Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that the new quark-mass-dependent F2 three-nucleon interaction changes medium-mass nuclei mainly by shifting fitted short-range couplings, and finds no evidence to promote it to lower order in the standard chiral power coun

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:21 UTC pith:LFFSDQZ5

load-bearing objection A careful, honest numerical study showing F2 mostly shifts short-range 3N LECs in medium-mass nuclei, but the headline no-promotion conclusion is regulator-dependent and the no-improvement claim lacks uncertainty quantification. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.20454 v3 pith:LFFSDQZ5 submitted 2025-12-23 nucl-th nucl-ex

Exploring quark mass dependent three-nucleon forces in medium-mass nuclei

Urban Vernik , Kai Hebeler , Achim Schwenk This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords three-nucleon forceschiral effective field theoryquark mass dependenceab initio nuclear structuremedium-mass nucleicharge radiipower countingIMSRG
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether a newly identified quark-mass-dependent three-nucleon force, the F2 term, should be treated as a leading correction to nuclear forces. It combines this term with standard chiral interactions and fits the low-energy couplings two ways: to few-body observables alone, or additionally to the ground-state energy and radius of 16O. The central finding is that F2's direct contribution stays small; its apparent impact on medium-mass nuclei comes almost entirely from shifting the fitted short-range couplings cD and cE. Across oxygen and calcium isotopes, including F2 does not systematically improve agreement with experiment and does not explain the large charge-radius jump from 48Ca to 52Ca. The authors conclude there is no evidence to promote F2 to lower order in the standard chiral power counting.

Core claim

The central claim is that F2 acts as a reparametrization of the existing short-range three-nucleon interaction rather than a new physical effect. By decomposing the energy into individual 3N contributions using 3H Faddeev wave functions and Hartree-Fock 16O wave functions, the authors show that the expectation value of F2 itself is small in both systems, while adding F2 changes the fitted values of cD and cE—especially cE—which then alters the observables of heavier nuclei. This holds at N2LO and N3LO, and for bare and SRG-evolved interactions. Consequently, the paper does not find direct evidence that would justify promoting F2 to lower order in the chiral expansion in the standard power co

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is an expectation-value decomposition: for 16O, Hartree-Fock energies are linear in each low-energy constant, so the contributions of c1, c3, c4, cD, cE, and F2 can be cleanly separated without interference. This decomposition shows the F2 term's direct contribution stays small, while F2 strongly correlates with cE in fits to the 3H binding energy, effectively sliding the short-range couplings. The paper also notes that the F2 interaction was implemented with dimensional regularization; with spectral-function regularization it would have a linear cutoff divergence, which would require promoting additional short-range counterterms.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on using dimensional regularization for F2; with a spectral-function regulator the F2 term would have a linear cutoff divergence, so new short-range three-nucleon counterterms would need to be promoted, and the fitted couplings—and hence the conclusion—could change.

What would settle it

Repeat the calculation with spectral-function regularization and the required promoted counterterms, refit cD/cE/F2 to the same observables, and test the resulting Hamiltonian on the oxygen and calcium chains; if the direct F2 expectation value in 16O becomes sizable or the refitted interaction systematically improves the 48Ca–52Ca charge-radius difference to the experimental 0.530 fm^2, the paper's central conclusion is wrong.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • F2 should not be promoted to a lower order in the standard chiral EFT power counting; no finite-nucleus observable studied here requires it.
  • The large F2 contributions seen in nuclear matter do not imply improved finite-nucleus predictions; they are largely absorbed into refit cD and cE values.
  • Fit strategies that constrain cD using 16O observables can mask F2 effects, making the new interaction hard to detect in bulk properties alone.
  • The unexplained charge-radius increase from 48Ca to 52Ca persists even when F2 is added as an additional fit parameter.
  • Tests of new three-nucleon forces in finite nuclei must separate direct interaction effects from reparametrization of existing low-energy constants.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary left implicit: claims about the strength of F2 derived from nuclear matter under an alternative power counting and dimensional regularization may not indicate its role in finite nuclei under standard power counting with a finite cutoff.
  • The correlation between F2 and cE suggests that few-body fits alone cannot disentangle quark-mass-dependent physics from short-range three-nucleon physics; observable combinations beyond energies and radii may be needed.
  • A testable extension: implement F2 with spectral-function regularization and the promoted counterterms, then check whether the direct F2 contribution stays small in 16O or whether the fitted couplings and finite-nucleus predictions shift.
  • Because the direct F2 contribution is small, the reparametrization view predicts that F2 will have negligible impact on observables insensitive to the fitted cD/cE combination—such as certain isotope shifts or ratio observables—which could be checked in future experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the impact of the quark-mass-dependent three-nucleon (3N) interaction characterized by the coupling F2 on the ground-state energies and charge radii of medium-mass nuclei. The authors combine the EMN 450 chiral NN interaction at N2LO and N3LO with established 3N forces and the new F2 term, using both bare and SRG-evolved interactions. Two fitting strategies are explored: one constrained by the 3H half-life and one additionally by the 16O ground-state energy and charge radius. Many-body calculations are performed with IMSRG(2) and Hartree-Fock decompositions are used to isolate the F2 contribution. The main conclusion is that F2 mainly acts by changing the short-range 3N couplings cD and cE during refitting, while the direct F2 contribution remains small for medium-mass nuclei; the authors find no systematic improvement from including F2 and therefore no direct evidence to promote F2 to lower order in Weinberg power counting.

Significance. If the no-promotion conclusion is robust, this is a valuable negative result for chiral EFT: it would redirect attention away from premature promotion of the quark-mass-dependent F2 force in Weinberg power counting. The paper is technically sound in its internal logic: the Hartree-Fock decomposition cleanly isolates the F2 effect, two complementary fit strategies are used, and the results are tested across a wide range of doubly closed-shell nuclei. The use of public many-body codes and explicit LEC fits adds to reproducibility. However, the central claim is weakened by the acknowledged regulator dependence of the F2 interaction and by the absence of convergence or truncation-error quantification, so the significance is conditional on these gaps being addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V and Sec. I] The no-promotion conclusion is stated for Weinberg power counting, but all calculations use dimensional regularization. The authors themselves note in Sec. I that with spectral-function regularization the F2 term shows a linear cutoff divergence and related short-range 3N couplings would need to be promoted as counterterms [28]. Since promotion decisions in an EFT should be regulator-independent statements about the renormalized theory, the empirical null result presented here does not, by itself, constrain Weinberg power counting. Either the conclusion should be explicitly restricted to 'within the dimensional-regularization-based framework used here', or a regulator-variation analysis should be provided to show that the conclusion is not an artifact of DR.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. IV] No convergence checks or chiral-truncation uncertainties are shown. The IMSRG(2) calculations use a fixed basis e_max=14, E3max=24, and a single harmonic oscillator frequency (omega=16 MeV for most nuclei, 12 MeV for 120,132Sn). The differences between the F2=0 and F2=0.05 results in Figs. 5 and 6 are at the 1-2% level, but without an estimate of the many-body truncation error or the chiral truncation uncertainty it is not possible to determine whether the observed deviations from experiment are significant. Please add e_max/E3max convergence checks for at least one representative nucleus and estimate the truncation uncertainty before concluding that F2 does not improve the description of medium-mass nuclei.
  3. [Sec. III B and Sec. IV] The 16O fit strategy uses cD=5.0 for the evolved interactions, but the text states that the cD value is only loosely constrained and that all blue points for F2=0.05 reproduce the experimental 16O observables within chiral uncertainties. The medium-mass results in Fig. 6 use this single cD value, so the conclusion that F2 mainly acts by shifting the short-range couplings may be sensitive to the arbitrarily chosen cD. Please propagate the cD uncertainty from the 16O fit to the medium-mass observables, or at least show the sensitivity of the conclusions to the cD range.
  4. [Sec. III C and Sec. V] There is an internal inconsistency in the characterization of F2 contributions. Section III C states that the expectation value of the F2 interaction 'for light systems can be significant', while Sec. V concludes that 'the contributions of the new F2 interaction itself always remain small'. This is not necessarily a logical contradiction if 'small' is meant only for medium-mass nuclei, but the wording is misleading. More importantly, Fig. 4 shows a non-negligible F2 expectation value in 3H (around 0.5 MeV for the refitted interaction), so the supporting claim that F2 contributions are always small is not uniformly supported by the paper's own results. Please clarify the statement and distinguish the direct F2 contribution in light systems from that in medium-mass nuclei.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II or Fig. 6 caption] The use of ħω=12 MeV for 120,132Sn is mentioned only in the figure caption; give a brief justification in the text and state the oscillator frequency used for the other nuclei.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that E3max=16 is used for the Hartree-Fock calculations of 16O, whereas E3max=24 is used for the IMSRG(2) calculations. Clarify whether this difference affects the comparison of the HF decomposition with the full results.
  3. [Table I] The N3LO rows list F2=0.15 for the bare interaction and F2=0.05 for the evolved interaction, but the text in Sec. III B states that the optimal bare F2 is 0.15 and the evolved F2 is 0.05. This is consistent, but the table would benefit from a column or note indicating which entries are 'bare' and which are 'evolved' to avoid confusion.
  4. [Ref. [28]] Reference [28] is cited as 'private communication' but is used to support a load-bearing caveat about the spectral-function-regularization divergence. If this result is publicly available in a preprint or proceedings, please cite that version; otherwise include the derivation in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LEC calibrations are disclosed, medium-mass predictions are independent, and the central null result rests on data outside the fits.

full rationale

The paper follows a standard EFT calibration-plus-prediction workflow rather than a derivation-as-prediction chain. The LECs cD, cE, and F2 are explicitly fitted in Sec. III: 'In both, the values of these three LECs are constrained to reproduce the 3H binding energy,' with the first strategy additionally using the 3H half-life and the second using 'the ground-state energy and charge radius of 16O.' These are announced fit inputs, not predictions. The claims that are actually predictive—energies and radii of the oxygen and calcium chains (Fig. 5), the full medium-mass panel (Fig. 6), and the 48Ca–52Ca differential radius (Fig. 7)—use nuclei that were not used to set the LECs, except for the labeled 16O point in the '16O' strategy, whose fitted status is disclosed. The 16O agreement in that strategy is therefore partly by construction, but the paper does not present it as independent evidence; the conclusion about 52Ca, which is independent, is explicitly negative. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the supporting reparametrization argument [29] is by Epelbaum et al. (no author overlap), and the self-comparison to [23] is illustrative only. The central null conclusion is a negative, regulator-conditional statement; the paper itself flags in Sec. I that with spectral-function regularization 'a linear divergence ... shows that related short-range 3N couplings would need to be promoted as well as counter terms,' so the no-promotion conclusion is explicitly scoped to dimensional regularization. This is a substantive caveat about transferability, not circularity. A separate internal tension exists between Sec. IV ('the expectation value of the F2 interaction itself for light systems can be significant') and Sec. V ('the contributions of the new F2 interaction itself always remain small'), but that is an inconsistency in a supporting claim, not a circular reduction. Overall, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no central claim reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, forces, or dimensions. Its central claim rests on standard chiral-EFT inputs (EMN450, c1/c3/c4 from Roy-Steiner), three fitted/chosen LECs (cD, cE, F2), and several domain assumptions about the regulator scheme, convergence of IMSRG(2), and the scanned F2 range. The most fragile assumption is dimensional regularization for F2, which the authors themselves flag.

free parameters (3)
  • cD (3N short-range LEC) = GT strategy: 0.118-0.421 (depending on F2 and bare/evolved); 16O strategy: 5.0 (evolved) or 7.0 (bare)
    Fixed to the 3H half-life (GT strategy) or to the 16O ground-state energy and charge radius (16O strategy). The medium-mass results, especially with cD=5.0 for the evolved 16O fits, depend on this choice.
  • cE (3N short-range LEC) = e.g., 1.039 (N2LO evolved, F2=0.05, 16O strategy); -0.030 (N2LO evolved, F2=0, GT strategy)
    Fixed to reproduce the 3H binding energy for each cD and F2 combination. The paper shows cE is strongly correlated with F2, so this is a fitted quantity whose value shifts when F2 is added.
  • F2 (quark-mass-dependent 3N coupling) = GT strategy: -0.1, 0, 0.1 (in units of F_pi^-4); 16O strategy: 0.05 (evolved) and 0.15 (bare)
    Chosen within the range |F2| <= 0.15 suggested by Cirigliano et al. [26]. For the 16O strategy, F2=0.05 is selected because it allows a simultaneous fit of the 16O energy and radius, so it functions as a fit parameter for those Hamiltonians.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT with Weinberg power counting and N2LO/N3LO truncations provides a valid foundation for the nuclear Hamiltonians used here.
    Secs. I-II: the whole calculation rests on this framework and on the EMN450 NN interaction, with 3N contributions up to N2LO/N3LO.
  • domain assumption The F2 interaction is implemented using dimensional regularization, so the short-range 3N couplings cD/cE are the only required counterterms.
    Sec. I: the authors explicitly note that spectral-function regularization produces a linear cutoff divergence requiring additional promoted couplings [28], and state that the paper focuses on dimensional regularization. This is load-bearing: the conclusion that F2 does not need promotion applies only under this scheme.
  • domain assumption IMSRG(2) with e_max=14, E3max=24, and HO frequency 16 MeV (12 MeV for Sn) is sufficiently converged to judge 1-2% energy and radius deviations.
    Secs. II and IV: no convergence checks or extrapolations are shown, yet the central comparison to experiment relies on distinguishing deviations of this size.
  • domain assumption The range |F2| <= 0.15 and the discrete F2 values scanned suffice to test the promotion hypothesis.
    Sec. III: the scan is restricted to the range suggested by [26]. Larger F2 values could in principle change the conclusions, though the authors argue the range is motivated by the estimated size of F2 contributions.
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock expectation values for 16O cleanly separate F2 effects from LEC renormalization.
    Sec. III C: the authors use HF wave functions because the energy is then linear in the LECs, but they also acknowledge the HF energy can differ significantly from the full IMSRG(2) result, so the decomposition is illustrative rather than exact.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9604 in / 11297 out tokens · 135639 ms · 2026-08-03T14:21:38.670807+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring quark mass dependent three-nucleon forces in medium-mass nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFFSDQZ5

@misc{pith2026251220454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring quark mass dependent three-nucleon forces in medium-mass nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFFSDQZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20454}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recently, new quark mass dependent three-nucleon (3N) forces have been identified, whose contributions in nuclear matter exceed expectations of Weinberg power-counting arguments. In this work, we investigate the impact of the most dominant new interaction term, characterized by the coupling $F_2$, in ab initio calculations of medium-mass nuclei. For this, we combine the new $F_2$ interaction with established 3N interactions up to next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^2$LO) and next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) in chiral effective field theory. We explore two fit strategies for the low-energy couplings. The first is based only on few-body observables, while the second also incorporates information from $^{16}$O. Generally, we find that the $F_2$ interaction has a significant impact on energies and radii, however mainly due to changes in the short-range couplings. Overall, we do not find systematic improvements in the reproduction of medium-mass nuclei when the additional $F_2$ interaction is included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20454 by Achim Schwenk, Kai Hebeler, Urban Vernik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Combinations of 3N LECs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the corresponding fits for both chiral orders N2LO and N3LO, as well as for bare interactions. In all cases it is possible to obtain very good simulta￾neous fits of both 16O observables. While the results at both chiral orders are very similar, the effect of the SRG evolution is significantly larger. We find that the optimal F2 value for bare interactions is about F2 = 0.15 com￾pared to F2 = 0.05 for… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Decomposition of the exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ground-state energies and charge radii for medium-mass doubly closed-shell nuclei, compared to experiment for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. PMM-IMSRG emulator for the nuclear equation of state with quantified uncertainties

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A parametric-matrix-model emulator reproduces IMSRG nuclear-matter energies with calibrated conformal-prediction error bars, enabling Bayesian fitting of three-nucleon couplings to saturation properties.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Mod- ern theory of nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field the- ory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Hammer, S

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

    2020

  4. [4]

    Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many- Body Theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many- Body Theory, Front. in Phys.8, 379 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys

    K. Hebeler, Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter, Phys. Rept.890, 1 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navrátil, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio no core shell model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei, Rept. Prog. Phys.77, 096302 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    J.Carlson, S.Gandolfi, F.Pederiva, S.C.Pieper, R.Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, The In-Medium Similarity Renormaliza- tion Group: A Novel Ab Initio Method for Nuclei, Phys. Rept.621, 165 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Barbieri and A

    C. Barbieri and A. Carbone, Self-Consistent Green’s Function Approaches, inAn Advanced Course in Com- putational Nuclear Physics: Bridging the Scales from Quarks to Neutron Stars(Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 571–644

    2017

  11. [11]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempiricalinteractionsforthenuclearshellmodel: An update, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    V. Somà, P. Navrátil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Novel chiral Hamiltonian and observables in light and medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C101, 014318 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Phys.8, 164 (2020)

    A.Tichai, R.Roth,andT.Duguet,Many-bodyperturba- tion theories for finite nuclei, Front. Phys.8, 164 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Quantifying truncation errors in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C92, 024005 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, M. T. Pratola, and S. Wesolowski, Quantifying correlated trun- cation errors in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C100, 044001 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Hüther, K

    T. Hüther, K. Vobig, K. Hebeler, R. Machleidt, and R. Roth, Family of Chiral Two- plus Three-Nucleon In- teractions for Accurate Nuclear Structure Studies, Phys. Lett. B808, 135651 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon, Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Maris, E

    P. Maris, E. Epelbaum, R. Furnstahl, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, T. Hüther, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, U.-G. Meißner, J. A. Melendez,et al., Light nuclei with semilo- cal momentum-space regularized chiral interactions up to third order, Phys. Rev. C103, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Svensson, A

    I. Svensson, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, A Bayesian approach for many-body uncertainties in nu- clearstructure: Many-bodyperturbationtheoryforfinite nuclei, (2025), arXiv:2507.09079 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

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

    2021

  21. [21]

    A.Tichai, P.Demol,andT.Duguet,Towardsheavy-mass ab initio nuclear structure: Open-shell Ca, Ni and Sn isotopes from Bogoliubov coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Lett. B851, 138571 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Miyagi, X

    T. Miyagi, X. Cao, R. Seutin, S. Bacca, R. F. Gar- cia Ruiz, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Impact of Two-Body Currents on Magnetic Dipole Moments of Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 232503 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Arthuis, K

    P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, (2024), arXiv:2401.06675 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990). 7

    1990

  25. [25]

    Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon- pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon- pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  26. [26]

    Cirigliano, M

    V. Cirigliano, M. Dawid, W. Dekens, and S. Reddy, New Class of Three-Nucleon Forces and Their Implications, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 022501 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucleon- nucleon scattering from effective field theory, Nucl. Phys. B478, 629 (1996)

    1996

  28. [28]

    Cirigliano, M

    V. Cirigliano, M. Dawid, W. Dekens, and S. Reddy, pri- vate communication

  29. [29]

    Epelbaum, A

    E. Epelbaum, A. M. Gasparyan, J. Gegelia, D. Hog, and H. Krebs, Closer look at enhanced three-nucleon forces, (2025), arXiv:2512.14117 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y. Nosyk, High-quality two-nucleon potentials up to fifth order of the chiral ex- pansion, Phys. Rev. C96, 024004 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 031301 (2011)

    2011

  32. [32]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.-G. Meißner, Roy–Steiner-equation analysis of pion–nucleon scattering, Phys. Rept.625, 1 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Miyagi, NuHamil: A numerical code to generate nu- clear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur

    T. Miyagi, NuHamil: A numerical code to generate nu- clear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 150 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    K.Tsukiyama, S.K.Bogner,andA.Schwenk,In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group for Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 222502 (2011)

    2011

  35. [35]

    S. R. Stroberg, IMSRG++

  36. [36]

    Gazit, S

    D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navratil, Three-Nucleon Low-Energy Constants from the Consistency of Interac- tionsandCurrentsinChiralEffectiveFieldTheory,Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 102502 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 029901 (2019)]

    2009

  37. [37]

    P. Klos, A. Carbone, K. Hebeler, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Uncertainties in constraining low-energy constants from 3Hβdecay, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 168 (2017), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A54, 76 (2018)]

    2017

  38. [38]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Table of experimental nu- clear ground state charge radii: An update, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, A. Ekström, N. Frömmgen, G. Hagen, M. Hammen, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen,et al., Unexpectedly large charge radii of neutron-rich calcium isotopes, Nature Phys.12, 594 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Sommer, K

    F. Sommer, K. König, D. M. Rossi, N. Everett, D. Garand, R. P. de Groote, J. D. Holt, P. Imgram, A. In- corvati, C. Kalman,et al., Charge Radii of55,56Ni Reveal a Surprisingly Similar Behavior at N=28 in Ca and Ni Isotopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 132501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Malbrunot-Ettenauer, S

    S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, S. Kaufmann, S. Bacca, C. Bar- bieri, J. Billowes, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, T. Duguet, R. F. G. Ruiz,et al., Nuclear Charge Radii of the Nickel Isotopes58−68,70Ni, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 022502 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Accurate bulk properties of nuclei fromA= 2to∞from potentials with∆isobars, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020)

    2020