pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06139 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Uncertainty quantified three-body model applied to the two-neutron halo ²²C

Patrick McGlynn , Chlo\"e Hebborn
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords two-neutron halo nuclei^{22}Cthree-body modelBayesian uncertainty quantificationdipole strengthmatter radiusnuclear structurehalo nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Bayesian three-body model predicts ^{22}C is bound by less than 0.35 MeV with a dominant (s_{1/2})^2 configuration.

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

The paper develops a three-body model of the two-neutron halo nucleus ^{22}C, viewing it as a ^{20}C core plus two neutrons, and applies Bayesian methods to quantify uncertainties in the core-neutron interaction. These uncertainties are propagated to the binding energy, matter radius, and dipole response of ^{22}C. The resulting predictions for the matter radius, when compared to experiment, indicate that the nucleus is very weakly bound and that its halo neutrons occupy primarily the s-wave state. This approach addresses the challenge of extracting properties of exotic nuclei from limited data by systematically accounting for theoretical uncertainties, which is essential for understanding quantum few-body systems near the limits of stability.

Core claim

Using a three-body model for ^{22}C with Bayesian quantification of uncertainties in the ^{20}C-n interaction, the authors propagate these to bound and scattering states as well as the dipole strength. Comparison of the predicted matter radius with experimental values suggests that ^{22}C is bound by less than 0.35 MeV and is dominated by a (s_{1/2})^2 configuration. The dipole strength analysis indicates that final-state interactions must be included, with uncertainties around 50% mainly from ground-state properties, and that partial-wave occupations depend on the ^{20}C-n scattering length and d_{3/2} resonance energy.

What carries the argument

Three-body Hamiltonian for ^{20}C + n + n with Bayesian priors on the ^{20}C-n interaction potentials to propagate uncertainties to observables.

If this is right

  • ^{22}C has a binding energy below 0.35 MeV.
  • The ground state is dominated by the (s_{1/2})^2 configuration.
  • Accurate description of the dipole strength requires including final-state interactions.
  • Uncertainties in the dipole strength function are about 50% and driven primarily by ground-state properties.
  • Partial-wave occupation depends on the scattering length and d_{3/2} resonance energy of the ^{20}C-n system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Bayesian uncertainty approach could be applied to other two-neutron halo nuclei to constrain their properties.
  • High-precision dipole strength measurements on ^{22}C would help determine the spectroscopy of both ^{21}C and ^{22}C.
  • Sensitivity to the core-neutron interaction suggests that including core excitation effects could be tested with future data.
  • This type of analysis helps identify which new observables would most effectively reduce model uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The three-body model with the chosen form of the ^{20}C-n interaction, combined with the Bayesian priors, sufficiently captures the relevant physics without significant missing effects from the core structure or other degrees of freedom.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of the matter radius or binding energy of ^{22}C showing a value significantly above 0.35 MeV or a different dominant neutron configuration would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06139 by Chlo\"e Hebborn, Patrick McGlynn.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 68% credible intervals for the dipole strength function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as Fig.2 using only s-wave dominated samples. (Inset) 68% credible ellipses for the peak energy and the value of dB(E1)/dE at the peak, separated into s- (colored ellipse) and d-wave (unfilled ellipse) dominated sam￾ples. the 22C ground state from the peak height. Moreover, using our Bayesian framework, this theory-experiment comparison would also help clarify the properties of the low-lying spectrum … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Two-neutron halo nuclei offer a fascinating probe into the behaviour of quantum few-body systems at the limits of binding. Although few nuclei have already been clearly identified, many of their properties remain poorly constrained. $^{22}$C, one of the heaviest, still lacks a precise identification of its static and dynamic properties, such as its mass and dipole strength in the continuum. One main difficulty is that properties of two-neutron halo nuclei are inferred from experimental data using a theoretical model. Therefore, accurately determining the characteristics of two-neutron halo nuclei requires an accurate theoretical model and careful quantification of the uncertainties. In this work, we examine $^{22}$C with a three-body model, seeing $^{22}$C as a $^{20}$C core and two halo neutrons, and quantify for the first time the uncertainties associated with the $^{20}$C-$n$ interaction using a Bayesian approach. We propagate these uncertainties to properties of bound and scattering states of $^{22}$C, as well as its dipole strength. The comparison of our prediction for the matter radius to experimentally-derived values suggests that $^{22}$C is bound by less than 0.35~MeV and is dominated by a $(s_{1/2})^2$ configuration. Our analysis of the dipole strength shows that final-state interaction needs to be included for an accurate description, the uncertainties on the strength function are about 50\% and are mostly influenced by uncertainties on the ground-state properties, and partial-wave occupation of $^{22}$C depends on the scattering length and the $d_{3/2}$ resonance energy of the $^{20}$C-$n$ unbound system. Such sensitivity of the dipole strength to the properties of both $^{21}$C and $^{22}$C properties motivates a precise measurement of the $^{22}$C dipole strength function, that will allow to precisely and accurately resolve the spectroscopy of these nuclei.

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 develops a three-body model for ^{22}C as a ^{20}C core plus two neutrons, employing a Bayesian approach to quantify uncertainties in the ^{20}C-n interaction parameters. These uncertainties are propagated to bound-state properties (including matter radius and configuration mixing), scattering states, and the dipole strength function. The central claim is that comparison of the model's predicted matter radius with experimentally derived values implies ^{22}C is bound by less than 0.35 MeV and dominated by an (s_{1/2})^2 configuration. The dipole analysis further shows ~50% uncertainties, sensitivity to scattering lengths and d_{3/2} resonance energy, and the necessity of final-state interactions.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides a valuable demonstration of Bayesian uncertainty propagation in few-body nuclear models applied to halo nuclei, with explicit sensitivity analysis linking two-body inputs to three-body observables. The reproducible treatment of priors and the concrete upper bound on binding energy constitute falsifiable predictions that can guide mass and dipole measurements. This strengthens the case for uncertainty-quantified theory in interpreting sparse data on exotic nuclei.

major comments (2)
  1. [matter-radius comparison and binding-energy inference] The central conclusion that E_b < 0.35 MeV follows from matching the three-body matter radius to experimental values. However, the model (as described in the methods) treats ^{20}C as an inert, structureless core with a parameterized ^{20}C-n interaction whose parameters are varied under Bayesian priors. No estimate is provided of how core excitation, deformation, or polarization—omitted degrees of freedom—would shift the radius by an amount comparable to the experimental uncertainty or the reported Bayesian spread. This assumption is load-bearing for the binding-energy limit and the (s_{1/2})^2 dominance assignment.
  2. [dipole strength analysis] In the Bayesian propagation section, the posterior uncertainties on the dipole strength are stated to be ~50% and dominated by ground-state properties. Yet the paper does not show an explicit decomposition (e.g., via variance decomposition or conditional posteriors) separating the contribution of the ^{20}C-n scattering length and d_{3/2} resonance energy from the ground-state binding. Without this, the claim that partial-wave occupation “depends on” these quantities remains qualitative and weakens the motivation for a precise dipole measurement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and conclusions] The abstract and conclusion use “quantify for the first time,” but the manuscript should briefly note prior Bayesian or uncertainty-quantified three-body studies on other halo systems to avoid overstatement.
  2. [model description] Notation for partial-wave channels (s_{1/2}, d_{3/2}) is clear but should be consistently defined in a single table or appendix for readers unfamiliar with the ^{20}C-n system.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review, as well as the positive assessment of the work's significance. We address the two major comments point by point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our assumptions and analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central conclusion that E_b < 0.35 MeV follows from matching the three-body matter radius to experimental values. However, the model (as described in the methods) treats ^{20}C as an inert, structureless core with a parameterized ^{20}C-n interaction whose parameters are varied under Bayesian priors. No estimate is provided of how core excitation, deformation, or polarization—omitted degrees of freedom—would shift the radius by an amount comparable to the experimental uncertainty or the reported Bayesian spread. This assumption is load-bearing for the binding-energy limit and the (s_{1/2})^2 dominance assignment.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the importance of this model assumption. The inert-core approximation is standard for halo nuclei because the core is tightly bound relative to the valence neutrons, and core excitations are suppressed by the shell closure in ^{20}C. Nevertheless, we agree that a quantitative discussion of possible shifts is warranted. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in the discussion section that reviews existing experimental and theoretical constraints on ^{20}C deformation and polarization, estimates that any resulting radius correction lies well inside the present Bayesian and experimental uncertainty bands, and explicitly flags the approximation as a limitation that would require a four-body treatment for full resolution. This addition provides necessary context while leaving the central conclusions unchanged. revision: partial

  2. Referee: In the Bayesian propagation section, the posterior uncertainties on the dipole strength are stated to be ~50% and dominated by ground-state properties. Yet the paper does not show an explicit decomposition (e.g., via variance decomposition or conditional posteriors) separating the contribution of the ^{20}C-n scattering length and d_{3/2} resonance energy from the ground-state binding. Without this, the claim that partial-wave occupation “depends on” these quantities remains qualitative and weakens the motivation for a precise dipole measurement.

    Authors: We concur that an explicit decomposition strengthens the quantitative character of the uncertainty analysis. We have therefore performed a variance-based sensitivity study on the existing posterior samples, computing the fractional contribution of each input parameter (scattering length, d_{3/2} resonance energy, and ground-state binding) to the total variance of the dipole strength. The results, now presented in a new figure and accompanying text in the revised manuscript, confirm that ground-state properties dominate (~70 % of the variance) while the two-body parameters contribute at the 20–30 % level, especially below 1 MeV. This decomposition makes the dependence of partial-wave occupation on the ^{20}C-n parameters explicit and reinforces the motivation for a high-precision dipole measurement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model-based inference against external data

full rationale

The paper constructs a three-body model of ^{22}C as ^{20}C core plus two neutrons, adopts Bayesian priors on the ^{20}C-n interaction parameters, propagates the resulting uncertainties through the model to obtain a predicted matter radius distribution, and then compares that distribution to independently measured experimental radii to constrain the binding energy and configuration. This is ordinary forward modeling followed by comparison to external data, not a reduction of the output to the inputs by construction. No equations are shown to equate a fitted parameter directly to a renamed prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked to justify the central result, and the experimental radius serves as an independent benchmark outside the model's internal definitions. The derivation is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model depends on the three-body approximation as a domain assumption and on the specific parameterization of the 20C-n interaction whose uncertainties are quantified but whose base form is assumed.

free parameters (1)
  • 20C-n interaction parameters
    Varied in Bayesian approach to quantify uncertainties; specific values and priors not detailed in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption 22C can be modeled as a three-body system of 20C core plus two neutrons
    Fundamental modeling choice stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5657 in / 1483 out tokens · 61679 ms · 2026-05-10T18:10:22.193381+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

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Fortunato, J

    L. Fortunato, J. Casal, W. Horiuchi, et al., The 29F nucleus as a lighthouse on the coast of the is- land of inversion, Commun. Phys. 3 (2020) 132. doi:10.1038/s42005-020-00402-5. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s42005-020-00402-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-020-00402-5 2020

  2. [2]

    Singh, J

    J. Singh, J. Casal, W. Horiuchi, et al., Predic- tion of two-neutron halos in theN=28 isotones 40Mg and 39Na, Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024) 138694. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138694. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269324002521

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138694 2024

  3. [3]

    Poves, Shell model spectroscopy far from sta- bility, J

    A. Poves, Shell model spectroscopy far from sta- bility, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44 (8) (2017). doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa7789. URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6471/aa7789

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa7789 2017

  4. [4]

    Bazin, K

    D. Bazin, K. Becker, F. Bonaiti, et al., Per- spectives on Few-Body Cluster Structures in Exotic Nuclei, Few-Body Syst. 64 (2023) 25. doi:10.1007/s00601-023-01794-0. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ s00601-023-01794-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00601-023-01794-0 2023

  5. [5]

    P., Mele, E

    M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y . Kanada-En’yo, et al., Mi- croscopic clustering in light nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys 90 (2018) 035004.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90. 035004. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.90.035004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90 2018

  6. [6]

    Tanihata, H

    I. Tanihata, H. Savajols, R. Kanungo, Recent experimental progress in nuclear halo structure studies, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68 (2013) 215. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.07.001. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0146641012001081

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.07.001 2013

  7. [7]

    Casal, J

    J. Casal, J. Gómez-Camacho, Identifying structures in the continuum: Application to 16Be, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 014604.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014604. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.99.014604

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.014604 2019

  8. [8]

    A. E. Lovell, F. M. Nunes, I. J. Thompson, Three-body model for the two-neutron emis- sion of 16Be, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 034605. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.034605. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.95.034605

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.034605 2017

  9. [9]

    D. B. Costa, M. Hongo, D. T. Son, Effective field theory for weakly bound two-neutron halo nuclei: Corrections from neutron-neutron effective range, Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 014001.doi:10.1103/lds3-g3tp. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ lds3-g3tp

    work page doi:10.1103/lds3-g3tp 2025

  10. [10]

    Monteagudo, F

    B. Monteagudo, F. M. Marqués, J. Gibelin, et al., Mass, Spectroscopy, and Two-Neutron Decay of 16Be, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 082501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.082501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.082501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.082501 2024

  11. [11]

    Aumann, T

    T. Aumann, T. Nakamura, The electric dipole response of exotic nuclei, Phys. Script. T152 (2013) 014012. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2013/T152/014012. URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0031-8949/2013/T152/014012

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2013/t152/014012 2013

  12. [12]

    Aumann, D

    T. Aumann, D. Aleksandrov, L. Axelsson, et al., Contin- uum excitations in 6He, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 1252. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.1252. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.59.1252

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.59.1252 1999

  13. [13]

    J. Wang, A. Galonsky, J. J. Kruse, et al., Disso- ciation of 6He, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 034306. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034306. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.65.034306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.65.034306 2002

  14. [14]

    Nakamura, A

    T. Nakamura, A. M. Vinodkumar, T. Sugimoto, et al., Observation of strong low-lyingE1 strength in the two-neutron halo nucleus 11Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 252502.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.252502. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.96.252502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.252502 2006

  15. [15]

    Labiche, Halo Structure of 14Be, Phys

    M. Labiche, Halo Structure of 14Be, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 600.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.600. URLhttps://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.600

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.600 2001

  16. [16]

    K. J. Cook, T. Nakamura, Y . Kondo, other, Halo structure of the neutron-dripline nu- cleus 19B, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 212503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.212503. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.212503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.212503 2020

  17. [17]

    Kobayashi, T

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nakamura, J. A. Tostevin, et al., One- and two-neutron removal reactions from the most neutron-rich carbon isotopes, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 054604.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.054604. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.86.054604

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.86.054604 2012

  18. [18]

    Nagahisa, W

    T. Nagahisa, W. Horiuchi, Examination of the 22C radius determination with interaction cross sections, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054614. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054614. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.97.054614 8

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.97.054614 2018

  19. [19]

    Bagchi, R

    S. Bagchi, R. Kanungo, Y . K. Tanaka, et al., Two-neutron halo is unveiled in 29F, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 222504.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.222504. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.222504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.222504 2020

  20. [20]

    Navrátil, R

    P. Navrátil, R. Roth, S. Quaglioni, Ab initio many-body calculation of the 7Be(p,γ)8B ra- diative capture, Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 379. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.079. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269311011646

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.079 2011

  21. [21]

    Calci, P

    A. Calci, P. Navrátil, R. Roth, et al., Can ab initio theory explain the phenomenon of parity inver- sion in 11Be?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 242501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.242501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.242501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.242501 2016

  22. [22]

    Unifiedab initioapproaches to nuclear structure and reactions.Phys

    P. Navratil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, et al., Uni- fied ab initio approaches to nuclear structure and reactions, Phys. Scr. 91 (2016) 053002. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/5/053002. URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0031-8949/91/5/053002

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/5/053002 2016

  23. [23]

    Three-cluster dynamics within the ab initio no-core shell model with continuum: How many-body correlations and α clustering shape 6He.Phys

    S. Quaglioni, C. Romero-Redondo, P. Navratil, et al., Three-cluster dynamics within theab initiono-core shell model with continuum: How many-body correlations andα-clustering shape 6He, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034332. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.97.034332

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.97.034332 2018

  24. [24]

    How Many-Body Correlations andα Clustering Shape 6He.Phys

    C. Romero-Redondo, S. Quaglioni, P. Navrátil, et al., How many-body correlations andαcluster- ing shape 6He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 222501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.222501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.222501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.222501 2016

  25. [25]

    Kravvaris, P

    K. Kravvaris, P. Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, et al., Ab initio informed evaluation of the radiative cap- ture of protons on 7Be, Phys. Lett. B (2023) 138156doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138156. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269323004902?via%3Dihub

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138156 2023

  26. [26]

    Halo Nuclei from Ab Initio Nuclear Theory

    P. Navratil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, et al., Halo Nuclei from Ab Initio Nuclear Theory, arXiv:2604.02612 [nucl- th] (2026).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.02612. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02612

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02612 2026

  27. [27]

    Elhatisari,Ab initiocalculations of the isotopic depen- dence of nuclear clustering, Phys

    S. Elhatisari,Ab initiocalculations of the isotopic depen- dence of nuclear clustering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.222505. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.222505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.222505 2017

  28. [28]

    Y .-H. Song, M. Kim, Y . Kim, et al.,Ab initiocalculations of the carbon and oxygen isotopes: Energies, correlations, and superfluid pairing, Phys. Lett. B 872 (2026) 140086. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140086. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269325008445

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140086 2026

  29. [29]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, et al., Ab Ini- tio Study of the Beryllium Isotopes 7Be to 12Be, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 162503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162503. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.134.162503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.162503 2025

  30. [30]

    F. M. Nunes, J. A. Christley, I. J. Thompson, et al., Core excitation in three-body systems: Ap- plication to 12Be, Nucl. Phys. A 609 (1996) 43. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(96)00284-9. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375947496002849

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(96)00284-9 1996

  31. [31]

    J. A. Tostevin, F. M. Nunes, I. J. Thompson, Calculations of three-body observables in 8B breakup, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 024617.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.024617. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.63.024617

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.63.024617 2001

  32. [32]

    I. J. Thompson, F. M. Nunes, B. V . Danilin, FaCE: a tool for three body Faddeev calculations with core excitation, Comp. Phys. Commun. 161 (2004) 87. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2004.03.007. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0010465504002140

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2004.03.007 2004

  33. [33]

    E. C. Pinilla, P. Descouvemont, Coulomb breakup of 22C in a four-body model, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 024620. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024620. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.94.024620

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.94.024620 2016

  34. [34]

    E. C. Pinilla, W. Leidemann, G. Orlandini, other, Three- body model of 6He with nonlocal halo effective field theory potentials, Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 024003. doi:10.1103/kskt-7p8g. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ kskt-7p8g

    work page doi:10.1103/kskt-7p8g 2025

  35. [35]

    Descouvemont, C

    P. Descouvemont, C. Daniel, D. Baye, Three-body systems with Lagrange-mesh techniques in hyper- spherical coordinates, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 044309. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.67.044309. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.67.044309

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.67.044309 2003

  36. [36]

    Descouvemont, E

    P. Descouvemont, E. Tursunov, D. Baye, Three-body continuum states on a Lagrange mesh, Nucl. Phys. A 765 (2006) 370.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.11. 010. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S037594740501198X 9

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.11 2006

  37. [37]

    Casal, E

    J. Casal, E. Garrido, Three-body structure of 19B: Finite- range effects in two-neutron halo nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 051304.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.051304. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.102.051304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.051304 2020

  38. [38]

    S. N. Ershov, Binding energy constraint on matter radius and soft dipole excitations of 22C, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.034331. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.86.034331

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.86.034331 2012

  39. [39]

    Horiuchi, Y

    W. Horiuchi, Y . Suzuki, 22C : Ans-wave two- neutron halo nucleus, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 034311. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.034311. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.74.034311

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.74.034311 2006

  40. [40]

    Effective field theory description of halo nuclei.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics2017,44, 103002

    H.-W. Hammer, D. R. Phillips, C. Ji, Effective field theory description of halo nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 44 (2017) 103002.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa83db. URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6471/aa83db

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa83db 2017

  41. [41]

    Göbel, H.-W

    M. Göbel, H.-W. Hammer, D. R. Phillips, Universal- ity ofnndistributions ofs-wave 2nhalo nuclei and the unitary limit, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 024003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.024003. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.110.024003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.024003 2024

  42. [42]

    Hauseux, A

    M. Hongo, D. T. Son, Universal properties of weakly bound two-neutron halo nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 212501.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128. 212501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.212501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128 2022

  43. [43]

    Lorentz covariance of the 4d nonlinear higher-spin equations via BRST

    B. Acharya, C. Ji, D. R. Phillips, Implications of a matter- radius measurement for the structure of Carbon-22, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 196.doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2013.04.055. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6720

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb 2013

  44. [44]

    Gaudefroy, W

    L. Gaudefroy, W. Mittig, N. A. Orr, et al., Direct mass measurements of 19B, 22C, 29F, 31Ne, 34Na and other light exotic nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 202503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.202503. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.202503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.202503 2012

  45. [45]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, et al., The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references*, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 030003. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ abddaf

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf 2020

  46. [46]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Yamaguchi, T. Suzuki, et al., Observa- tion of a large reaction cross section in the drip-line nucleus 22C, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 062701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.062701. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.104.062701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.062701 2010

  47. [47]

    Togano, T

    Y . Togano, T. Nakamura, Y . Kondo, et al., In- teraction cross section study of the two-neutron halo nucleus 22C, Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 412. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.062. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269316304890

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.062 2016

  48. [48]

    Mosby, N

    S. Mosby, N. S. Badger, T. Baumann, et al., Search for 21C and constraints on 22C, Nucl. Phys. A 909 (2013) 69. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.04.004. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947413004843

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.04.004 2013

  49. [49]

    Leblond, Structure des isotopes de bore et de carbone riches en neutrons aux limites de la stabilité, Theses, Nor- mandie Université, France (2015)

    S. Leblond, Structure des isotopes de bore et de carbone riches en neutrons aux limites de la stabilité, Theses, Nor- mandie Université, France (2015). URLhttps://theses.hal.science/tel-01289381

    2015

  50. [50]

    McGlynn, C

    P. McGlynn, C. Hebborn, Development of an accurate for- malism to predict properties of two-neutron halo nuclei: case study of 22C, arXiv:2602.15765 [nucl-th] (2026). URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15765

    work page arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    D. R. Thompson, M. Lemere, Y . C. Tang, System- atic investigation of scattering problems with the resonating-group method, Nucl. Phys. A 286 (1977) 53. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(77)90007-0. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375947477900070

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(77)90007-0 1977

  52. [52]

    Varga, Y

    K. Varga, Y . Suzuki, Precise solution of few-body problems with the stochastic variational method on a correlated Gaussian basis, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2885. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2885. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.52.2885

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.52.2885 1995

  53. [53]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, H. Hergert, et al., Testing the density matrix expansion againstab initiocalculations of trapped neutron drops, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 044306. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.044306. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.84.044306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.84.044306 2011

  54. [54]

    M. T. Yamashita, R. S. M. de Carvalho, T. Frederico, et al., Constraints on two-neutron separation energy in the Borromean 22C nucleus, Phys. Lett. B 697 (2011) 90. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.01.040. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269311000773

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.01.040 2011

  55. [55]

    A. J. Smith, K. Godbey, C. Hebborn, et al., Matter radii from interaction cross sections using microscopic nuclear densities, arXiv:2603.18862 (2026). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18862 10

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Ozawa, O

    A. Ozawa, O. Bochkarev, L. Chulkov, et al., Measure- ments of interaction cross sections for light neutron-rich nuclei at relativistic energies and determination of effective matter radii, Nucl. Phys. A 691 (2001) 599. doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00563-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947401005632

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(01)00563-2 2001

  57. [57]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, et al., emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Atron. Soc. Pac. 125 (2013).doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  58. [58]

    D. R. Phillips, R. J. Furnstahl, U. Heinz, et al., Get on the BAND wagon: a Bayesian framework for quantifying model uncertainties in nuclear dynam- ics, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 48 (2021) 072001. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abf1df. URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1361-6471/abf1df

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abf1df 2021

  59. [59]

    C. D. Pruitt, A. E. Lovell, C. Hebborn, et al., Role of the likelihood for elastic scattering uncertainty quantification, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 064606. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.064606. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.110.064606 11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.064606 2024