei using the newly developed subspace-projected (SP)-CDFT approach, in which the wave functions of target EDF parameter sets are expanded in a subspace spanned by low-lying states obtained from a set of training parameterizations. We find that the observables of low-lying states in deformed nuclei $^{150}$Nd and $^{150}$Sm are well reproduced once statistical uncertainties are taken into account. In contrast, those of near spherical nuclei $^{136}$Xe and $^{136}$Ba remain difficult to describe within the present framework, a limitation that is expected to be alleviated by extending the model space to include quasiparticle excitations.

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 develops a Bayesian framework for statistical uncertainty quantification in relativistic point-coupling covariant density functional theory (CDFT). Approximately one million parameter sets are sampled around the PC-PK1 functional; posteriors are conditioned on nuclear-matter saturation properties, chiral-force predictions, and measured B(E2) values. These posteriors are propagated to low-lying states of 150Nd, 150Sm, 136Xe, and 136Ba via the newly introduced subspace-projected CDFT (SP-CDFT), in which target wave functions are expanded in a subspace spanned by low-lying states from a limited set of training parameterizations. The central claim is that observables of the deformed nuclei fall inside the resulting uncertainty bands while those of the near-spherical nuclei do not, indicating that the present model space is insufficient for the latter.

Significance. If the SP-CDFT subspace projection is shown to be accurate for the sampled parameter sets, the work supplies a concrete, statistically grounded test of where CDFT discrepancies can be absorbed by parameter uncertainties (deformed cases) versus where they indicate missing physics (spherical cases). The combination of large-scale Monte Carlo sampling with a reduced-basis propagation method is a practical advance for uncertainty quantification in energy-density-functional calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. [SP-CDFT method description] The central claim that deformed-nucleus observables are reproduced within uncertainties rests on the assumption that the subspace spanned by low-lying states from the training parameterizations faithfully represents the wave functions of posterior-sampled EDF sets (abstract and final paragraph). No quantitative bound on the projection error is reported for 150Nd or 150Sm, nor is any validation against full calculations for parameter sets distant from the training points provided. This directly affects whether the reported agreement is genuine or an artifact of the reduced basis.
  2. [Results on finite-nucleus propagation] The manuscript states that ~1 million samples are drawn from the posterior and propagated via SP-CDFT, yet supplies no convergence diagnostics for the Monte Carlo sampling nor any measure of posterior widths or sensitivity to the number of training parameterizations. Without these, the widths of the uncertainty bands used to judge agreement for 150Nd/150Sm versus disagreement for 136Xe/136Ba cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] The number and selection criteria for the training parameterizations used to build the SP-CDFT subspace are not stated explicitly; this information should be added to the methods section for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped identify areas where additional validation and diagnostics will strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that deformed-nucleus observables are reproduced within uncertainties rests on the assumption that the subspace spanned by low-lying states from the training parameterizations faithfully represents the wave functions of posterior-sampled EDF sets (abstract and final paragraph). No quantitative bound on the projection error is reported for 150Nd or 150Sm, nor is any validation against full calculations for parameter sets distant from the training points provided. This directly affects whether the reported agreement is genuine or an artifact of the reduced basis.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of the projection error is necessary to substantiate the reliability of SP-CDFT for the sampled parameter sets. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that reports the projection error on excitation energies and B(E2) values for 150Nd and 150Sm, obtained by comparing SP-CDFT results against full CDFT calculations performed for a representative subset of posterior samples lying outside the original training set. This will include explicit error bounds and a discussion of how the subspace dimension affects the accuracy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript states that ~1 million samples are drawn from the posterior and propagated via SP-CDFT, yet supplies no convergence diagnostics for the Monte Carlo sampling nor any measure of posterior widths or sensitivity to the number of training parameterizations. Without these, the widths of the uncertainty bands used to judge agreement for 150Nd/150Sm versus disagreement for 136Xe/136Ba cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit convergence checks and sensitivity measures. The revised version will include standard MCMC diagnostics (trace plots, autocorrelation times, and effective sample size) for the ~1 million posterior samples, together with the reported posterior widths for the EDF parameters and the propagated observables. We will also add a brief sensitivity study showing how the uncertainty bands change when the number of training parameterizations used to construct the SP-CDFT subspace is varied. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in Bayesian posterior propagation via SP-CDFT

full rationale

The paper constructs a prior by sampling ~1M parameter sets around PC-PK1, builds a PDF for nuclear matter properties, then infers posteriors from independent empirical nuclear-matter data at saturation, chiral-force predictions, and measured B(E2) values. Posteriors are propagated to low-lying observables of the target nuclei using the SP-CDFT subspace expansion, which is a fixed computational approximation based on a separate training set rather than a definitional identity or self-referential fit. The paper explicitly distinguishes outcomes for deformed versus near-spherical nuclei and notes the subspace limitation, confirming that reported agreement is not forced by construction but arises from the independent constraining data and the method's approximations. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs by definition or renames a fit as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Nine EDF parameters are varied around PC-PK1 values; the Bayesian likelihood incorporates empirical saturation density, symmetry energy, and B(E2) data as external constraints. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • nine point-coupling parameters
    Varied around PC-PK1 values to generate the prior; posterior obtained by Bayesian update with nuclear-matter and B(E2) data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The relativistic point-coupling EDF form is an adequate starting point for the nuclei considered.
    Implicit in the choice of PC-PK1 as the central parameterization.
  • domain assumption The subspace spanned by training calculations captures the essential degrees of freedom for the target states.
    Required for the validity of the SP-CDFT approximation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5763 in / 1588 out tokens · 18308 ms · 2026-05-23T21:27:00.438357+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

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. Afanasjev, G. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Physics Reports 409, 101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0508020. 14

    work page arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    J. E. Drut, R. J. Furnstahl, and L. Platter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 64, 120 (2010), arXiv:0906.1463 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    G. A. Lalazissis, S. Raman, and P. Ring, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 71, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    L. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Progress of Theoretical Physics 113, 785 (2005), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/113/4/785/5123587/113-4-785.pdf

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, A. M. Perhac, , and M. Stoitsov, Nature 486, 509 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V . Afanasjev, and A. Taninah, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014318 (2019), arXiv:1811.11473 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Guo et al

    P. Guo et al. (DRHBc Mass Table), Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 158, 101661 (2024), arXiv:2402.02935 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Recent Progress and New Challenges in Isospin Physics with Heavy-Ion Reactions

    B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rept. 464, 113 (2008), arXiv:0804.3580 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    A. V . Afanasjev and S. E. Agbemava, Phys. Rev. C93, 054310 (2016), arXiv:1604.07296 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Error Estimates of Theoretical Models: a Guide

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and P. G. Reinhard, J. Phys. G 41, 074001 (2014), arXiv:1402.4657 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Skyrme, Nucl

    T. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys. 9, 615 (1959)

    work page 1959

  15. [15]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972)

    work page 1972

  16. [16]

    Gogny, P

    D. Gogny, P. Pires, and R. De Tourreil, Phys. Lett. B 32, 591 (1970)

    work page 1970

  17. [17]

    Decharge and D

    J. Decharge and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1568 (1980)

    work page 1980

  18. [18]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys. 83, 491 (1974)

    work page 1974

  19. [19]

    P. G. Reinhard, Rept. Prog. Phys. 52, 439 (1989)

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    work page 1996

  21. [21]

    Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    J. Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    work page doi:10.1142/9872 2016

  22. [22]

    Schwenk and J

    A. Schwenk and J. Polonyi (2004) arXiv:nucl-th /0403011

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    Gambacurta, L

    D. Gambacurta, L. Li, G. Colo, U. Lombardo, N. Van Giai, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C84, 024301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Grasso, D

    M. Grasso, D. Lacroix, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Scripta 91, 063005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    C. J. Yang, M. Grasso, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C96, 034318 (2017), arXiv:1706.00258 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Energy-density functionals inspired by effective-field theories: Applications to neutron drops

    J. Bonnard, M. Grasso, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034319 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1806.01084 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Functional Renormalization Group and Kohn-Sham scheme in Density Functional Theory

    H. Liang, Y . Niu, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 779, 436 (2018), arXiv:1710.00650 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Burrello, J

    S. Burrello, J. Bonnard, and M. Grasso, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064317 (2021), arXiv:2103.05996 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Marino, C

    F. Marino, C. Barbieri, A. Carbone, G. Colò, A. Lovato, F. Ped- eriva, X. Roca-Maza, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C104, 024315 (2021), arXiv:2103.14480 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Microscopically-based energy density functionals for nuclei using the density matrix expansion: Full optimization and validation

    R. Navarro Pérez, N. Schunck, A. Dyhdalo, R. J. Furn- stahl, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054304 (2018), arXiv:1801.08615 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Zurek, S

    L. Zurek, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, R. Navarro Pérez, N. Schunck, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014319 (2024), arXiv:2307.13568 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and P. Ring, arXiv:1904.04977 [nucl-th] (2019)

    work page arXiv 1904

  33. [33]

    Effective density functionals beyond mean field

    M. Grasso, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 256 (2019), arXiv:1811.01039 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    R. J. Furnstahl, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 85 (2020), arXiv:1906.00833 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Goriely and R

    S. Goriely and R. Capote, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054318 (2014)

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    J. D. McDonnell, N. Schunck, D. Higdon, J. Sarich, S. M. Wild, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 122501 (2015), arXiv:1501.03572 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V . Afanasjev, D. Ray, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054320 (2014), arXiv:1404.4901 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Giuliani, K

    P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, E. Bonilla, F. Viens, and J. Piekarewicz, (2022), arXiv:2209.13039 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Salinas and J

    M. Salinas and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045802 (2023), arXiv:2301.09692 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    X. Sun, Z. Miao, B. Sun, and A. Li, Astrophys. J. 942, 55 (2023), arXiv:2205.10631 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Symmetry Restoration Methods,

    J. M. Yao, “Symmetry Restoration Methods,” in Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–36, arXiv:2204.12126 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The nuclear many-body problem (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980)

    work page 1980

  43. [43]

    Bender and P.-H

    M. Bender and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024309 (2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    T. R. Rodríguez and J. L. Egido, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064323 (2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044311 (2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    Nikši´c, D

    T. Nikši´c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodríguez, and R. R. Rodríguez-Guzmán, J. Phys. G 46, 013001 (2019), arXiv:1807.02518 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    J. A. Sheikh, J. Dobaczewski, P. Ring, L. M. Robledo, and C. Yannouleas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 123001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Sun and S.-G

    X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064319 (2021), arXiv:2107.05925 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    E. F. Zhou and J. M. Yao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 32, 2340011 (2023), arXiv:2309.09488 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    T. R. Rodríguez and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252503 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    L. S. Song, J. M. Yao, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054309 (2014)

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, Y . F. Niu, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 126, 103965 (2022), arXiv:2111.15543 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Y . K. Wang, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138796 (2024), arXiv:2403.06455 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Electric Dipole Moments of the Atoms, Molecules, Nuclei and Particles

    T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019), arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Arrowsmith-Kron et al., Rept

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 084301 (2024), arXiv:2302.02165 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Tests of the standard electroweak model in beta decay

    N. Severijns, M. Beck, and O. Naviliat-Cuncic, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 991 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0605029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  58. [58]

    Alarcon et al

    R. Alarcon et al. (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [60]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054302 (2022), arXiv:2203.10577 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045501 (2023), arXiv:2302.03664 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [62]

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

    work page 2020

  62. [63]

    Belley, T

    A. Belley, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [64]

    Zhang, C

    X. Zhang, C. C. Wang, C. R. Ding, and J. M. Yao, (2024), arXiv:2408.00691 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    Frame, R

    D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 032501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  65. [66]

    M. C. Franzke, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Lett. B 830, 137101 (2022), arXiv:2108.02824 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [67]

    Sowi´nski and M

    T. Sowi´nski and M. A. Garcia-March, Phys. Rev. C106, 024002 (2022), arXiv:2202.07493 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2022

  67. [68]

    V . V . Baran and D. R. Nichita, Phys. Rev. B107, 144503 (2023), arXiv:2212.14313 [cond-mat.supr-con]. 15

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [69]

    M. C. Franzke, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024311 (2024), arXiv:2302.08373 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    Q. Y . Luo, X. Zhang, L. H. Chen, and J. M. Yao, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014309 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [71]

    Ekström and G

    A. Ekström and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 252501 (2019), arXiv:1910.02922 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  71. [72]

    König, A

    S. König, A. Ekström, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Physics Letters B 810, 135814 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [73]

    R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Garcia, P. J. Millican, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135719 (2020), arXiv:2007.03635 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [74]

    Demol, T

    P. Demol, T. Duguet, A. Ekström, M. Frosini, K. Hebeler, S. König, D. Lee, A. Schwenk, V . Somà, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C 101, 041302 (2020), arXiv:1911.12578 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  74. [75]

    Drischler, M

    C. Drischler, M. Quinonez, P. G. Giuliani, A. E. Lovell, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136777 (2021), arXiv:2108.08269 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [76]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014612 (2021), arXiv:2101.06336 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [77]

    Sarkar and D

    A. Sarkar and D. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 032501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [78]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Gar- cia, and X. Zhang, Front. in Phys. 10, 1092931 (2022), arXiv:2212.04912 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  78. [79]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekström, R. J. Furnstahl, S. König, and D. Lee, (2023), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [80]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. P. Arteaga, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044312 (2009)

    work page 2009

  80. [81]

    E. F. Zhou, X. Y . Wu, and J. M. Yao, Phys. Rev. C109, 034305 (2024), arXiv:2311.15305 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.