Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Unexpected Rise in Nuclear Collectivity from Short-Range Physics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Short-range contact couplings of the nucleon-nucleon force can change nuclear quadrupole collectivity by up to roughly 50 percent by rebalancing surface oscillations within the dominant nuclear shape, without altering that shape's…

desk verdict A serious ab initio sensitivity study that credibly links short-range S-wave contacts to quadrupole collectivity in 6Li and 12C, with a genuinely new mechanism and one real soft spot: the 12C leg lacks full-space validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00682 v1 pith:2CR5QFYN submitted 2024-12-31 nucl-th

Kevin S. Becker , Kristina D. Launey , Andreas Ekström , Tomáš Dytrych , Daniel Langr , Grigor H. Sargsyan , Jerry P. Draayer This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords nuclearcollectivityquadrupolemomentsshort-rangenucleon-nucleoninteractionschiraleffectivefieldtheorysymmetry-adaptedno-coreshellmodelSobolsensitivityanalysisshapessurfaceoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the short-range contact part of the nucleon-nucleon force, not just the long-range correlations traditionally credited with deforming nuclei, can substantially change nuclear collectivity. Using ab initio calculations for low-lying states of 6Li and 12C, it shows that varying two S-wave contact couplings changes electric quadrupole moments by up to roughly 50 percent. The effect arises because these couplings tip the balance between polar and equatorial surface oscillations within a single dominant nuclear shape, while leaving the shape composition nearly unchanged. This matters because it identifies a new, short-distance route to collective nuclear behavior and suggests quadrupole moments can help pin down the contact parameters of chiral potentials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sp(3,R)-adapted 'shape' basis of the symmetry-adapted no-core shell model, which groups the many-body Hilbert space into subspaces that each represent a nuclear shape with a static deformation plus its dynamical surface oscillations (2ℏΩ particle-hole excitations). Decomposing a state this way lets the paper separate changes in shape composition from changes inside the dominant shape. The analysis machinery is Sobol' global sensitivity analysis applied to 300,000 samples of the fourteen low-energy constants, which yields first- and total-order indices showing that Q2 responds mainly to C(LO)3S1 and C(NLO)1S0, and this is confirmed by one-at-a-time response curves.

What would settle it

Run the same ±10% LEC variation analysis for the 12C 2+1 state in a complete (all-shape) model space spanning 8 or more harmonic-oscillator shells and compare the resulting quadrupole response; if the combined effect of C(LO)3S1 and C(NLO)1S0 drops well below 50 percent or changes sign relative to the 14-shape result, the paper's central claim for carbon fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the LO 3S1 and NLO 1S0 S-wave contact couplings of the NNLOopt chiral NN potential act in opposition on the quadrupole moments Q2 of the 6Li 1+ ground state, 6Li 3+1, and 12C 2+1 states. Strengthening the attractive LO 3S1 coupling decreases Q2, while strengthening the repulsive NLO 1S0 coupling increases it; together they can change Q2 by up to about 50 percent for the collective states. The mechanism is not a rearrangement among nuclear shapes—the dominant shape's probability stays essentially fixed—but a redistribution within that shape's dynamical surface oscillations, with polar oscillations (along the symmetry axis) enhancing collectivity and equatorial oscillations suppressing it. The paper further finds that first-order and total-order Sobol' sensitivity indices nearly coincide, so the two couplings act largely independently, and that the quadrupole response is carried almost entirely by the dominant shape.

Load-bearing premise

The nearly 50 percent quadrupole response is computed in a 14-shape model space for 12C that captures about 80 percent of the state, and the size and sign of that response is assumed to survive in the complete space—a convergence check performed for 6Li, not for 12C.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quadrupole moments of collective states become observables that can constrain the contact LECs of chiral potentials, since short-range coupling changes show up as sizable Q2 shifts.
  • The two S-wave contacts affect binding energies and quadrupole moments through similar physics, so fits of these LECs can in principle be informed by both types of data simultaneously.
  • For states whose Q2 is dominated by a single shape, the shape composition is not the only route to collectivity; surface-oscillation balance within that shape is an equally important lever.
  • Because the sensitivity pattern for 12C matches 6Li, the mechanism may be common across light deformed nuclei, and not specific to one isotope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism persists in larger spaces, one would expect the polar/equatorial balance to leave a signature in B(E2) transition strengths, not just static quadrupole moments; this is a natural next calculation the paper does not perform.
  • The same rebalancing argument suggests that other short-range operators—such as tensor or spin-orbit contacts—could have comparably large collective effects in heavier nuclei where shape coexistence is richer.
  • A practical extension would be to use the dominant-shape response as a cheap emulator for uncertainty quantification of Q2 across a chiral-potential family, since the paper shows the response lives almost entirely in one shape.
  • Experimental measurements of Q2 or B(E2) with percent-level precision in light nuclei could directly discriminate between chiral potentials that differ mainly in these two S-wave contacts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports symmetry-adapted no-core shell model (SA-NCSM) calculations for the 6Li 1+ ground state, 6Li 3+1, and 12C 2+1 states, in which the 14 low-energy constants (LECs) of the NNLOopt chiral NN potential are varied within ±10% and analyzed with Sobol' global sensitivity analysis using 300,000 samples. The central claim is that quadrupole collectivity, as measured by the quadrupole moment Q2, is strongly influenced by two S-wave contact couplings, C_3S1^LO and C_1S0^NLO, not by changing the overall nuclear shape composition but by redistributing polar versus equatorial surface oscillations within the dominant Sp(3,R) shape. The authors support this with first- and total-order sensitivity indices, single-LEC response curves, shape-probability plots, and an energy decomposition that links the Q2 response to kinetic- and potential-energy changes.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant result. It identifies a direct, sizable footprint of short-range NN contact physics on a long-range collective observable, with implications for chiral-potential fitting, uncertainty quantification, and the microscopic interpretation of nuclear deformation. The paper's strengths include a very large 300,000-evaluation GSA, explicit convergence checks for 6Li against complete model spaces and larger harmonic-oscillator spaces, and a consistent energy decomposition (Fig. 5) that supports the proposed polar/equatorial mechanism. The study is computational and contains no fitted observables; the LEC variation range is an input assumption. The result is falsifiable: the predicted Q2 response to the two S-wave contacts should persist in complete-space and larger-space calculations for 12C.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sensitivity of collective observables; Supplemental Figs. 7-8] The 12C leg of the central claim is not validated. The fourteen-shape, 8-ℏΩ model space used for the 12C 2+1 state accounts for about 80% of the state, and the authors explicitly validate shape-selection independence for 6Li only (Supplemental Figs. 7 and 8). Because Q2 is additive over Sp(3,R) irreps and the omitted ~20% of the wave function contributes additively to the expectation value, an 80% overlap does not bound the magnitude or LEC dependence of the omitted contribution; the resemblance between the 12C and 6Li sensitivity patterns in Fig. 3 is suggestive but not a substitute. Please provide a complete-space or larger-Nmax check for the 12C response, or explicitly restrict the 'up to ~50%' claim to 6Li.
  2. [Abstract; Supplemental Fig. 6c] The abstract's claim that the LEC variations alter Q2 'without changing that shape's overall contribution within the nucleus' is not literally true for 12C. Supplemental Fig. 6c shows the dominant oblate shape varying from about 60% to 70% and the second shape from about 5% to 15% across the samples. Some of the Q2 response in 12C may therefore be due to shape mixing rather than purely internal surface oscillations of a fixed dominant shape. Please rephrase the abstract and Sec. 'Short-range footprints on long-range physics' to state that shape probabilities change modestly, and quantify the split between shape-probability changes and intra-shape oscillation changes.
  3. [Sensitivity of collective observables; Fig. 3] The Sobol' indices are prior-dependent. The uniform, independent ±10% sampling of all 14 LECs is an input assumption, not a physical uncertainty estimate, and the first-order indices are normalized to the total variance under this prior. The 'up to ~50%' magnitude is therefore conditional on the chosen range. Please either justify the ±10% range (e.g., from LEC covariance or naturalness) or state explicitly that the quantitative claim is a response to this defined range; the response slopes in Fig. 4, which are range-independent, should be presented as the primary quantitative result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption and text] The gray symbols for '300 simultaneously varied LEC samples' are not described in the text; please clarify whether these are the same samples as in the GSA and how the reader should compare them with the one-at-a-time curves.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses 'probability amplitudes' for quantities that appear to be probabilities; please use consistent terminology.
  3. [Resilience of nuclear shapes] The phrase 'without loss of generality, our calculations use a single ℏΩ = 15 MeV' is not strictly lossless for finite-space observables; please add a brief caveat or reference showing that the LEC-response conclusions are ℏΩ-insensitive.
  4. [Resilience of nuclear shapes] The absence of three-nucleon forces is noted to minimally affect binding energies, but the manuscript does not discuss their possible effect on the Q2 response; a sentence noting the caveat (cf. Ref. [43]) would be helpful.
  5. [Supplemental Fig. 7(d)] Supplemental Fig. 7(d) shows that for the 6Li 1+ ground state the sensitivity indices differ between the complete space and the 14-shape space for some LECs (e.g., C3P2, c3); the main text's statement that the sensitivity patterns are 'practically unchanged' should acknowledge that this holds for the collective states and is less clean for the weakly-collective ground-state Q2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor interpretive circularity in the polar/equatorial mechanism; the Q2 response itself is a genuine ab initio computation.

  1. self definitional [Section 'Short-range footprints on long-range physics' and Fig. 4 caption]
    "the magnitude of Q2 increases for a stronger repulsive 1S0 contact interaction by favoring polar oscillations, that is, multiples of two HO quanta along the symmetry axis, and decreases as the equatorial modes (having HO quanta in the plane perpendicular to the symmetry axis) become dominant [Fig. 4(g)-(i)]."

    Within an Sp(3,R) shape, the quadrupole operator is a linear combination of the polar and equatorial oscillator-quantum labels used to define these oscillation modes, and the paper states that 'Q2 does not couple different shapes' and that the total Q2 is the sum over shapes. Therefore, saying that Q2 rises because polar oscillations are favored is a restatement of how the Q2 expectation value is constructed from these same Sp(3,R) labels, rather than an independent dynamical explanation. The independent, non-circular content is the computed wavefunction result that the LEC variations actually shift the polar/equatorial amplitudes; that shift is a genuine ab initio observation. The circularity is thus limited to the framing of the mechanism, not the central sensitivity result.

full rationale

The central claim—that varying the S-wave contact couplings C(LO)3S1 and C(NLO)1S0 changes the quadrupole moments of 6Li and 12C collective states—is obtained from fixed chiral-potential (NNLOopt) SA-NCSM calculations with no parameters fitted to the quadrupole data. The 300,000-sample GSA and the one-LEC-at-a-time response curves are computational observations, not derivations from a fitted model. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the SA-NCSM and Sp(3,R) shape basis are cited to the same authors, but the method is benchmarked against the full no-core shell model ('It produces the same results as the traditional no-core shell model [36,37] for a given inter-nucleon interaction'), providing independent support. The only circular flavor is the interpretation of the mechanism: the polar/equatorial decomposition is built from the same Sp(3,R) oscillator-quantum labels that define the quadrupole operator, so 'Q2 changes because polar oscillations change' partly restates the definition of Q2. This is a minor, non-damaging tautology. The 12C model-space truncation (14 shapes, ~80% of the state) is a validity concern but not a circularity, as it is an approximation rather than an input fitted to the output. Overall, the derivation chain is otherwise self-contained, so the score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants; the central result is a sensitivity analysis of a fixed chiral potential. The key hand-chosen inputs are the ±10% uniform sampling range and the SA model-space truncation. The physical interpretation rests on the Sp(3,R) shape decomposition and on the use of NNLOopt without 3N forces.

free parameters (2)
  • LEC variation range = ±10% around NNLOopt values
    The reported up-to-50% Q2 variation is defined over this hand-chosen range; a narrower or correlated real-world LEC distribution would reduce the effect. The sampling treats LECs as independent, which is not true for actual chiral fits.
  • SA model-space selection = 14 shapes spanning 8 HO shells for 12C; up to 12 HO shells for 6Li; ℏΩ=15 MeV
    The magnitude of the Q2 response for 12C is computed only in this truncated space capturing about 80% of the state; convergence of the response magnitude is shown only for 6Li.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NNLOopt chiral NN potential, used without three-nucleon forces, adequately represents short-range NN physics for 6Li and 12C quadrupole observables.
    Invoked in the 'Resilience of nuclear shapes' section. The paper argues 3N forces contribute minimally based on A=3,4 binding energies, but their omission could affect the sensitivity pattern in these states.
  • standard math The Sp(3,R)-adapted shape basis provides a physically meaningful separation of static deformation and dynamical surface oscillations, and the quadrupole operator does not couple different shapes.
    Group-theoretic property of Sp(3,R) generators used to decompose Q2 into per-shape contributions and to attribute changes to internal polar/equatorial modes.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform independent sampling of the LECs in ±10% is a valid probe of the response of collectivity to short-range contact physics.
    Latin hypercube and Sobol sampling treat LECs as independent, but real chiral potentials have correlated LECs from fitting; the GSA variance is defined with respect to this artificial hypercube.
  • domain assumption The truncation to 14 shapes and 8 HO shells preserves the magnitude and direction of the Q2 sensitivity, not just the ranking.
    Validated for 6Li against complete spaces and 10-12 shells, but not for the 12C 2+1 state where only the 14-shape space is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unexpected Rise in Nuclear Collectivity from Short-Range Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CR5QFYN

@misc{pith2026250100682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unexpected Rise in Nuclear Collectivity from Short-Range Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CR5QFYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00682}
}
abstract

We discover a surprising relation between the collective motion of nucleons within atomic nuclei, traditionally understood to be driven by long-range correlations, and short-range nucleon-nucleon interactions. Specifically, we find that quadrupole collectivity in low-lying states of $^6$Li and $^{12}$C, calculated with state-of-the-art ab initio techniques, is significantly influenced by two opposing $S$-wave contact couplings that subtly alter the surface oscillations of one largely deformed nuclear shape, without changing that shape's overall contribution within the nucleus. The results offer new insights into the nature of emergent nuclear collectivity and its link to the underlying nucleon-nucleon interaction at short distances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration, based on large-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Probability amplitudes of the “deformation” ba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: First-order (colored) and total-order (white) sensitivity indices of the quadrupole moments (purple) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: for the 3+ 1 state), compared to, e.g., 2-15% many￾body model uncertainties in the present GSA calculations (cf. Refs. [62, 63] for the infinite-space estimates using NNLOopt for 6Li and 12C; in addition, Ref. [63] reports 13% many-body model uncertainties in the ab in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Probabilities of the four most dominant shapes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: First-order (colored) and total-order (white) sensitivity indices of the energies (top panels) and quadrupole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Excitation energy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: First-order (colored) and total-order (white) sen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dytrych, K

    T. Dytrych, K. D. Launey, J. P. Draayer, D. J. Rowe, J. L. Wood, G. Rosensteel, C. Bahri, D. Langr, and R. B. Baker, Physics of nuclei: Key role of an emergent sym- metry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 042501 (2020). 6

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol. 1 (Benjamin, New York, 1969)

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    D. J. Rowe, The emergence and use of symmetry in the many-nucleon model of atomic nuclei, in Emergent phe- nomena in atomic nuclei from large-scale modeling: a symmetry-guided perspective (World Scientific Publishing Co., 2017) p. 65

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Shape coexistence in atomic nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    P. E. Garrett, M. Zieli´ nska, and E. Cl´ ement, An exper- imental view on shape coexistence in nuclei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 124, 103931 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    T. Gray, J. Allmond, R. Janssens, W. Korten, A. Stuch- bery, J. Wood, A. Ayangeakaa, S. Bottoni, B. Bucher, C. Campbell, M. Carpenter, H. Crawford, H. David, D. Doherty, P. Fallon, M. Febbraro, A. Galindo-Uribarri, C. Gross, M. Komorowska, F. Kondev, T. Laurit- sen, A. Macchiavelli, P. Napiorkowsi, E. Padilla-Rodal, S. Pain, W. Reviol, D. Sarantites, G. S...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Ivanova, S

    D. Ivanova, S. Lalkovski, L. Atanasova, S. Kisyov, I. Vasilev, C. Mihai, A. Turturica, A. Blazhev, R. Borcea, M. Boromiza, S. Calinescu, C. C. Stan, C. Costache, A. Gandhi, D. Grigorova, R. Lica, N. Marginean, R. Marginean, C. M¨ uller-Gatermann, A. Olacel, N. L. Petrov, L. Stan, E. A. Stefanova, I. Stiru, G. Stoev, S. Toma, G. Turturica, S. Ujeniuc, and ...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Sp˘ ataru, G

    A. Sp˘ ataru, G. Kripko-Koncz, D. Amanbayev, S. A. S. Andr´ es, D. L. Balabanski, S. Beck, J. Bergmann, P. Con- stantin, T. Dickel, H. Geissel, C. Hornung, N. Kalantar- Nayestanaki, I. Mardor, N. Minkov, A. Mollaebrahimi, W. R. Plaß, C. Scheidenberger, M. Wasserheß, and J. Zhao, Studying shape phase transition in even-proton nuclei via mass measurements, ...

    work page 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Riczu, J

    G. Riczu, J. Darai, and J. Cseh, Superdeformation and dynamical symmetry, Physica Scripta 99, 045306 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Benjedi, R

    R. Benjedi, R. Budaca, P. Buganu, Y. E. Bassem, A. Lah- bas, and M. Oulne, Shapes and structure for the lowest states of the 42,44ca isotopes, Physica Scripta 99, 055307 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    K. A. Gladnishki, L. Atanasova, A. Blazhev, M. Djon- golov, G. Georgiev, N. Ivanov, D. Kalaydjieva, D. Kocheva, R. Lozeva, G. Rainovski, M. Stoyanova, and K. Stoychev, Electromagnetic transition rates in the nu- cleus 13658ce, Physica Scripta 99, 065305 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Kocheva, G

    D. Kocheva, G. Rainovski, J. Jolie, M. Beckers, A. Blazhev, A. Esmaylzadeh, C. Fransen, K. A. Glad- nishki, N. Pietralla, M. Scheck, F. Spee, M. Stoyanova, V. Werner, G. D. Gregorio, A. Gargano, and B. A. Brown, Study the structure of the low-lying states of 206po, Physica Scr...

    2024

  5. [13]

    A. V. Afanasjev, S. Teeti, and A. Taninah, Fast rotation of nuclei with extreme isospin in the vicinity of neutron and proton drip lines, Physica Scripta 99, 065313 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Henderson et al

    J. Henderson et al. , Testing microscopically derived de- scriptions of nuclear collectivity: Coulomb excitation of 22Mg, Phys. Lett. B782, 468 (2018), arXiv:1709.03948 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ruotsalainen, J

    P. Ruotsalainen, J. Henderson, G. Hackman, G. H. Sargsyan, K. D. Launey, A. Saxena, P. C. Srivastava, S. R. Stroberg, T. Grahn, J. Pakarinen, G. C. Ball, R. Julin, P. T. Greenlees, J. Smallcombe, C. Andreoiu, N. Bernier, M. Bowry, M. Buckner, R. Caballero-Folch, A. Chester, S....

    2019

  8. [16]

    P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Effective field theory for few-nucleon systems, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52, 339 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 68, 041001 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Preci- sion nucleon-nucleon potential at fifth order in the chi- ral expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122301 (2015), arXiv:1412.4623 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hammer, S

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

    2020

  12. [20]

    McIlroy, C

    C. McIlroy, C. Barbieri, T. Inoue, T. Doi, and T. Hat- suda, Doubly magic nuclei from lattice qcd forces at Mps = 469 MeV/c2, Phys. Rev. C 97, 021303 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    I. Tews, Z. Davoudi, A. Ekstr¨ om, J. D. Holt, and J. E. Lynn, New ideas in constraining nuclear forces, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47, 103001 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, Z. Davoudi, T. C. Luu, and M. J. Savage, Two-nucleon systems in a finite volume. ii. 3s1−3d1 cou- pled channels and the deuteron, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114507 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    I. Sobol’, Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathe- matical models and their monte carlo estimates, Mathe- matics and Computers in Simulation 55, 271 (2001), the Second IMACS Seminar on Monte Carlo Methods

    2001

  16. [24]

    Saltelli, P

    A. Saltelli, P. Annoni, I. Azzini, F. Campolongo, M. Ratto, and S. Tarantola, Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. design and estimator for the total sensitivity index, Computer Physics Communica- tions 181, 259 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    K. D. Launey, A. Mercenne, and T. Dytrych, Nuclear dy- namics and reactions in the ab initio symmetry-adapted framework, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 253 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, Symmetry- guided large-scale shell-model theory, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 89, 101 (review) (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Dytrych, K

    T. Dytrych, K. D. Sviratcheva, C. Bahri, J. P. Draayer, and J. P. Vary, Evidence for Symplectic Symmetry in ab initio No-core-shell-model Results for Light Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 162503 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Williams, G

    J. Williams, G. C. Ball, A. Chester, T. Domingo, A. B. Garnsworthy, G. Hackman, J. Henderson, R. Hender- son, R. Kr¨ ucken, A. Kumar, K. D. Launey, J. Measures, O. Paetkau, J. Park, G. H. Sargsyan, J. Smallcombe, P. C. Srivastava, K. Starosta, C. E. Svensson, K. Whit- more, an...

    2019

  21. [29]

    G. H. Sargsyan, K. D. Launey, M. T. Burkey, A. T. Gal- lant, N. D. Scielzo, G. Savard, A. Mercenne, T. Dytrych, D. Langr, L. Varriano, B. Longfellow, T. Y. Hirsh, and J. P. Draayer, Impact of clustering on the8Li β decay and 7 recoil form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202503 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    N. D. Heller, G. H. Sargsyan, K. D. Launey, C. W. Johnson, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, New insights into backbending in the symmetry-adapted shell-model framework, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024304 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    A. C. Dreyfuss, K. D. Launey, J. E. Escher, G. H. Sargsyan, R. B. Baker, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, Clustering and α-capture reaction rate from ab initio symmetry-adapted descriptions of 20Ne, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044608 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    A. C. Dreyfuss, K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, J. P. Draayer, R. B. Baker, C. M. Deibel, and C. Bahri, Understand- ing emergent collectivity and clustering in nuclei from a symmetry-based no-core shell-model perspective, Phys. Rev. C 95, 044312 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Mercenne, K

    A. Mercenne, K. D. Launey, J. E. Escher, T. Dytrych, and J. P. Draayer, New Ab Initio Approach to Nuclear Reactions Based on the Symmetry-Adapted No-Core Shell Model, in Recent Progress in Few-Body Physics , Vol. 238, edited by N. Orr, M. Ploszajczak, F. Marques, and J. Carbon...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Mercenne, K

    A. Mercenne, K. Launey, T. Dytrych, J. Escher, S. Quaglioni, G. Sargsyan, D. Langr, and J. Draayer, Effi- cacy of the symmetry-adapted basis for ab initio nucleon- nucleus interactions for light- and intermediate-mass nu- clei, Computer Physics Communications 280, 108476 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Burrows, R

    M. Burrows, R. B. Baker, S. Bacca, K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, and D. Langr, Response functions and gi- ant monopole resonances for light to medium-mass nuclei from the ab initio symmetry-adapted no-core shell model (2023), arXiv:2312.09782

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Navr´ atil, J

    P. Navr´ atil, J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, Properties of 12C in the Ab Initio Nuclear Shell Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5728 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Barrett, P

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

    2013

  30. [38]

    B. D. Carlsson, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, D. F. Str¨ omberg, G. R. Jansen, O. Lilja, M. Lindby, B. A. Mattsson, and K. A. Wendt, Uncertainty analysis and order-by-order optimization of chiral nuclear interactions, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011019 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Svensson, A

    I. Svensson, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Bayesian esti- mation of the low-energy constants up to fourth order in the nucleon-nucleon sector of chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014001 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    K. S. Becker, K. D. Launey, A. Ekstr¨ om, T. Dytrych, D. Langr, G. H. Sargsyan, and J. P. Draayer, Un- certainty quantification of collective nuclear observ- ables from the chiral potential parametrization (2024), arXiv:2404.00063

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Baardsen, C. Forss´ en, G. Ha- gen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, W. Nazarewicz, et al. , An optimized chiral nucleon- nucleon interaction at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 192502 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    R. B. Baker, K. D. Launey, S. Bacca, N. N. Dinur, and T. Dytrych, Benchmark calculations of electromagnetic sum rules with a symmetry-adapted basis and hyper- spherical harmonics, Phys. Rev. C 102, 014320 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Maris, J

    P. Maris, J. P. Vary, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014327 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    M. D. Mckay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover, A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics 42, 55 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    K. S. Becker, K. D. Launey, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. H. Sargsyan, D. C. Mumma, T. Dytrych, D. Langr, and J. P. Draayer, Understanding the effect of chiral nn parametrization on nuclear shapes from an ab initio perspective (2023), arXiv:2311.13020

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, G. H. Sargsyan, R. B. Baker, and J. P. Draayer, Emergent symplectic symmetry in atomic nuclei: Ab initio symmetry-adapted no-core shell model, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 229, 2429 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Rosensteel and D

    G. Rosensteel and D. J. Rowe, Nuclear Sp(3,R) Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 10 (1977)

    1977

  40. [48]

    D. J. Rowe, Microscopic theory of the nuclear collective model, Reports on Progr. in Phys. 48, 1419 (1985)

    1985

  41. [49]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Multiscale physics of atomic nuclei from first principles (2024), arXiv:2404.00058 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Iwanaga, W

    T. Iwanaga, W. Usher, and J. Herman, Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses, Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling 4, 18155 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Herman and W

    J. Herman and W. Usher, SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis, The Journal of Open Source Software 2, 10.21105/joss.00097 (2017)

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Ekstr¨ om and G

    A. Ekstr¨ om and G. Hagen, Global sensitivity analysis of bulk properties of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 252501 (2019), arXiv:1910.02922

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Odell, P

    D. Odell, P. Giuliani, K. Beyer, M. Catacora-Rios, M. Y. H. Chan, E. Bonilla, R. J. Furnstahl, K. God- bey, and F. M. Nunes, Rose: A reduced-order scatter- ing emulator for optical models (2023), arXiv:2312.12426 [physics.comp-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dj¨ arv, A

    T. Dj¨ arv, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ e n, and H. T. Johansson, Bayesian predictions for a = 6 nuclei using eigenvector continuation emulators, Phys. Rev. C105, 10.1103/phys- revc.105.014005 (2022), arXiv:2108.13313

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    K. S. Becker, K. D. Launey, A. Ekstrom, and T. Dytrych, Ab initio symmetry-adapted emulator for studying emer- gent collectivity and clustering in nuclei, Front. Phys.11, 1064601 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    K¨ onig, A

    S. K¨ onig, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Eigenvector continuation as an efficient and accurate emulator for uncertainty quantification, Physics Letters B 810, 135814 (2020), arXiv:1909.08446

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Frame, R

    D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 032501 (2018), arXiv:1711.07090

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Colloquium: Eigenvector continuation and projection-based emulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031002 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Escher, C

    J. Escher, C. Bahri, D. Troltenier, and J. Draayer, Pairing-plus-quadrupole model and nuclear deformation: A look at the spin-orbit interaction, Nuclear Physics A 633, 662 (1998)

    1998

  52. [60]

    Castel, D

    B. Castel, D. Rowe, and L. Zamick, Why are deformed nuclei prolate?, Physics Letters B 236, 121 (1990)

    1990

  53. [61]

    Rowe, How do deformed nuclei rotate?, Nuclear Physics A 152, 273 (1970)

    D. Rowe, How do deformed nuclei rotate?, Nuclear Physics A 152, 273 (1970)

    1970

  54. [62]

    I. J. Shin, Y. Kim, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, C. Forss´ en, J. Rotureau, and N. Michel, Ab initio no-core solutions for 6Li, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44, 075103 (2017). 8

    2017

  55. [63]

    G. H. Sargsyan, Electromagnetic Transitions and Beta Decays in Nuclei from the Ab initio Symmetry-adapted No-core Shell Model, Phd thesis, Louisiana State Univer- sity, Example City, CA (2021), lSU Doctoral Disserta- tions, 5641, https://repository.lsu.edu/gradschool_ disserta...

    2021

  56. [64]

    Saltelli, Making best use of model evaluations to com- pute sensitivity indices, Computer Physics Communica- tions 145, 280 (2002)

    A. Saltelli, Making best use of model evaluations to com- pute sensitivity indices, Computer Physics Communica- tions 145, 280 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    Homma and A

    T. Homma and A. Saltelli, Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models, Reliability Engi- neering & System Safety 52, 1 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    B. J. Verhaar, A Method for the Elimination of Spurious States in the Nuclear Harmonic Oscillator Shell Model, Nucl. Phys. 21, 508 (1960)

    1960

  59. [67]

    K. T. Hecht, Use of SU(3) in Elimination of Spurious Center of Mass States, Nucl. Phys. A 170, 34 (1971)

    1971

  60. [68]

    (#$)!!!"(&#$)!!'#

    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, Collective Modes in Light Nuclei from First Principles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 252501 (2013). I. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIALS A. Sobol’ global sensitivi...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.