Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 126 references

From bare two-nucleon interaction to nuclear matter and finite nuclei in a relativistic framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single leading-order relativistic chiral two-nucleon force, with four low-energy constants fitted only to neutron–proton scattering, reproduces nuclear-matter saturation and the binding energies and charge radii…

desk verdict Serious, mostly honest RBHF calculation showing a LO relativistic 2NF can reproduce scattering, saturation, and medium-mass bulk properties, but the no-3NF headline overreaches because the relativistic in-medium component that replaces 3NF is admitted to be unconstrained by the NN fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01257 v1 pith:TK4MGI2H submitted 2025-07-02 nucl-th

Shihang Shen , Jun-Xu Lu , Li-Sheng Geng , Jie Meng , Wei-Jiang Zou This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.-n21.30.-x21.65.-f
keywords relativisticchiraleffectivefieldtheoryBrueckner-Hartree-Focksymmetricnuclearmattersaturationmedium-massnucleichargeradiitwo-nucleoninteractionthree-nucleonforces
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

Using only two-nucleon physics as input, this paper tries to establish one continuous relativistic description of nuclear systems across very different scales: neutron–proton scattering, infinite symmetric nuclear matter, and the bulk properties of medium-mass nuclei from calcium to tin. The interaction is the leading-order relativistic chiral force, with four low-energy constants fixed by fitting np phase shifts below 100 MeV and no three-nucleon force anywhere in the calculation. In the relativistic Brueckner–Hartree–Fock framework, the same force reproduces the empirical saturation point of symmetric nuclear matter and gives binding energies and charge radii for 40Ca through 120Sn that fall close to experiment, moving the results off the "Coester line" (the systematic energy–radius correlation that two-body-only nonrelativistic forces produce). If the claim holds, the reason is that relativistic in-medium effects substitute for the three-nucleon forces that nonrelativistic calculations require.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the leading-order relativistic chiral potential of Eq. (1): one-pion exchange plus four contact terms $C_S$, $C_V$, $C_{AV}$, $C_T$, with a local momentum regulator $\exp(-q^2/\Lambda^2)$ and cutoffs 500, 600, and 700 MeV. The machinery that turns this bare two-body force into nuclear predictions is the relativistic Brueckner–Hartree–Fock ladder summation: solve the in-medium Thompson equation (nuclear matter) or the Bethe–Goldstone equation (finite nuclei) in a Dirac basis, and iterate the single-particle self-energy $\hat U(p) \approx (\tilde M/\tilde E) U_S + U_0$, with $\tilde M = M + U_S$ and $\tilde E = E - U_0$. This self-energy dressing is the mechanism that generates the density-dependent repulsion needed for saturation, replacing, in the authors' argument, the explicit three-nucleon force of nonrelativistic calculations.

What would settle it

Repeat the calculation at next-to-leading order with the same fitting protocol and the same $\Lambda=700$-II parameter set; if the saturation point or the medium-mass energies and radii move outside the empirical bands once the next chiral order is included, the leading-order agreement was not a sign that the mechanism is correct. A more direct probe is the pure-neutron-matter equation of state, where the repulsive three-body mechanism is known to matter most and where the LO force's predictions can be compared with chiral-EFT bands that include explicit three-nucleon forces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single leading-order relativistic chiral two-nucleon potential can carry the physics of saturation without an explicit three-nucleon force. Fitted only to $J \le 1$ neutron–proton phase shifts, the four contact constants $C_S$, $C_V$, $C_{AV}$, and $C_T$ produce, inside the RBHF self-consistency loop, large scalar and vector single-particle self-energies $U_S$ and $U_0$ that dress the in-medium nucleon; in the nonrelativistic reduction this dressing acts like a repulsive three-body interaction, which is what pushes the equation of state to saturate at the empirical density and energy. The same parameter sets then yield the reported agreement with experimental energies and charge radii of seven medium-mass nuclei, with the $\Lambda=700$-II set giving the best overall description.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the relativistic in-medium dressing produced by a two-body force alone is physically equivalent to what nonrelativistic calculations obtain from explicit three-nucleon forces, so omitting those forces is a complete description rather than a truncation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Symmetric nuclear matter saturates at the empirical density and energy with a purely two-body relativistic force, so the repulsive density dependence usually credited to three-nucleon forces is already generated by the relativistic many-body dynamics.
  • The same interaction and constants describe neutron–proton scattering, nuclear matter, and medium-mass nuclei, so a single parameter set can connect few-body data to bulk structure.
  • The energy–radius correlation of medium-mass nuclei is shifted toward experiment without any three-body tuning, easing the "Coester line" problem that plagues nonrelativistic two-body-only Brueckner calculations.
  • Finite-nucleus results converge at single-particle cutoffs near the interaction cutoffs (500–700 MeV), so this low-momentum relativistic force is computationally practical for heavier systems.
  • For 100Sn the LO force gives about 864 MeV of binding and a charge radius of 4.48 fm, providing a concrete prediction against future mass and radius measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the same LO force should also control neutron-rich observables such as the neutron skin of 208Pb and the symmetry energy slope; those are natural next tests, and the paper does not compute them.
  • The paper's own uncertainty estimate of about 35% at LO near saturation implies that the agreement could still be a truncation artifact, so a full next-to-leading-order calculation is the decisive check of whether the mechanism is converging rather than cancelling.
  • Because the calculation is restricted to spherical, closed-shell-like nuclei, the no-3NF claim has not yet been tested against pairing, deformation, or open-shell correlations; those would be the stress tests for the claim.
  • A sharp physical signature of the mechanism is that the scalar–vector self-energy balance directly controls saturation; varying it while keeping phase shifts fixed would isolate how much of the success comes from the relativistic dressing rather than from the chiral force itself.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a leading-order relativistic chiral two-nucleon interaction with four low-energy constants, fits those constants to np scattering phase shifts up to 100 MeV for three cutoffs, and then uses the same interaction in relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations of symmetric nuclear matter and of medium-mass nuclei from 40Ca to 120Sn. The central claim is that a single LO 2NF-only relativistic framework, without explicit three-nucleon forces, reproduces the empirical saturation region of symmetric nuclear matter and gives reasonable binding energies and charge radii for medium-mass nuclei, thereby improving the Coester line and suggesting that relativistic in-medium effects can replace explicit 3NFs for bulk properties. The paper includes convergence tests, cutoff variation, an uncertainty estimate, and raw numerical values in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be an important result: it would show that a minimal relativistic chiral 2NF can unify two-nucleon scattering, nuclear matter saturation, and medium-mass nuclear structure without explicit three-nucleon forces, offering a complementary path to nonrelativistic ab initio approaches. The paper has genuine strengths that should be credited: the LECs are fitted to external np scattering data, so the nuclear matter and finite-nuclei results are genuine predictions rather than fits; the calculations include explicit convergence checks; the authors disclose important caveats, including the unconstrained antinucleon content, the 35% LO truncation uncertainty, and the post-selection of one parameter set for the headline comparison; and the Supplemental Material provides raw data and an uncertainty-quantification framework. However, as argued in the major comments, the strongest no-3NF conclusion is not currently supported because the component that plays the role of the 3NF is admitted to be unconstrained by the scattering fit, and because the headline agreement is obtained after selecting the best-performing parameter set.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and Discussion, paragraph on EoS uncertainties] The paper states that the interactions were determined solely by NN scattering, "with antinucleon degrees of freedom unconstrained," and that nucleon-antinucleon excitations provide "important relativistic effects similar to a repulsive 3NF" that lead to saturation. This is the mechanism that supposedly makes explicit 3NFs unnecessary, yet the same paragraph notes that "EoS uncertainties persist" for parameter sets with similar phase-shift chi^2. Because the load-bearing many-body effect is not pinned down by the data used to determine the four LECs, the no-3NF conclusion is not supported as stated. The authors should either constrain this component, for example by varying the off-shell/antinucleon content while preserving phase shifts, or explicitly weaken the concluding claim to apply to this particular family of interactions rather than to relativistic 2NF-only frameworks in general.
  2. [Fig. 4 and surrounding text in Results and Discussion] The finite-nuclei comparison in Fig. 4 is made with the single parameter set Lambda700-II, chosen after the nuclear results were known as "the best overall description across nuclear systems." Since the six parameter sets have similar phase-shift chi^2 but different equations of state, post-selection of the best set prevents Fig. 4 from being read as a prediction of the framework. The authors should either show results for all six sets in Fig. 4, or provide a quantitative summary of the set-to-set spread in energies and radii, so that the reader can judge whether the agreement is robust or a consequence of selection.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Uncertainty quantification] Equation (S44) gives a 35% leading-order truncation uncertainty, and the text states that for 100Sn this corresponds to Delta E about 233 MeV, which is comparable to the 465 MeV cutoff spread and much larger than the roughly 39 MeV difference between the Lambda700-II result and the experimental value. This means the claimed "reasonable agreement" with experiment for finite nuclei lies well inside the estimated truncation uncertainty. The main text should attach this uncertainty to the finite-nuclei comparisons explicitly and should avoid language implying that the agreement with experiment is precise enough to discriminate between frameworks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: "Goldsteon" in the caveat list, "Thmposon" and "descriptiton" in the Supplemental Material, and "ingored" in the Supplemental Material.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The displayed formula for the in-medium spinor has unbalanced parentheses in the prefactor, making the definition of the normalization factor ambiguous as printed.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S1 caption] The caption says the figure shows partial waves with J <= 2, while the surrounding text says J <= 4; the caption should be corrected to match the content.
  4. [Results and Discussion, fitting procedure] The text says the LECs are fitted to "J <= 1" np phase shifts up to 100 MeV, but the figures and discussion include higher partial waves and mixing angles. It would be helpful to state explicitly which partial waves and mixing angles enter the fit and which are predictions, since this affects the interpretation of Fig. 1 and of the chi^2 values in Table I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LECs are fitted to external PWA93 phase shifts, and the nuclear-matter and finite-nuclei results are genuine out-of-fit predictions; the flagged caveats concern underdetermination and post-hoc selection, not circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and anchored to external data rather than to its own conclusions. The four LECs (C_S, C_V, C_AV, C_T) are fitted to J<=1 np-scattering phase shifts of the external PWA93 dataset below 100 MeV (Table I); the symmetric-nuclear-matter equation of state (Fig. 2), the binding energies and charge radii of 40Ca to 120Sn (Fig. 4, Table S1), and the phase shifts above the fitting window are genuine predictions that are never fed back into the fit. The in-medium self-energies U_S and U_0 (Eqs. 2-4) are solved self-consistently, not fitted. The paper's self-citations (the local-regulator LO force from Refs. [80,81], RBHF machinery from Refs. [66,74,86,87]) carry independent support: the earlier force parameters were anchored to the same external PWA93 phase shifts, and the many-body machinery is published methodology benchmarked elsewhere. Two passages must be flagged as limitations, though they evidence underdetermination rather than circularity. In Results and Discussion the paper admits: 'the interactions were determined solely by nucleon-nucleon (NN) scattering, with antinucleon degrees of freedom unconstrained', and 'Despite similar phase shifts for a given cutoff (Fig. 1 and Table I), EoS uncertainties persist'. It also says of the headline figure: 'By choosing the Lambda700-II parameter set, which provides the best overall description across nuclear systems' — i.e., selected after the nuclear results were known. These are robustness and post-selection concerns about the strength of the no-3NF claim, not reductions of a predicted quantity to a fitted one by construction; no equation here is equivalent to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Honest non-finding: no significant circularity, score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a fitted two-body interaction (four LECs plus a chosen cutoff) and on the relativistic many-body framework (Thompson equation, RBHF, neglect of explicit 3NF). No genuinely new entities are introduced; the in-medium scalar and vector self-energies are standard emergent mean fields. The most important cost is the physical assumption that relativistic effects replace three-nucleon forces.

free parameters (5)
  • CS = -656.98 to -674.85 GeV^-2 (Lambda 700 sets)
    Leading-order scalar contact coupling. Fitted to np phase shifts (PWA93) for J<=1 up to 100 MeV; values for other cutoffs in Table I.
  • CV = 614.94 to 637.83 GeV^-2 (Lambda 700 sets)
    Leading-order vector contact coupling. Fitted to the same np phase shift data.
  • CAV = -122.34 to -145.61 GeV^-2 (Lambda 700 sets)
    Leading-order axial-vector contact coupling. Fitted to the same np phase shift data.
  • CT = -51.84 to -62.93 GeV^-2 (Lambda 700 sets)
    Leading-order tensor contact coupling. Fitted to the same np phase shift data.
  • Regulator cutoff Lambda = 500, 600, 700 MeV
    Local momentum-space regulator exp(-(p'-p)^2/Lambda^2); chosen by hand and varied to estimate systematic uncertainty, not fit to data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Expansion parameters s-4M^2 ~ O(p^2), t ~ O(p^2), m_pi ~ O(p), M ~ O(p^0) define the leading-order chiral potential.
    Stated in the Formalism section and Supplemental; this covariant counting promotes certain relativistic corrections to leading order, which is essential for the resulting interaction.
  • domain assumption Two-nucleon and in-medium scattering are described by the Thompson equation (Eq. 5) rather than the full Bethe-Salpeter equation.
    A standard relativistic three-dimensional reduction; off-shell behavior differs between reductions, which could affect many-body results.
  • domain assumption Relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock, the lowest order of the hole-line expansion with only two-body correlations, is adequate for the observables studied.
    The authors themselves flag this in the caveats and cite Refs. 18, 103, 104; higher-order correlations are neglected.
  • domain assumption Three-nucleon forces can be omitted because relativistic effects mimic their dominant contributions.
    This is the central physical premise, asserted with citations to Refs. 67 to 70 and referenced again in the summary.
  • ad hoc to paper The interaction uses a local momentum regulator exp(-(p'-p)^2/Lambda^2).
    Chosen for convenience in finite-nuclei calculations (Supplemental Eq. S15 and S20); the supplemental notes that nonlocal regulators give somewhat different phase shifts.
  • domain assumption The single-particle potential is approximated as U(p) approximately (M_tilde/E_tilde) U_S + U_0, neglecting space and momentum dependent components (Eq. 4).
    Justified by minor contributions, citing Ref. 66; this approximation affects the in-medium spinor and the G-matrix.
  • domain assumption Retardation in one-pion exchange is neglected (E_p' - E_p -> 0).
    Stated in the Supplemental; standard in potential models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From bare two-nucleon interaction to nuclear matter and finite nuclei in a relativistic framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TK4MGI2H

@misc{pith2026250701257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From bare two-nucleon interaction to nuclear matter and finite nuclei in a relativistic framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TK4MGI2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01257}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding nuclear forces, infinite nuclear matter, and finite nuclei within a unified framework has remained a central challenge in nuclear physics for decades. While most \textit{ab initio} studies employ nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger-equation frameworks, this work offers a relativistic perspective. Using a leading-order (LO) relativistic chiral interaction, we describe two-nucleon scattering via the Thompson equation, symmetric nuclear matter, and medium-mass nuclei (Ca, Ni, Zr, Sn) via the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory. Systematic uncertainties from regulator cutoffs and interaction parameters are analyzed. The empirical saturation region of nuclear matter is reproduced, and the binding energies and charge radii of medium-mass nuclei agree reasonably well with experimental data, significantly improving the ``Coester line". These results highlight that the relativistic approach, employing a leading-order chiral force with only four low-energy constants and no three-nucleon forces, can capture the most important dynamics and offer a complementary pathway to address longstanding challenges in nuclear \textit{ab initio} studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01257 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. EoS of SNM from RBHF using the LO relativistic chiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Convergence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Energies (a) and charge radii (b) of nuclei ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venugopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035003 (2021), arXiv:2005.12299 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Hergert, Front

    H. Hergert, Front. in Phys. 8, 379 (2020), arXiv:2008.05061 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Yamazaki, G

    H. Yamazaki, G. Csire, N. Kucska, N. Shannon, B. Gy ˝orffy, H. Takagi, and B. ´Ujfalussy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 196002 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Holle, S

    N. Holle, S. Walfort, J. Ballmaier, R. Mazzarello, and M. Salinga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 046101 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ruggenthaler*, D

    M. Ruggenthaler*, D. Sidler*, and A. Rubio*, Chem. Rev. 123, 11191 (2023), arXiv:2211.04241 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  7. [7]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, Front. in Phys. 8, 98 (2020), arXiv:1911.11875 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. K. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rept.386, 1 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305035

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, and R. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. C 75, 061001 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0611045

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Elhatisari et al., Nature 630, 59 (2024), arXiv:2210.17488 [nucl-th]

    S. Elhatisari et al., Nature 630, 59 (2024), arXiv:2210.17488 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. W. Hammer, S. K ¨onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. Hu, Y . Zhang, E. Epelbaum, U.-G. Meißner, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034307 (2017), arXiv:1612.05433 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Logoteta, I

    D. Logoteta, I. Bombaci, and A. Kievsky, Phys. Rev. C 94, 064001 (2016), arXiv:1609.00649 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sammarruca, L

    F. Sammarruca, L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Mach- leidt, and L. E. Marcucci, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054311 (2015), arXiv:1411.0136 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Z. H. Li and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064002 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    B. D. Day, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 719 (1967)

    1967

  11. [19]

    Xu, S.-Q

    X.-Y . Xu, S.-Q. Fan, Q. Yuan, B.-S. Hu, J.-G. Li, S.-M. Wang, and F.-R. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 215 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hu et al., Nature Phys

    B. Hu et al., Nature Phys. 18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. J. Novario, D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 032501 (2023), arXiv:2111.12775 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Stumpf, G. Ha- gen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 152503 (2018), arXiv:1709.02786 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hagen et al., Nature Phys.12, 186 (2015), arXiv:1509.07169 [nucl-th]

    G. Hagen et al., Nature Phys.12, 186 (2015), arXiv:1509.07169 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014), arXiv:1312.7872 [nucl- th]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Xu, and S. Wang, Symmetry 17, 169 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Michel and M

    N. Michel and M. Płoszajczak, Gamow Shell Model: The Unified Theory of Nuclear Structure and Reactions , V ol. 983 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. G. Li, N. Michel, B. S. Hu, W. Zuo, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054313 (2019), arXiv:1911.06485 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 022501 (2021), arXiv:1905.10475 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Engel, R. Wirth, T. R. Rodr ´ıguez, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 232501 (2020), arXiv:1908.05424 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gebrerufael, K

    E. Gebrerufael, K. V obig, H. Hergert, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 152503 (2017), arXiv:1610.05254 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lapoux, V

    V . Lapoux, V . Som `a, C. Barbieri, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 052501 (2016), arXiv:1605.07885 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Phys. Rept. 621, 165 (2016), arXiv:1512.06956 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. Alp, Y . Dietz, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, (2025), arXiv:2504.18259 [nucl-th]

    2025

  26. [34]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 403 (2021), arXiv:2101.01709 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr ´atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014302 (2022), arXiv:2104.04688 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Tichai, R

    A. Tichai, R. Roth, and T. Duguet, Front. in Phys.8, 164 (2020), arXiv:2001.10433 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Abe, T. Yoshida, Y . Tsunoda, N. Shimizu, N. Ita- gaki, Y . Utsuno, J. Vary, P. Maris, and H. Ueno, Nature Com- mun. 13, 2234 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Abe, Y . Tsunoda, Y . Utsuno, T. Yoshida, T. Mizusaki, M. Honma, and T. Otsuka, PTEP 2012, 01A205 (2012), arXiv:1207.4554 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. Liu, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, Y . Utsuno, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C 86, 014302 (2012), arXiv:1105.2983 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Otsuka, M

    T. Otsuka, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, N. Shimizu, and Y . Utsuno, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 47, 319 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Hebborn, G

    C. Hebborn, G. Hupin, K. Kravvaris, S. Quaglioni, P. Navr ´atil, and P. Gysbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 042503 (2022), arXiv:2203.15914 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K. D. Launey, A. Mercenne, and T. Dytrych, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 253 (2021), arXiv:2108.04894 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hupin, S

    G. Hupin, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navr ´atil, Nature Commun. 10, 351 (2019), arXiv:1803.11378 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    2013

  37. [45]

    Navratil, J

    P. Navratil, J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5728 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0004058

    2000 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lee, (2025), arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    D. Lee, (2025), arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    2025

  39. [47]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 162503 (2025), arXiv:2411.14935 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, T. A. L¨ahde, D. Lee, B.-N. Lu, and U.-G. Meißner, Nature Commun. 14, 2777 (2023), arXiv:2202.13596 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, Y .-Z. Ma, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 242501 (2022), arXiv:2111.14191 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    T. A. L ¨ahde and U.-G. Meißner, Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory: An introduction, V ol. 957 (Springer, 2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Elhatisari, D

    S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ahde, T. Luu, and U.-G. Meißner, Nature 528, 111 (2015), arXiv:1506.03513 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chambers-Wall, A

    G. Chambers-Wall, A. Gnech, G. B. King, S. Pastore, M. Pi- arulli, R. Schiavilla, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 212501 (2024), arXiv:2407.03487 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 142501 (2024), arXiv:2308.16266 [nucl-th]. 6

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Yang and P

    Y . Yang and P. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034320 (2023), arXiv:2211.13998 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and A. Lovato, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 279 (2019), arXiv:1901.04868 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    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), arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Som`a, Front

    V . Som`a, Front. in Phys. 8, 340 (2020), arXiv:2003.11321 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Rios, Front

    A. Rios, Front. in Phys. 8, 387 (2020), arXiv:2006.10610 [nucl- th]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Arthuis, C

    P. Arthuis, C. Barbieri, M. V orabbi, and P. Finelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 182501 (2020), arXiv:2002.02214 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Machleidt and F

    R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 137, 104117 (2024), arXiv:2402.14032 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Niu and B.-N

    Z.-W. Niu and B.-N. Lu, (2025), arXiv:2506.12874 [nucl-th]

    2025

  54. [62]

    Sammarruca and R

    F. Sammarruca and R. Millerson, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034313 (2020), arXiv:2005.01958 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hebeler, Phys

    K. Hebeler, Phys. Rept. 890, 1 (2021), arXiv:2002.09548 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    I. Tews, Z. Davoudi, A. Ekstr ¨om, J. D. Holt, and J. E. Lynn, J. Phys. G 47, 103001 (2020), arXiv:2001.03334 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M. R. Anastasio, L. S. Celenza, and C. M. Shakin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 2096 (1980)

    1980

  58. [66]

    Brockmann and R

    R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C42, 1965 (1990)

    1990

  59. [67]

    G. E. Brown and W. Weise, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 17, 39 (1987)

    1987

  60. [68]

    J. L. Forest, V . R. Pandharipande, and J. L. Friar, Phys. Rev. C 52, 568 (1995)

    1995

  61. [69]

    Sammarruca, B

    F. Sammarruca, B. Chen, L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, and R. Mach- leidt, Phys. Rev. C 86, 054317 (2012), arXiv:1209.5001 [nucl- th]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M ¨uther, F

    H. M ¨uther, F. Sammarruca, and Z. Ma, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E26, 173001 (2017), arXiv:1611.05621 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Muther, R

    H. Muther, R. Machleidt, and R. Brockmann, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1981 (1990)

    1990

  64. [72]

    Brockmann and H

    R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Physical review letters 68, 3408 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    S.-H. Shen, J. Hu, H. Liang, J. Meng, P. Ring, and S. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 33, 102103 (2016), arXiv:1609.01866 [nucl- th]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [75]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 109, 103713 (2019), arXiv:1904.04977 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Yang and P.-W

    Y .-L. Yang and P.-W. Zhao, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42, 051201 (2025), arXiv:2405.04203 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Ren, K.-W

    X.-L. Ren, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, B.-W. Long, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Chin. Phys. C 42, 014103 (2018), arXiv:1611.08475 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Lu, C.-X

    J.-X. Lu, C.-X. Wang, Y . Xiao, L.-S. Geng, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 142002 (2022), arXiv:2111.07766 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [81]

    Zou, Y .-L

    W.-J. Zou, Y .-L. Yang, S. Shen, and J. Meng, (2025), arXiv:2503.10187 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [83]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134863 (2019), arXiv:1812.10928 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [84]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  73. [85]

    see the Supplemental Material,

  74. [86]

    Tong, X.-L

    H. Tong, X.-L. Ren, P. Ring, S.-H. Shen, S.-B. Wang, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054302 (2018), arXiv:1808.09138 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [87]

    S. Wang, Q. Zhao, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054319 (2021), arXiv:2103.12960 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [88]

    V . G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C 48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  77. [89]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122301 (2015), arXiv:1412.4623 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [91]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y . Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [93]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 042501 (2019), arXiv:1710.08220 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [94]

    Lonardoni, I

    D. Lonardoni, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022033 (2020), arXiv:1912.09411 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [95]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekstr ¨om, C. Forss ´en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054301 (2020), arXiv:2006.16774 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [96]

    S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0303031

    2003 arXiv

  83. [97]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, J. Meng, P. Ring, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054312 (2018), arXiv:1802.08108 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [98]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  85. [100]

    Guo et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  86. [102]

    Coester, S

    F. Coester, S. Cohen, B. Day, and C. M. Vincent, Phys. Rev. C 1, 769 (1970)

    1970

  87. [103]

    Heinz, A

    M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 103, 044318 (2021), arXiv:2102.11172 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [104]

    Hagen, G

    G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 172501 (2016), arXiv:1605.01477 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  89. [105]

    Binder, J

    S. Binder, J. Langhammer, A. Calci, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 736, 119 (2014), arXiv:1312.5685 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  90. [106]

    Simonis, S

    J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014303 (2017), arXiv:1704.02915 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [107]

    Maris et al

    P. Maris et al. (LENPIC), Phys. Rev. C 106, 064002 (2022), arXiv:2206.13303 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  92. [108]

    Ekstr ¨om, G

    A. Ekstr ¨om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forss ´en, M. Hjorth- Jensen, P. Navr ´atil, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 109, 059901 (2024)], arXiv:1502.04682 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  93. [109]

    Hoppe, C

    J. Hoppe, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and J. Simo- nis, Phys. Rev. C100, 024318 (2019), arXiv:1904.12611 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  94. [110]

    H ¨uther, K

    T. H ¨uther, K. V obig, K. Hebeler, R. Machleidt, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135651 (2020), arXiv:1911.04955 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [111]

    Ekstr ¨om, G

    A. Ekstr ¨om, G. Hagen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, and P. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024332 (2018), arXiv:1707.09028 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [112]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034307 (2013), 7 arXiv:1212.1190 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [113]

    Heinz, T

    M. Heinz, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 111, 034311 (2025), arXiv:2411.16014 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  98. [115]

    C. Wang, S. Wang, H. Tong, J. Hu, and J. Yao, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034002 (2024), arXiv:2312.03403 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [116]

    Huang, Y

    T. Huang, Y . Yang, J. Meng, P. Ring, and P. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139502 (2025). 8 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Formalism Power counting In this section, we briefly introduce our covariant power counting rule. In principle, the power counting rule is quite similar to that in the...

    2025

  100. [117]

    The two-body interaction matrix elements in SNM are similar as in free space in Eqs

    they are ingored here. The two-body interaction matrix elements in SNM are similar as in free space in Eqs. (S9-S14), with replacing the energy and mass to the one with s.p. potentials (S16,S17). For the rest of solution of G-matrix and calculation of s.p. potential, the reade...

  101. [118]

    Chen, D.-L

    Y .-H. Chen, D.-L. Yao, and H. Q. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D87, 054019 (2013), arXiv:1212.1893 [hep-ph]. 15

    2013 arXiv

  102. [119]

    Erkelenz, R

    K. Erkelenz, R. Alzetta, and K. Holinde, Nucl. Phys. A 176, 413 (1971)

    1971

  103. [120]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, Phys. Rept. 149, 1 (1987)

    1987

  104. [121]

    Brockmann and R

    R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1965 (1990)

    1990

  105. [122]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, J. Meng, P. Ring, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014316 (2017), arXiv:1705.01691 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [123]

    Zou, J.-X

    W.-J. Zou, J.-X. Lu, P.-W. Zhao, L.-S. Geng, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138732 (2024), arXiv:2312.15672 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  107. [124]

    Machleidt, Adv

    R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989)

    1989

  108. [125]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 86 (2018), arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  109. [126]

    V . G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  110. [127]

    Xiao, L.-S

    Y . Xiao, L.-S. Geng, and X.-L. Ren, Phys. Rev. C99, 024004 (2019), arXiv:1812.03005 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  111. [128]

    Epelbaum, U

    E. Epelbaum, U. G. Meissner, W. Gloeckle, and C. Elster, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044001 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0106007

    2002 arXiv

  112. [129]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 53 (2015), arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  113. [130]

    J. L. Friar, Few Body Syst. 22, 161 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607020

    1997 arXiv

  114. [131]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024005 (2015), arXiv:1506.01343 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  115. [132]

    Epelbaum et al., Eur

    E. Epelbaum et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 92 (2020), arXiv:1907.03608 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  116. [133]

    Zou, Y .-L

    W.-J. Zou, Y .-L. Yang, J.-X. Lu, P.-W. Zhao, L.-S. Geng, and J. Meng, (2025), arXiv:2506.18519 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  117. [134]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  118. [135]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.