pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20942 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-28 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Chiral interactions and superfluidity in the calcium isotopic chain

A. Scalesi , A. Ekstr\"om , C. Forss\'en , G. Hagen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords chiral effective field theorynuclear pairingsuperfluiditycalcium isotopesab initio calculationsBayesian samplingpairing gaps
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian calibration of third-order chiral interactions leaves neutron pairing gaps in calcium isotopes too small.

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

The paper calculates neutron pairing gaps in calcium isotopes from three-point mass differences using ab initio methods with chiral nuclear interactions. Matching experimental gaps at mean-field level requires substantially stronger attraction in the singlet S-wave contact term, but that creates an unphysical bound di-neutron. Bayesian posterior sampling over the full parameters of a delta-full chiral effective field theory at third order shows the gaps remain largely unaffected and still underestimate data. The authors conclude that nuclear superfluidity in these isotopes cannot be fixed by retuning the interaction at current order and mean-field level.

Core claim

We perform ab initio calculations of three-point mass differences in the odd- and even-mass 39-49Ca isotopes to probe nuclear superfluidity via empirical neutron pairing gaps. We also quantify the sensitivity of those gaps to the parameters of the interaction at mean-field level. Recent studies employing accurate chiral nuclear interactions have found these gaps to be too small. We show that experimental values can be reproduced at mean-field level by substantially increasing the attraction of the singlet S-wave two-nucleon contact interaction, but doing so induces an unphysical bound state of the di-neutron. The sensitivity of these predictions to the full calibration of the nuclear is the

What carries the argument

Bayesian posterior sampling in delta-full chiral effective field theory at third chiral order, applied to mean-field calculations of pairing gaps extracted from three-point mass differences.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Pairing in these nuclei likely depends on collective or correlation effects not captured at mean-field level with current forces.
  • The result may constrain models of superfluidity in neutron-rich systems relevant to neutron-star crusts.
  • Tests with explicit four-nucleon forces or coupled-cluster methods could show whether the gap can be recovered without the di-neutron artifact.

Load-bearing premise

Mean-field calculations combined with third-order chiral interactions and the chosen Bayesian sampling are sufficient to conclude that the pairing gap discrepancy originates outside the interaction calibration.

What would settle it

A calculation at higher chiral order or beyond mean-field that reproduces the experimental calcium pairing gaps without producing a bound di-neutron state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20942 by A. Ekstr\"om, A. Scalesi, C. Forss\'en, G. Hagen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Impact of the variation of the sub-leading low-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior predictive distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform ab initio calculations of three-point mass differences in the odd- and even-mass $^{39-49}$Ca isotopes to probe nuclear superfluidity via empirical neutron pairing gaps. We also quantify the sensitivity of those gaps to the parameters of the interaction at mean-field level. Recent studies employing accurate chiral nuclear interactions have found these gaps to be too small. We show that experimental values can be reproduced at mean-field level by substantially increasing the attraction of the singlet $S$-wave two-nucleon contact interaction, but doing so induces an unphysical bound state of the di-neutron. The sensitivity of these predictions to the full calibration of the nuclear interaction is then studied by performing Bayesian posterior sampling in a delta-full chiral effective field theory at third chiral order. We find that pairing gaps remain largely unaffected, leaving the explanation of nuclear superfluidity as a future task for improved many-body modeling and refined interactions at higher chiral orders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes empirical neutron pairing gaps in the $^{39-49}$Ca chain via three-point mass differences using ab initio mean-field calculations with delta-full chiral EFT interactions at third order. Bayesian posterior sampling over the low-energy constants shows that the gaps remain largely insensitive to parameter variations within the posterior and are systematically too small relative to experiment. Reproducing the experimental gaps at this level requires unphysically strong singlet S-wave attraction that induces a bound di-neutron state. The authors conclude that the origin of nuclear superfluidity must be addressed by improved many-body methods or refined interactions at higher chiral orders.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work provides a clear demonstration that uncertainties in the N3LO chiral interaction calibration do not resolve the underprediction of pairing gaps at mean-field level. The combination of direct ab initio gap computation with Bayesian sampling isolates the discrepancy to the many-body truncation, offering a reproducible and falsifiable benchmark for future studies. This strengthens the case for prioritizing beyond-mean-field correlations or N4LO+ interactions in ab initio nuclear theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results on Bayesian sampling and mean-field calculations] The conclusion that interaction calibration is not the source of the discrepancy rests on the mean-field truncation (explicitly stated in the abstract and results section). While the paper defers resolution to improved many-body modeling, it does not quantify how the sensitivity to LECs would change under a beyond-mean-field treatment such as second-order perturbation theory or coupled-cluster with triples; this is load-bearing for the claim that the gaps 'remain largely unaffected'.
  2. [Section on three-point mass differences] In the section deriving the three-point mass differences, the formula is applied directly at the mean-field level without explicit inclusion of higher-order corrections to the binding energies. If these corrections are comparable in size to the pairing gaps themselves, they could alter the reported insensitivity; the manuscript should state whether such corrections are estimated to be negligible.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure showing pairing gaps] The caption of the figure displaying pairing gaps across the isotopic chain should explicitly note that the shaded bands represent the 68% credible interval from the Bayesian posterior samples.
  2. [Discussion of unphysical adjustments] A short statement clarifying the precise definition of the singlet S-wave contact strength (e.g., the value of C_{^1S0} that induces the di-neutron bound state) would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and the recommendation of minor revision. We respond to the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The conclusion that interaction calibration is not the source of the discrepancy rests on the mean-field truncation (explicitly stated in the abstract and results section). While the paper defers resolution to improved many-body modeling, it does not quantify how the sensitivity to LECs would change under a beyond-mean-field treatment such as second-order perturbation theory or coupled-cluster with triples; this is load-bearing for the claim that the gaps 'remain largely unaffected'.

    Authors: We agree that our conclusions are drawn at the mean-field level. The manuscript demonstrates insensitivity of the pairing gaps to LEC variations specifically within the mean-field approximation using Bayesian sampling. We do not claim this insensitivity extends to beyond-mean-field methods; rather, the results highlight that the discrepancy persists even after accounting for interaction uncertainties at N3LO in mean-field. Quantifying the LEC sensitivity at higher many-body orders would require substantial additional computations (e.g., using CCSD(T)) and is beyond the scope of this work focused on mean-field. We have revised the text to more explicitly limit the scope of the 'largely unaffected' statement to the mean-field calculations performed. revision: partial

  2. Referee: In the section deriving the three-point mass differences, the formula is applied directly at the mean-field level without explicit inclusion of higher-order corrections to the binding energies. If these corrections are comparable in size to the pairing gaps themselves, they could alter the reported insensitivity; the manuscript should state whether such corrections are estimated to be negligible.

    Authors: The three-point mass differences are indeed computed from the mean-field binding energies without incorporating higher-order corrections. We have updated the manuscript to include a statement clarifying that higher-order many-body corrections to the binding energies are not included in the present mean-field study. We do not estimate their magnitude relative to the gaps in this work, as doing so would entail separate calculations. This omission is consistent with the mean-field focus of the paper, and any significant impact from such corrections would reinforce our call for improved many-body modeling. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantifying how the sensitivity of the pairing gaps to the LECs changes when going beyond the mean-field approximation, for example using second-order perturbation theory or coupled-cluster with triples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes three-point mass differences to extract neutron pairing gaps at mean-field level from third-order delta-full chiral interactions. It shows that reproducing experimental gaps requires unphysical strengthening of the singlet S-wave contact term that induces a di-neutron bound state. Bayesian sampling over the posterior (constrained by external calibration data) then demonstrates that the gaps remain largely insensitive across the sampled parameter space. This insensitivity is a direct numerical output of the sampling procedure, not a quantity defined in terms of itself or recovered by construction from the fit. No step matches self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing patterns; the central claim is independent of the inputs and defers resolution to future many-body methods or higher-order interactions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard chiral EFT axioms and fitted low-energy constants; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • low-energy constants of the chiral interaction
    Fitted to nucleon-nucleon scattering and few-body data as part of the Bayesian calibration.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Chiral effective field theory provides a systematic, order-by-order expansion of nuclear forces consistent with QCD symmetries.
    Invoked throughout the interaction construction and many-body calculations.
  • domain assumption Mean-field level treatment with the chosen many-body method captures the dominant contributions to three-point mass differences.
    Central to the extraction of pairing gaps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1276 out tokens · 36447 ms · 2026-05-16T09:41:30.505227+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. N. Cooper, R. L. Mills, and A. M. Sessler, Possible Su- perfluidity of a System of Strongly Interacting Fermions, Phys. Rev.114, 1377 (1959)

    work page 1959

  2. [2]

    D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Pairing in nuclear sys- tems: from neutron stars to finite nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 607 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Duguet, P

    T. Duguet, P. Bonche, P.-H. Heenen, and J. Meyer, Pair- ing correlations. i. description of odd nuclei in mean-field theories, Phys. Rev. C65, 014310 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Duguet, P

    T. Duguet, P. Bonche, P.-H. Heenen, and J. Meyer, Pair- ing correlations. ii. microscopic analysis of odd-even mass staggering in nuclei, Phys. Rev. C65, 014311 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Duguet, B

    T. Duguet, B. Bally, and A. Tichai, Zero-pairing limit of Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov reference states, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054320 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Drissi, A

    M. Drissi, A. Rios, and C. Barbieri, Nambu-covariant many-body theory i: Perturbative approximations, An- nals Phys. , 169729 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Drissi, A

    M. Drissi, A. Rios, and C. Barbieri, Nambu-covariant many-body theory ii: Self-consistent approximations, Annals Phys. , 169730 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Mod- ern Theory of Nuclear Forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Machleidt and D

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

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, New-York, 1980)

    work page 1980

  12. [12]

    Schunck, ed.,Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2019)

    N. Schunck, ed.,Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2019)

    work page 2053

  13. [13]

    Ekstr¨ om, C

    A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, What is ab ini- tio in nuclear theory?, Frontiers in Physics11, 10.3389/fphy.2023.1129094 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2023.1129094 2023

  14. [14]

    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)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Signoracci, T

    A. Signoracci, T. Duguet, G. Hagen, and G. R. Jansen, Ab initio bogoliubov coupled cluster theory for open-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C91, 064320 (2015)

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Tichai, P

    A. Tichai, P. Arthuis, T. Duguet, H. Hergert, V. Som` a, and R. Roth, Bogoliubov Many-Body Perturbation The- ory for Open-Shell Nuclei, Phys. Lett. B786, 195 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Tichai, P

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

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Accurate bulk properties of nuclei froma= 2 to∞from potentials with ∆ isobars, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references*, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Som` a, P

    V. Som` a, P. Navr´ atil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Novel chiral hamiltonian and observables in light and medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C101, 014318 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    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)

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Som` a, C

    V. Som` a, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and P. Navr´ atil, Moving away from singly-magic nuclei with Gorkov Green’s function theory, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 135 (2021), 6 arXiv:2009.01829 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Scalesi,On the characterization of nuclear many-body correlations in the ab initio approach, Phd thesis, Uni- versit´ e Paris-Saclay (2024)

    A. Scalesi,On the characterization of nuclear many-body correlations in the ab initio approach, Phd thesis, Uni- versit´ e Paris-Saclay (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Ab initio limits of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Sun (2025), private communication

    Z. Sun (2025), private communication

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Multiscale physics of atomic nuclei from first principles, Phys. Rev. X15, 011028 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    K. S. Becker, K. D. Launey, A. Ekstr¨ om, T. Dytrych, D. Langr, G. H. Sargsyan, and J. P. Draayer, Unexpected Rise in Nuclear Collectivity from Short-Range Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 022501 (2026), arXiv:2501.00682 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Miyagi, Nuhamil : A numerical code to gen- erate nuclear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur

    T. Miyagi, Nuhamil : A numerical code to gen- erate nuclear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01039-y (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01039-y 2023

  29. [29]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, A. Ekstr¨ om, N. Fr¨ ommgen, G. Hagen, M. Ham- men, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, W. Nazarewicz, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, T. Papenbrock, J. Papuga, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, K. A. Wendt, and D. T. Yor- danov, Unexpectedly large charge radii of neutron-rich calcium...

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Caurier, K

    E. Caurier, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, and P. Vogel, Shell model description of isotope shifts in calcium, Phys. Lett. B522, 240 (2001)

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    M. C. Franzke, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Hartree-fock emulators for nuclei: Application to charge radii of 48,52ca (2025), arXiv:2510.08362 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Heinz, T

    M. Heinz, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Improved structure of cal- cium isotopes from ab initio calculations, Phys. Rev. C 111, 034311 (2025), arXiv:2411.16014 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Scalesi, T

    A. Scalesi, T. Duguet, P. Demol, M. Frosini, V. Som` a, and A. Tichai, Impact of correlations on nuclear bind- ing energies: Ab initio calculations of singly and dou- bly open-shell nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 209 (2024), arXiv:2406.03545 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    S. J. Novario, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Pa- penbrock, Charge radii of exotic neon and magne- sium isotopes, Phys. Rev. C102, 051303 (2020), arXiv:2007.06684 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Kortelainen, Z

    M. Kortelainen, Z. Sun, G. Hagen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, and P.-G. Reinhard, Universal trend of charge radii of even-even ca–zn nuclei, Phys. Rev. C105, L021303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    S. J. Novario, D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, and G. Hagen, Trends of neutron skins and radii of mirror nuclei from first principles, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 032501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, B. Bally, Y. Beaujeault-Taudi` ere, J. P. Ebran, and V. Som` a, In-mediumk-body reduction ofn-body operators: A flexible symmetry-conserving ap- proach based on the sole one-body density matrix, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 151 (2021), arXiv:2102.10120 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Hagen, S

    G. Hagen, S. J. Novario, Z. H. Sun, T. Papenbrock, G. R. Jansen, J. G. Lietz, T. Duguet, and A. Tichai, Angular- momentum projection in coupled-cluster theory: Struc- ture of 34Mg, Phys. Rev. C105, 064311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    work page 1957

  40. [40]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Colloquium: Eigenvector continuation and projection-based emulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031002 (2024), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Svensson, A

    I. Svensson, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Bayesian pa- rameter estimation in chiral effective field theory using the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. C105, 014004 (2022), arXiv:2110.04011 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Svensson, A

    I. Svensson, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Inference of the low-energy constants in ∆-full chiral effective field theory including a correlated truncation error, Phys. Rev. C109, 064003 (2024), arXiv:2304.02004 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Svensson, A

    I. Svensson, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Bayesian esti- mation of the low-energy constants up to fourth order in the nucleon-nucleon sector of chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C107, 014001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Wesolowski, I

    S. Wesolowski, I. Svensson, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, Rigor- ous constraints on three-nucleon forces in chiral effec- tive field theory from fast and accurate calculations of few-body observables, Phys. Rev. C104, 064001 (2021), arXiv:2104.04441 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

    B. Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    W. G. Jiang, C. Forss´ en, T. Dj¨ arv, and G. Hagen, Em- ulating ab initio computations of infinite nucleonic mat- ter, Phys. Rev. C109, 064314 (2024), arXiv:2212.13216 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    W. G. Jiang, C. Forss´ en, T. Dj¨ arv, and G. Hagen, Nuclear-matter saturation and symmetry energy within ∆-full chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C109, L061302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Vernon, M

    I. Vernon, M. Goldstein, and R. G. Bower, Galaxy forma- tion: a Bayesian uncertainty analysis, Bayesian Analysis 5, 619 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Vernon, J

    I. Vernon, J. Liu, M. Goldstein, J. Rowe, J. Topping, and K. Lindsey, Bayesian uncertainty analysis for com- plex systems biology models: emulation, global parame- ter searches and evaluation of gene functions, BMC Sys- tems Biology12, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Kondoet al., First observation of 28O, Nature620, 965 (2023), [Erratum: Nature 623, E13 (2023)]

    Y. Kondoet al., First observation of 28O, Nature620, 965 (2023), [Erratum: Nature 623, E13 (2023)]

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    A. F. M. Smith and A. E. Gelfand, Bayesian statistics without tears: A sampling-resampling perspective, Am. Stat.46, 84 (1992)

    work page 1992

  52. [52]

    Jiang and C

    W. Jiang and C. Forss´ en, Bayesian probability updates using sampling/importance resampling: Applications in nuclear theory, Frontiers in PhysicsV olume 10 - 2022, 10.3389/fphy.2022.1058809 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1058809 2022

  53. [53]

    Duguet, J.-P

    T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, H. Hergert, and V. Som` a, Rooting the EDF method into the ab initio framework: PGCM-PT formalism based on MR-IMSRG pre-processed Hamiltonians, The European Physical Journal A59, 13 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Converged ab initio calculations of heavy nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022), arXiv:2104.04688 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022