Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantifying alpha clustering in the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A sub-Coulomb transfer measurement shows alpha-cluster correlations dominate the ground states of 16O and 20Ne, with the extracted product of squared alpha ANCs landing only about 30 percent below the extreme cluster-model value.

desk verdict A credible, carefully blinded sub-Coulomb alpha-transfer measurement yields a new ANC product benchmark, but the 'dominated by clustering' claim outruns the demonstrated systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17059 v1 pith:47PEP73M submitted 2025-07-22 nucl-ex astro-ph.SRnucl-th

E. Harris , M. Barbui , J. Bishop , G. Chubarian , Sebastian Konig , E. Koshchiy , K.D. Launey , Dean Lee
show 13 more authors
Zifeng Luo Yuan-Zhuo Ma Ulf-G. Meissner C.E. Parker Zhengxue Ren M. Roosa A. Saastamoinen G. H. Sargsyan D.P. Scriven Shihang Shen A. Volya Hang Yu G.V. Rogachev
This is my paper
classification nucl-exastro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords alphaclusteringasymptoticnormalizationcoefficientssub-Coulombtransferclustercorrelations16OgroundstateANC20NeDWBA12C(alphagamma)16Oreaction
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 sets out to measure how strongly $\alpha$ particles (helium-4 nuclei) pre-form inside the ground states of $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ and $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$, using the sub-Coulomb $\alpha$-transfer reaction $^{12}\mathrm{C}(^{20}\mathrm{Ne},^{16}\mathrm{O})^{16}\mathrm{O}$. Because the beam energy is 1 MeV per nucleon, far below the Coulomb barrier, the transfer is highly peripheral, so the extracted quantity — the product of the squared $\alpha$ asymptotic normalization coefficients (ANCs) of the two ground states — is nearly independent of the optical-model potentials that usually dominate such analyses. The measured value, $9.4(1.4)(2)\times 10^{12}\ \mathrm{fm}^{-2}$, sits only about 30 percent below the value for a pure core-plus-$\alpha$ cluster state, which the authors take as direct evidence that $\alpha$-cluster correlations dominate both ground states. The result agrees within factors of 1.2–2 with three independent microscopic theories and yields a new model-independent constraint on the $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ ground-state $\alpha$ ANC, a key input for the astrophysical $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reaction that sets the cosmic carbon-to-oxygen ratio.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the product of the squared $\alpha$ asymptotic normalization coefficients of the $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ and $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ ground states, $(C^{\,^{16}\mathrm{O}}_{\alpha,{}^{12}\mathrm{C}})^2\,(C^{\,^{20}\mathrm{Ne}}_{\alpha,{}^{16}\mathrm{O}})^2$, which is directly proportional to the transfer cross section once the reaction is peripheral. An asymptotic normalization coefficient is the amplitude of the bound-state wave function in its asymptotic tail (a Whittaker function), a model-independent observable that replaces the model-dependent $\alpha$ spectroscopic factor. The measurement is performed at 1 MeV/nucleon, well below the $\sim$11 MeV Coulomb barrier of the $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}+^{12}\mathrm{C}$ system, so the transfer is highly peripheral and the DWBA transfer-to-elastic ratio computed with the FRESCO code yields the ANC product with a total theoretical uncertainty of 20 percent, dominated by the exit-channel $^{16}\mathrm{O}+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ optical potential. The comparison scale is the 'extreme cluster model': a Woods-Saxon core-plus-$\alpha$ potential with the Pauli-allowed number of nodes, tuned to reproduce the partial $\alpha$ widths of known cluster states, whose ANC product of about $13\times 10^{12}\ \mathrm{fm}^{-2}$ represents maximal clustering.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to repeat the measurement at a second sub-Coulomb energy or with a different peripheral probe and check whether the extracted ANC product stays constant: the paper already set aside its 22 MeV data because of enhanced optical-potential sensitivity, so any systematic drift of the product with energy, or a shift larger than the quoted 20 percent across the full family of published $^{16}\mathrm{O}+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ optical potentials, would break the peripherality premise. An independent direct measurement of the $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ ground-state $\alpha$ ANC, for example from $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ breakup, that falls outside the band this paper claims would settle the clustering claim the other way.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that $\alpha$-cluster correlations dominate the ground-state wave functions of $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ and $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$. The experimental evidence is the product of the squared $\alpha$ ANCs, $(C^{\,^{16}\mathrm{O}}_{\alpha,{}^{12}\mathrm{C}})^2\,(C^{\,^{20}\mathrm{Ne}}_{\alpha,{}^{16}\mathrm{O}})^2 = 9.4(1.4)(2)\times 10^{12}\ \mathrm{fm}^{-2}$, extracted from the ratio of the transfer cross section to elastic scattering in the sub-Coulomb reaction $^{12}\mathrm{C}(^{20}\mathrm{Ne},^{16}\mathrm{O})^{16}\mathrm{O}$ at 1 MeV/nucleon. At this energy the reaction probes only the tails of the bound-state wave functions, which is exactly where an ANC lives, making the extraction nearly independent of reaction-model assumptions. Compared with a simple Woods-Saxon core-plus-$\alpha$ potential that reproduces the known partial $\alpha$ widths of cluster states and respects the Pauli node counting, the measured product is only about 30 percent below the extreme-cluster value of roughly $13\times 10^{12}\ \mathrm{fm}^{-2}$, so the clustering is close to maximal. Three independent microscopic theories — nuclear lattice effective field theory, the symmetry-adapted no-core shell model, and the cluster-nucleon configuration interaction model — predict the geometric mean of the two ANCs within a factor of about 1.2–2 of experiment, with near-unanimous agreement on the $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ ANC and more scatter on the $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ ANC, which the paper attributes to $^{16}\mathrm{O}$'s compact structure and larger $\alpha$ separation energy. Combining the measured product with the theoretical $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ ANCs yields a new model-independent constraint on the $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ ground-state $\alpha$ ANC, and inserting that constraint into R-matrix fits of $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ lowers the astrophysical S-factor at the 300 keV Gamow window by 5–10 percent, within the accepted 20 percent uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the reaction being highly peripheral at 1 MeV per nucleon, so that the DWBA transfer-to-elastic ratio computed with literature optical potentials returns the true alpha-ANC product within the quoted 20 percent systematic uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ ground-state alpha ANC is now constrained model-independently: the measured product combined with the three theoretical $^{20}\mathrm{Ne}$ ANCs places it above the most recent transfer-reaction value and consistent, within their larger uncertainties, with two other transfer measurements.
  • R-matrix fits using these ANC limits reproduce the measured $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ excitation function below 3.5 MeV c.m. and shift the total S-factor at the 300 keV Gamow window by $-5$ to $-10$ percent, still inside the accepted 20 percent uncertainty.
  • The squared-ANC product becomes a benchmark observable: the three microscopic theories agree with experiment and with one another within about a factor of 1.2–2, so future structure calculations can be tested against this single number.
  • The closeness of the measured value to the extreme cluster-model limit implies that alpha clustering is not a small correction to a mean-field picture of these ground states but a dominant structural feature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cross-check the paper leaves implicit: the same ANC product could be extracted from a different sub-Coulomb alpha-transfer reaction, such as $^{12}\mathrm{C}(^7\mathrm{Li},t)^{16}\mathrm{O}$, or from alpha knockout. Agreement would validate the peripherality premise, while disagreement would expose a reaction-theory bias that a single-reaction measurement cannot detect.
  • If the near-maximal clustering claim holds, the same technique could map where alpha clustering fades with mass by targeting other alpha-threshold nuclei such as $^{24}\mathrm{Mg}$ or $^{28}\mathrm{Si}$, where the microscopic models still differ measurably.
  • The 5–10 percent S-factor shift, while inside the accepted uncertainty, is precisely the kind of correlated systematic change that matters once the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ rate error budget is tightened; the paper's adjusted R-matrix parameter set is a concrete starting point for that re-evaluation.
  • The study's double-blind protocol — the experiment and all three theory groups unblinded simultaneously by an independent observer — suggests that the spread among the theoretical ANCs reflects genuine model sensitivity rather than tuning to the data, and is a template for future benchmark studies.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a sub-Coulomb alpha-transfer measurement of 12C(20Ne,16O)16O at 1.0 MeV/nucleon, analyzed with DWBA through the transfer-to-elastic ratio, to extract the product of squared alpha ANCs for the 16O and 20Ne ground states. The result is (C_16O)^2(C_20Ne)^2 = 9.4(1.4)(2) x 10^12 fm^-2. This product is compared with three independent microscopic calculations (NLEFT, SA-NCSM, CN-CI) and with an extreme core+alpha potential model, and the paper interprets the proximity to the extreme model as direct evidence that alpha-cluster correlations dominate these ground states. Using the theoretical 20Ne ANCs, the product is converted into a constraint on the 16O ground-state alpha ANC, which is then used in an R-matrix evaluation of the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O S-factor.

Significance. If the experimental result and its 20% systematic uncertainty are robust, the ANC product provides a valuable new observable for benchmarking ab initio and cluster models, and the sub-Coulomb transfer-to-elastic approach is a promising technique for reducing optical-model dependence. The blinded comparison among the experimental and three theoretical groups is a commendable design feature that reduces confirmation bias. The paper also delivers a concrete, falsifiable benchmark quantity. However, the central 'direct evidence' interpretation and the 'model-independent constraint' terminology go beyond what the currently reported systematic and theory-error tests establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplement, Experiment; Fig. 6] The central claim that the result is nearly independent of model parameters and that the total theoretical uncertainty is 20% is not demonstrated by the reported tests. Fig. 6 shows sensitivity only to the 16O+16O exit-channel optical-model potentials from Ref. [24]; the manuscript does not report variations of the entrance-channel 12C+20Ne potential, the alpha-core binding-potential geometry, the number of nodes in the cluster wave function, or finite-range/CRC corrections, nor a quantitative peripherality test such as varying the cutoff radius of the transfer form factor. Because the 22 MeV data are excluded from the final result 'due to the greater sensitivity to these parameter variations at 22 MeV', the final product rests on a single beam energy and a single angle, and the claimed model-independence is inferred rather than established. Given that the difference from the extreme cluster model is only about 1.5-1.6 sigma of the quoted total uncertainty, the 'direct evidence' conclusion is not yet supported. The missing sensitivity studies should be provided, or the conclusion should be reframed accordingly.
  2. [Abstract; Results and Discussion] The abstract claims a 'new model-independent constraint' for the 16O ground-state alpha ANC, but the extraction is not model-independent. Equation (1) measures the product (C_16O)^2(C_20Ne)^2; obtaining C_16O requires dividing by a theoretical C_20Ne from NLEFT, SA-NCSM, or CN-CI, as acknowledged in the statement 'Using the 20Ne ANCs and the experimental result to make a prediction of the 16O ground state alpha-ANC'. The resulting constraint therefore inherits the model dependence of the 20Ne calculations, in addition to the 20% DWBA systematic. Please rephrase the claim or provide a direct measurement of C_16O if the word 'model-independent' is to be retained.
  3. [Supplement, Lattice Effective Field Theory; Symmetry-adapted No-core Shell Model] The quoted theory error bars are incomplete for the purpose of a quantitative benchmark. The NLEFT ANC uncertainties explicitly exclude 'uncertainties due to the nuclear interactions or the extrapolation to infinite Euclidean time and lattice volume', and the SA-NCSM errors 'do not include uncertainties arising from the underlying inter-nucleon interaction'. Therefore the statement that the three approaches agree with experiment and with each other within 1-2 sigma rests on error bars that omit known systematic components. The benchmark conclusion should either include these missing theory systematics or be explicitly labeled as a central-value comparison with incomplete theoretical uncertainties.
  4. [Table I; Results and Discussion] The comparison 'the experimental result is only 30% below this extreme model' uses the product of squared ANCs (9.4 vs 13 x 10^12 fm^-2), whereas the geometric-mean comparison in Table I places the experimental value only about 8% below the extreme-model value (1.75 vs 1.9 x 10^3 fm^-1/2). The paper should state explicitly which variable is used to support the 'dominated by alpha-cluster correlations' conclusion and how close to the extreme-model value is required for 'dominance'. With the stated uncertainties, the product-level gap is approximately 1.5-1.6 sigma, which is not by itself direct evidence unless a quantitative threshold is defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (1)] The symbol 'b' for single-particle ANCs in Eq. (1) is not defined in the main text; please define it and explain how FRESCO provides these values.
  2. [Table I] The uncertainty notation 9.4(1.4)(2) is ambiguous; if the second parenthetical is the 20% systematic uncertainty, please write it as 9.4(1.4)(1.9) or define the convention clearly in the caption.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'red bad' should read 'red band'.
  4. [Results and Discussion, R-matrix paragraph] On first use, the reaction should be written as 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rather than 'the 12C(alpha,gamma) reaction' to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [References] Reference [25] (Giacalone et al., 'The unexpected uses of a bowling pin') appears unrelated to the cluster-structure discussion in the sentence citing Refs. [20,25]; please verify the citation and replace it if not relevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental ANC product is an independent measurement, the theory benchmark was double-blinded, and the 16O ANC constraint is model-dependent but not fed back into the extraction.

full rationale

The paper's central observable, (C^16O)^2(C^20Ne)^2, is extracted from the measured 12C(20Ne,16O)16O transfer-to-elastic ratio using Eq. (1). The DWBA normalization is a reaction-model input, but the claimed peripherality at sub-Coulomb energy makes the extracted product insensitive to this input, and the 20% systematic uncertainty is propagated from OMP variations (Fig. 6). The three theoretical predictions (NLEFT, SA-NCSM, CN-CI) were produced blind, with unblinding handled by an independent observer, so the benchmark comparison is not circular. The subsequent 16O(g.s.) ANC constraint is obtained by dividing the experimental product by the theoretical 20Ne ANCs; this makes the constraint model-dependent (contrary to the 'model-independent' wording), but it does not feed back into either the product extraction or the theory benchmark, so it is not circular. The extreme cluster-model comparison is a benchmark with parameters fixed to excited-state alpha-widths, not fitted to the ground-state ANC product. Thus no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of DWBA for sub-Coulomb alpha transfer, the peripheral character of the reaction, the ANC formalism, and the acceptance of three independent many-body calculations as benchmarks. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • 16O+16O exit-channel optical model potentials = two sets from Wu and Barnes (Ref. [24])
    The DWBA cross section ratio depends on these potentials; the paper assigns a 20 percent theoretical uncertainty from variations. They are not fit to the present data.
  • Alpha-core binding potential Woods-Saxon parameters = adjusted to reproduce alpha separation energies and node numbers
    Used to compute single-particle ANCs in FRESCO for both alpha+16O and alpha+12C binding; the paper argues the result is insensitive to these shapes.
  • NLEFT simple lattice interaction parameters = tuned to make alpha separation energies of 16O and 20Ne close to empirical values
    The NLEFT ANC calculation uses these interactions; the quoted error does not include interaction uncertainty.
  • SA-NCSM harmonic oscillator frequency and model-space cutoff = hbar-omega = 11, 13, 15 MeV; 8-12 and 9-13 HO shells
    The ANC product varies with these; Shanks extrapolation gives upper and lower bounds used as error bars, but interaction uncertainty is not included.
  • R-matrix parameters for S-factor fit = 2+ ANC at 6.92 MeV increased to upper limit; 1- ANC at 7.12 MeV nominal; widths of 9.58 MeV 1- state fixed
    Adjusted within literature uncertainties to show the S-factor impact; not fitted to the new ANC.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DWBA/FRESCO provides a valid description of sub-Coulomb alpha transfer.
    FRESCO calculations (Ref. [22]) underlie the extraction via Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption The reaction is highly peripheral at 1 MeV/nucleon, making the transfer-to-elastic ratio nearly independent of OMPs and binding potential shapes.
    Stated in the Introduction and Experiment sections; underpins the model-independent claim and the 20 percent theoretical uncertainty.
  • standard math The asymptotic normalization coefficient formalism connects the measured transfer cross section to the product of ground-state ANCs.
    Eq. 1; standard ANC method of Ref. [8], based on the asymptotic Whittaker form of the bound-state wavefunction.
  • domain assumption The three many-body calculations (NLEFT, SA-NCSM, CN-CI) are accurate enough to provide meaningful ANC predictions.
    The benchmark treats these as reference predictions; their systematic uncertainties are only partially quantified.
  • domain assumption The pinhole algorithm extracts ANCs from the tail of the lattice wavefunction using a Whittaker fit.
    Supplemental section 'Lattice Effective Field Theory'; assumes the asymptotic form is reached within the simulated separation distances.
  • domain assumption R-matrix parameterization of 12C(alpha,gamma)16O with literature resonance parameters is valid.
    Uses AZURE2 with parameters from deBoer et al.; the four adjusted parameters are kept within their literature uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying alpha clustering in the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47PEP73M

@misc{pith2026250717059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying alpha clustering in the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47PEP73M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17059}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the role of multi-nucleon correlations in the structure of light nuclei is at the forefront of modern nuclear science. In this letter, we present a quantitative benchmark study of alpha-cluster correlations in the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne. Experimental data provide direct evidence that the wave functions of the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne are dominated by alpha-cluster correlations, in agreement with the predictions of sophisticated nuclear structure models. We also provide a new model-independent constraint for the alpha asymptotic normalization coefficient of the 16-O ground state and discuss the implications of these findings on the 12-C(alpha,gamma)16-O reaction, which is of critical importance for nuclear astrophysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Lattice results for the radial wavefunction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. SA-NCSM cluster wavefunction versus the cluster separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. TOF between the two PPACs versus the X position of the first PPAC for an MDM angle of 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The 20 MeV transfer to elastic cross section ratio plotted against c.m. angle for variations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of R-matrix calculations of the total S-factor of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Jacobi Coordinates on Hyper-tori and Geometric Factors in the Volume Dependencies

    nucl-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The finite-volume energy shift of a clustered nucleus is the point-like two-body shift multiplied by a geometric factor that counts spin-isospin cluster partitions, and this factor is essential for extracting ANCs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    S. C. Wu and C. A. Barnes, Nucl. Phys. A 422, 373 (1984)

    work page 1984

  2. [1]

    deBoer, J

    R. deBoer, J. G¨ orres, M. Wiescher, R. Azuma, A. Best, C. R. Brune, C. Fields, S. Jones, M. Pignatari, D. Sayre, K. Smith, F. Timmes, and U. E, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035007 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Freer, H

    M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En’yo, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    A. E. Stuchbery and J. L. Wood, Physics 4, 697 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Lombardo and D

    I. Lombardo and D. Dell’Aquila, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 46, 521 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    V. Z. Gol’dberg, V. I. Dukhanov, A. E. Pakhomov, G. V. Rogatchev, I. N. Serikov, V. A. Timofeev, M. Brenner, K. M. Kaellmann, T. Loennroth, P. Manngaard, L. Ax- elsson, K. Makenroth, W. H. Trzaska, and R. Wolski, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 60, 1061 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller, and C. M. Cheves, Nucl. Phys. A 564, 1 (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [7]

    D. R. Tilley, C. M. Cheves, J. H. Kelley, S. Raman, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A 636, 249 (1998)

    1998

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    A. M. Mukhamedzhanov and L. D. Blokhintsev, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 29 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Brune, W

    C. Brune, W. Geist, R. Kavanagh, and K. Veal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4025 (1999)

    1999

  3. [10]

    E. D. Johnson, G. V. Rogachev, A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, L. T. Baby, S. Brown, W. T. Cluff, A. M. Crisp, E. Diffenderfer, V. Z. Goldberg, B. W. Green, T. Hinners, C. R. Hoffman, K. W. Kemper, O. Momotyuk, P. Peplowski, A. Pipidis, R. Reynolds, and B. T. Roeder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97...

    2006

  4. [11]

    E. D. Johnson, G. V. Rogachev, J. Mitchell, L. Miller, and K. W. Kemper, Phys. Rev. C 80, 045805 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Robson, Phys

    D. Robson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 867 (1979)

    1979

  6. [13]

    Iachello and A

    F. Iachello and A. D. Jackson, Phys. Lett. B 108, 151 (1982)

    1982

  7. [14]

    Chernykh, H

    M. Chernykh, H. Feldmeier, T. Neff, P. von Neumann- Cosel, and A. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 032501 (2007)

    2007

  8. [15]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, and U. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 252501 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    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

  10. [17]

    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

  11. [18]

    G. H. G.H. Sargsyan, K. Yoshida, K. Ogata, K. D. Launey, J. E. Escher, D. Langr, and T. Dytrych, Ab ini- tio informed 20ne(p, pα)16o reaction elucidates the emer- gence of alpha clustering from chiral potentials, Physics Letters B 866, 139563 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    K. D. Launey, D. C. Mumma, K. S. Becker, G. H. Sargsyan, W. P. Good, A. R. Baniecki, A. W. Kelly, and A. Mercenne, New studies and predictions for nu- clear clustering and dynamics in the ab initio symmetry- adapted framework, EPJ Web Conf. 311, 00019 (2024). 6

    2024

  13. [20]

    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

  14. [21]

    Kravvaris and A

    K. Kravvaris and A. Volya, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034321 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    I. J. Thompson, Comput. Phys. Rep. 7, 167 (1988)

    1988

  16. [23]

    Vandenbosch, M

    R. Vandenbosch, M. P. Webb, and M. S. Zisman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 842 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    G. Giacalone et al., The unexpected uses of a bowling pin: exploiting 20Ne isotopes for precision characterizations of collectivity in small systems, (2024), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D. B. Sayre, C. R. Brune, D. E. Carter, D. K. Jacobs, T. N. Massey, and J. E. O’Donnell, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 142501 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    M. C. Morais and R. Lichtenhaler, Nucl. Phys. A. 857, 1 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Adhikari, C

    S. Adhikari, C. Basu, P. Sugathan, A. Jhinghan, B. R. Behera, N. Saneesh, G. Kaur, M. Thakur, R. Mahajan, R. Dubey, and A. K. Mitra, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44, 015102 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    A. K. Mondal, C. Basu, S. Adhikari, C. Bhattacharya, T. K. Rana, S. Kundu, S. Manna, R. Pandey, P. Roy, A. Sen, J. K. Meena, A. K. Saha, J. K. Sahoo, D. Basak, T. Bar, H. Pai, A. Bisoi, A. K. Mitra, and P. Biswas, Intl. J. Mod. Phys. E 30, 2150039 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Y. Shen, B. Guo, R. deBoer, E. Li, Z. Li, Y. Li, X. Tang, D. Pang, S. Adhikari, C. Basu, J. Su, S. Yan, Q. Fan, J. Liu, C. Chen, Z. Han, X. Li, G. Lian, T. Ma, W. Nan, W. Nan, Y. Wang, S. Zeng, H. Zhang, and W. Liu, As- trophys. J. 945 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Adhikari and C

    S. Adhikari and C. Basu, Phys. Lett. B. 682, 216 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    M. L. Avila, G. V. Rogachev, E. Koshchiy, L. T. Baby, J. Belarge, K. W. Kemper, A. N. Kuchera, and D. Santiago-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. C 90, 042801 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Sch¨ urmann, A

    D. Sch¨ urmann, A. Di Leva, L. Gialanella, D. Ro- galla, F. Strieder, N. De Cesare, A. D’Onofrio, G. Im- briani, R. Kunz, C. Lubritto, A. Ordine, V. Roca, C. Rolfs, M. Romano, F. Sch¨ umann, F. Terrasi, and H. P. Trautvetter, Eur. Phys. J. A 26, 301 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

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

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, J. E. Drut, T. A. L¨ ahde, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner,Ab InitioNu- clear Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 192502 (2020), arXiv:1912.05105 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Summerfield, B.-N

    N. Summerfield, B.-N. Lu, C. Plumberg, D. Lee, J. Noronha-Hostler, and A. Timmins, 16O 16O collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider com- paring α clustering versus substructure, Phys. Rev. C 104, L041901 ...

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems, Prog

    D. Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63, 117 (2009), arXiv:0804.3501 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    2019

  31. [39]

    Elhatisari, E

    S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-n. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Ab initio Calculations of the Isotopic Dependence of Nu- clear Clustering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222505 (2017), arXiv:1702.05177 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    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)

    2020

  33. [41]

    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 recoil form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202503 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    Barrett, P

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

    2013

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    Shanks, Non-linear transformations of divergent and slowly convergent sequences, Journal of Mathematics and Physics 34, 1 (1955)

    D. Shanks, Non-linear transformations of divergent and slowly convergent sequences, Journal of Mathematics and Physics 34, 1 (1955)

    1955

  39. [47]

    Kravvaris and A

    K. Kravvaris and A. Volya, Constructing realistic alpha cluster channels, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 863, 012016 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Kravvaris and A

    K. Kravvaris and A. Volya, Study of nuclear cluster- ing from an ab initio perspective, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 062501 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Kravvaris and A

    K. Kravvaris and A. Volya, Clustering in structure and reactions using configuration interaction techniques, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034321 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Volya and Y

    A. Volya and Y. M. Tchuvil’sky, Nuclear clustering using a modern shell model approach, Phys.Rev.C 91, 044319 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Navr´ atil, J

    P. Navr´ atil, J. P. Vary, and B. R. Barrett, Large-basis ab initio no-core shell model and its application to 12C, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054311 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Utsuno and S

    Y. Utsuno and S. Chiba, Multiparticle-multihole states around 16O and correlation-energy effect on the shell gap, Phys. Rev. C 83, 021301 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    R. S. Lubna, K. Kravvaris, S. L. Tabor, V. Tripathi, E. Rubino, and A. Volya, Evolution of the N=20 and 28 shell gaps and two-particle-two-hole states in the FSU interaction, 2, 043342

  46. [54]

    A. M. Shirokov, J. P. Vary, A. I. Mazur, and T. A. We- ber, Realistic nuclear Hamiltonian: Ab exitu approach, Physics Letters B 644, 33 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    R. E. Azuma, E. Uberseder, E. C. Simpson, C. R. Brune, H. Costantini, R. J. De Boer, J. G¨ orres, M. Heil, P. J. Leblanc, C. Ugalde, and M. Wiescher, Azure: An r- matrix code for nuclear astrophysics, Phys. Rev. C 81, 045805 (2010). 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIALS Lattice Effective...

    2010

Pith tools

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