arxiv: 2605.13985 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · ⚛️ nucl-th · hep-ph· nucl-ex

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Taming nuclear size and shape effects in superallowed beta-decay

Bingcheng He , Mikhail Gorchtein , Matthias Heinz , Ben Ohayon , Lucas Platter , Chien-Yeah Seng

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 02:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

keywords superallowed beta decayCKM matrixVudnuclear charge radiiIMSRGstatistical rate functionCKM unitarity

0 comments

The pith

Combining experimental nuclear radii with ab initio moment ratios tames shape effects in superallowed beta decays.

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

The paper shows how to compute the statistical rate function f for superallowed beta decays more accurately by merging high-precision experimental data on nuclear charge radii with theoretical ratios of charge moments calculated using the in-medium similarity renormalization group method. This approach is applied to the decays of 10C, 14O, and 26mAl, which are key for determining the CKM matrix element Vud. By quantifying the nuclear shape dependence and its uncertainties from both sources, the work reduces theoretical uncertainties in the extraction of Vud. A sympathetic reader would care because this sharpens the test of whether the first row of the CKM matrix is unitary, a fundamental check of the Standard Model.

Core claim

Nuclear charge form factors are constructed from experimental radii and IMSRG-computed moment ratios, while beta decay form factors follow from exact isospin relations; this allows a rigorous quantification of nuclear shape effects in the statistical rate function f for the specified superallowed transitions, leading to reduced theoretical uncertainties in the test of first-row CKM unitarity.

What carries the argument

The statistical rate function f, computed from nuclear charge form factors (experimental radii plus IMSRG moment ratios) and isospin-related beta decay form factors.

If this is right

More precise value of |Vud| from these beta decays with smaller theory error.
Improved constraint on the unitarity of the first row of the CKM matrix.
Validation of a hybrid approach combining ab initio nuclear theory with experimental data for precision electroweak tests.
Reduced overall uncertainty in Standard Model tests using superallowed decays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar methods could be extended to other superallowed transitions to further refine CKM tests.
The approach might help resolve any current tensions in CKM unitarity by lowering theory systematics.
Future high-precision radius measurements could further reduce the experimental component of the uncertainty in f.

Load-bearing premise

The IMSRG-computed ratios of nuclear charge moments, when scaled by experimental radii, correctly describe the shape dependence of the statistical rate function f.

What would settle it

A direct high-precision measurement of the statistical rate function f or the extracted |Vud| from these nuclei that significantly deviates from the value predicted by this combined analysis after accounting for other corrections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13985 by Ben Ohayon, Bingcheng He, Chien-Yeah Seng, Lucas Platter, Matthias Heinz, Mikhail Gorchtein.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Nuclear charge density for 26Mg in two different models with the first three moments fixed: ⟨r 2 ⟩ = 9.1809 fm2 , ⟨r 4 ⟩ = 125.521 fm4 , ⟨r 6 ⟩ = 2204.11 fm6 . open-shell systems [24–35]. In particular, the in-medium similarity renormalization group (IMSRG) [36, 37] has become a widely used ab initio method for nuclear-structure studies, including densities and form factors [38–41]. In this Letter, we est… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Histograms of sampled statistical rate functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Updated plot of various Vud and Vus determinations. The red vertical band represents our new result, ∣Vud∣ = 0.97394(27), using Ft = 3070.16(1.68) from 26mAl decay. The green vertical band, ∣Vud∣ = 0.97373(31), is taken from Ref. [6]. The black line represents the unitarity condition ∆CKM = 0. work on Vud computed via [6]: ∣Vud∣ 2 = 2984.431(3) s Ft(1 + ∆V R ) , (8) using the transition 26mAl → 26Mg, whi… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present the first combined analysis of the statistical rate function f in superallowed beta decays with ab initio calculations and data. We focus on C10 to 10B, 14O to 14N and 26mAl to 26Mg, all of which are important channels for the precise determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element Vud. Nuclear charge form factors are obtained by combining experimental data on nuclear charge radii and theory calculations of ratios of moments with the in-medium similarity renormalization group, while the beta decay form factors are derived from exact isospin relations. This enables a rigorous study of the nuclear shape dependence in the statistical rate function f and the quantification of its uncertainties from both experiment and theory. The calculation leads to a more precise test for the first-row CKM unitarity with reduced theoretical uncertainties. This work demonstrates a reliable strategy for combining nuclear many-body calculations with high-precision nuclear data to describe beta decays at tree level for precision tests of the Standard Model.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper mixes IMSRG moment ratios with experimental charge radii to refine the statistical rate function f for three superallowed decays, but the size of any real improvement in uncertainty is not yet clear from the presented evidence.

read the letter

The new piece here is the first explicit combination of ab initio IMSRG ratios for higher charge moments with measured radii to build the nuclear charge form factor that enters f. They apply this to 10C, 14O, and 26mAl, using exact isospin relations for the weak form factors, and they try to propagate both experimental and theoretical uncertainties into f. That approach is a sensible step beyond pure phenomenological or pure theoretical treatments of nuclear size and shape effects in these decays. It directly targets the theoretical error budget that limits Vud extractions and first-row CKM unitarity tests. Credit is due for laying out a concrete strategy that anchors the leading moment to data while letting theory supply the shape ratios. The method looks internally consistent on its own terms and avoids obvious circularity by keeping the IMSRG input independent of the final fit. The soft spot is whether the IMSRG ratios for moments like / are accurate enough at the precision level needed. If those ratios carry a systematic bias larger than the quoted theory error, the claimed reduction in uncertainty on f would shrink or disappear. The abstract states that uncertainties are reduced and that this leads to a sharper CKM test, but without the actual numerical values, error budgets, or comparisons to prior work it is difficult to judge how much the needle actually moves. This is the kind of targeted nuclear input that people working on superallowed decays and CKM phenomenology would want to see. A reader who needs updated theory for these specific transitions would get value from the full calculation once the numbers are checked. It is solid enough to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject, even if the review will likely ask for the explicit results and a clearer validation against existing evaluations of f.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a hybrid method to compute the statistical rate function f for superallowed beta decays of 10C, 14O, and 26mAl by anchoring nuclear charge distributions to experimental charge radii and scaling higher moments via IMSRG-computed ratios, while obtaining beta-decay form factors from exact isospin relations. The central claim is that this reduces theoretical uncertainties on f, enabling a more precise extraction of |Vud| and a tighter test of first-row CKM unitarity.

Significance. If the central construction holds, the approach offers a controlled way to incorporate ab initio nuclear structure information into precision beta-decay analyses without introducing additional free parameters, which is a genuine strength for reducing theory error budgets in CKM tests. The explicit use of experimental radii for the leading moment and isospin symmetry for the weak form factors is methodologically sound and directly addresses a known source of uncertainty in superallowed decays.

major comments (2)

[Section describing charge form factor construction and uncertainty quantification] The construction of the charge distribution for f (anchoring experimental <r^2> and scaling higher moments with IMSRG ratios) implicitly assumes that the computed ratios faithfully reproduce the shape dependence entering the phase-space integral at the required precision. No sensitivity study to SRG scale, valence-space truncation, or chiral EFT cutoff is shown; any systematic bias in, e.g., <r^4>/<r^2> larger than the quoted theory uncertainty would directly enlarge the error on f and therefore on |Vud|, undermining the reduced-uncertainty claim.
[Abstract and results summary] The abstract asserts that the calculation 'leads to a more precise test for the first-row CKM unitarity with reduced theoretical uncertainties,' yet no numerical values for f, its error budget, or direct comparison to previous evaluations (e.g., Towner-Hardy or recent ab initio results) are provided. Without these, the magnitude of the improvement cannot be verified and the central claim remains unquantified.

minor comments (2)

[Method section] Clarify the precise definition of the charge form factors and how they are folded into the statistical rate function f; the current description leaves the integration limits and relativistic corrections ambiguous.
[Results] Add a table or explicit comparison of the new f values and uncertainties against the most recent literature evaluations for the three nuclei considered.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the methodological strengths of our work and for the detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section describing charge form factor construction and uncertainty quantification] The construction of the charge distribution for f (anchoring experimental <r^2> and scaling higher moments with IMSRG ratios) implicitly assumes that the computed ratios faithfully reproduce the shape dependence entering the phase-space integral at the required precision. No sensitivity study to SRG scale, valence-space truncation, or chiral EFT cutoff is shown; any systematic bias in, e.g., <r^4>/<r^2> larger than the quoted theory uncertainty would directly enlarge the error on f and therefore on |Vud|, undermining the reduced-uncertainty claim.

Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit sensitivity studies leaves the robustness of the moment ratios insufficiently demonstrated. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection performing and reporting calculations at varied SRG scales, valence-space truncations, and chiral EFT cutoffs. These results will be used either to confirm that systematic shifts remain inside the quoted theory uncertainty on f or to enlarge that uncertainty if necessary, thereby directly addressing the concern about possible bias in the phase-space integral. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and results summary] The abstract asserts that the calculation 'leads to a more precise test for the first-row CKM unitarity with reduced theoretical uncertainties,' yet no numerical values for f, its error budget, or direct comparison to previous evaluations (e.g., Towner-Hardy or recent ab initio results) are provided. Without these, the magnitude of the improvement cannot be verified and the central claim remains unquantified.

Authors: We accept that the abstract and main text do not currently present the numerical values of f, the full error budget, or side-by-side comparisons in a form that immediately quantifies the improvement. In the revision we will (i) rewrite the abstract to include the key numerical results for f and the resulting |Vud| uncertainty, and (ii) insert a compact summary table that lists our f values, their experimental and theoretical error components, and direct comparisons with the Towner-Hardy compilation and recent ab initio evaluations. This will make the reduction in theoretical uncertainty explicit and verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: form factors built from independent experimental radii, external IMSRG ratios, and exact isospin relations

full rationale

The derivation obtains nuclear charge form factors by anchoring the leading moment to measured experimental charge radii and scaling higher moments with IMSRG-computed ratios, then applies exact isospin relations for the beta-decay form factors. No equation in the paper reduces the statistical rate function f, its uncertainty, or the final |Vud| extraction to a parameter fitted inside the present work or to a self-citation chain. IMSRG ratios are external many-body theory inputs (not derived or fitted here), experimental radii are independent data, and isospin relations are model-independent. The central claim therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard nuclear many-body assumptions and experimental inputs rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Exact isospin relations hold for beta-decay form factors in these nuclei
Invoked to obtain beta-decay form factors directly from isospin symmetry without additional computation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5497 in / 1124 out tokens · 42646 ms · 2026-05-15T02:42:19.383408+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Nuclear charge form factors are obtained by combining experimental data on nuclear charge radii and theory calculations of ratios of moments with the in-medium similarity renormalization group

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

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

S. L. Glashow, Partial-symmetries of weak interactions, Nucl. Phys.22, 579 (1961)

work page 1961
[2]

Salam and J

A. Salam and J. C. Ward, Weak and electromagnetic interactions, Nuovo Cim.11, 568 (1959)

work page 1959
[3]

Weinberg, A model of leptons, Phys

S. Weinberg, A model of leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1264 (1967)

work page 1967
[4]

Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys

N. Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

work page 1963
[5]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

work page 1973
[6]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Superallowed 0 + → 0+ nuclear β decays: 2020 critical survey, with implications for V ud and CKM unitarity, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Cirigliano, A

V. Cirigliano, A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and M. Moul- son, Scrutinizing CKM unitarity with a new measurement of the K µ3/Kµ2 branching fraction, Phys. Lett. B838, 137748 (2023), arXiv:2208.11707

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Possible tests of time reversal invariance in Beta decay, Phys. Rev. 106, 517 (1957)

work page 1957
[9]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Superallowed 0+ — > 0+ nuclear beta decays: A Critical survey with tests of CVC and the standard model, Phys. Rev. C71, 055501 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0412056

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[10]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, New limit on fundamen- tal weak-interaction parameters from superallowed beta decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 092502 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0412050

work page arXiv 2005
[11]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Superallowed 0+ — > 0+ nuclear beta decays: A New survey with precision tests of the conserved vector current hypothesis and the standard model, Phys. Rev. C79, 055502 (2009), arXiv:0812.1202

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[12]

D. H. Wilkinson, Methodology for superallowed Fermi beta decay. 2. Reduction of data, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 335, 182 (1993)

work page 1993
[13]

High precision analytical description of the allowed $\beta$ spectrum shape

L. Hayen, N. Severijns, K. Bodek, D. Rozpedzik, and X. Mougeot, High precision analytical description of the allowed β spectrum shape, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015008 (2018), arXiv:1709.07530

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[14]

Seng and M

C.-Y. Seng and M. Gorchtein, Electroweak nuclear radii constrain the isospin breaking correction to Vud, Phys. Lett. B838, 137654 (2023), arXiv:2208.03037

work page arXiv 2023
[15]

Seng, Model-Independent Determination of Nuclear Weak Form Factors and Implications for Standard Model Precision Tests, Phys

C.-Y. Seng, Model-Independent Determination of Nuclear Weak Form Factors and Implications for Standard Model Precision Tests, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 152501 (2023), arXiv:2212.02681

work page arXiv 2023
[16]

Gorchtein, V

M. Gorchtein, V. Katyal, B. Ohayon, B. K. Sahoo, and C.- 6 Y. Seng, Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa unitarity deficit re- duction via finite nuclear size, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042002 (2025), arXiv:2502.17070

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Angeli and K

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

work page 2013
[18]

Tsukada, Y

K. Tsukada, Y. Abe, A. Enokizono, T. Goke, M. Hara, Y. Honda, T. Hori, S. Ichikawa, Y. Ito, K. Kurita, C. Legris, Y. Maehara, T. Ohnishi, R. Ogawara, T. Suda, T. Tamae, M. Wakasugi, M. Watanabe, and H. Wauke, First observation of electron scattering from online- produced radioactive target, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 092502 (2023)

work page 2023
[19]

de Vries, C

H. de Vries, C. W. de Jager, and C. de Vries, Nuclear charge and magnetization density distribution parameters from elastic electron scattering, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.36, 495 (1987)

work page 1987
[20]

Seng and M

C.-Y. Seng and M. Gorchtein, Data-driven re-evaluation of f t-values in superallowed beta decays, arXiv:2309.16893

work page arXiv
[21]

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
[22]

Machleidt and D

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

work page 2011
[23]

Hergert, A guided tour of ab initio nuclear many-body theory, Front

H. Hergert, A guided tour of ab initio nuclear many-body theory, Front. Phys.8(2020)

work page 2020
[24]

G. B. King, L. Andreoli, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, R. Schi- avilla, R. B. Wiringa, J. Carlson, and S. Gandolfi, Chi- ral Effective Field Theory Calculations of Weak Transi- tions in Light Nuclei, Phys. Rev. C102, 025501 (2020), arXiv:2004.05263

work page arXiv 2020
[25]

S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Ab initio limits of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021), arXiv:1905.10475

work page arXiv 2021
[26]

B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon, Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Physics 18, 1196 (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

Frosini, T

M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, T. Mongelli, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, R. Roth, and V. Som` a, Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calcula- tions, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 63 (2022), arXiv:2111.00797

work page arXiv 2022
[28]

Hebeler, V

K. Hebeler, V. Durant, J. Hoppe, M. Heinz, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, and A. Tichai, Normal ordering of three- nucleon interactions for ab initio calculations of heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C107, 024310 (2023)

work page 2023
[29]

Belley, J

A. Belley, J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Pitcher, J. Engel, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, T. Miyagi, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, A. M. Romero, S. R. Stroberg, and X. Zhang, Ab initio uncer- tainty quantification of neutrinoless double-beta decay in 76Ge, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182502 (2024)

work page 2024
[30]

Elhatisari, L

S. Elhatisari, L. Bovermann, Y.-Z. Ma, E. Epelbaum, D. Frame,et al., Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature630, 59 (2024), arXiv:2210.17488

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

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), arXiv:2307.15619

work page arXiv 2024
[32]

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), arXiv:2404.00058

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Door, C.-H

M. Door, C.-H. Yeh, M. Heinz, F. Kirk, C. Lyu,et al., Probing new bosons and nuclear structure with ytter- bium isotope shifts, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 063002 (2025), arXiv:2403.07792

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Bonaiti, G

F. Bonaiti, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Structure of the doubly magic nuclei 208Pb and 266Pb from ab initio computations, arXiv:2508.14217

work page arXiv
[35]

K. B. Ng, S. Foster, L. Cheng, P. Navratil, and S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, Nuclear Schiff Moment of the Fluorine Isotope 19F, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 112501 (2026), arXiv:2507.19811

work page arXiv 2026
[36]

Hergert, S

H. Hergert, S. Bogner, T. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, The in-medium similarity renormaliza- tion group: A novel ab initio method for nuclei, Phys. Rep.621, 165 (2016)

work page 2016
[37]

S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical interactions for the nuclear shell model: An update, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

work page 2019
[38]

Arthuis, K

P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Neutron-rich nuclei and neutron skins from chiral low-resolution inter- actions, arXiv:2401.06675

work page arXiv
[39]

Heinz, M

M. Heinz, M. Hoferichter, T. Miyagi, F. No¨ el, and A. Schwenk, Ab initio calculations of overlap integrals for µ→e conversion in nuclei, Phys. Lett. B871, 139975 (2025)

work page 2025
[40]

Miyagi, M

T. Miyagi, M. Heinz, and A. Schwenk, Ab initio computa- tions of the fourth-order charge density moments of 48Ca and 208Pb, Phys. Lett. B872, 140032 (2026)

work page 2026
[41]

Hijikata, J

Y. Hijikata, J. Zenihiro, S. Terashima, Y. Matsuda, H. Sakaguchi, P. Arthuis, T. Miyagi, S. Ota,et al., First Extraction of the Matter Radius of 132Sn via Proton Elas- tic Scattering at 200 MeV/Nucleon, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2026, 013D02 (2026), arXiv:2602.08455

work page arXiv 2026
[42]

No¨ el and M

F. No¨ el and M. Hoferichter, Uncertainty quantification for µ →e conversion in nuclei: charge distributions, J. High Energy Phys.08, 052, arXiv:2406.06677

work page arXiv
[43]

V. A. Yerokhin and B. Ohayon, Model-independent deter- mination of nuclear charge radii from Li-like ions, Phys. Rev. A113, 012804 (2026), arXiv:2510.27427

work page arXiv 2026
[44]

B. C. He and S. R. Stroberg, Factorized approximation to the in-medium similarity renormalization group IM- SRG(3), Phys. Rev. C110, 044317 (2024)

work page 2024
[45]

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. C83, 031301(R) (2011)

work page 2011
[46]

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

work page 2020
[47]

Hagen, A

G. Hagen, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. R. Jansen, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, K. A. Wendt, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, B. Carlsson, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. Miorelli, G. Orlandini, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Neutron and weak-charge distributions of the 48Ca nucleus, Nature Physics12, 186 (2016)

work page 2016
[48]

Miyagi, Nuclear radii from first principles, Front

T. Miyagi, Nuclear radii from first principles, Front. Phys. 13, 1581854 (2025)

work page 2025
[49]

Kurasawa and T

H. Kurasawa and T. Suzuki, The nth-order moment of the nuclear charge density and contribution from the neutrons, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2019, 113D01 (2019)

work page 2019
[50]

Naito, G

T. Naito, G. Col` o, H. Liang, and X. Roca-Maza, Second and fourth moments of the charge density and neutron- 7 skin thickness of atomic nuclei, Phys. Rev. C104, 024316 (2021)

work page 2021
[51]

Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, and G. Lee, Proton and neutron electromagnetic form factors and uncertainties, Phys. Lett. B777, 8 (2018)

work page 2018
[52]

Krebs, Nuclear currents in chiral effective field theory, Eur

H. Krebs, Nuclear currents in chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 234 (2020)

work page 2020
[53]

Hagen, T

G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, and D. J. Dean, Solution of the center-of-mass problem in nuclear structure calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 062503 (2009)

work page 2009
[54]

Ohayon, Critical evaluation of reference charge radii and applications in mirror nuclei, Atom

B. Ohayon, Critical evaluation of reference charge radii and applications in mirror nuclei, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.165, 101732 (2025), arXiv:2409.08193

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

Soundranayagam, A

R. Soundranayagam, A. Saha, K. K. Seth, C. W. de Jager, H. de Vries, H. Blok, and G. van der Steenhoven, Ground state charge distribution of 26Mg, Phys. Lett. B212, 13 (1988)

work page 1988
[56]

Fricke, C

G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig, L. A. Schaller, L. Schel- lenberg, E. B. Shera, and C. W. de Jager, Nuclear Ground State Charge Radii from Electromagnetic Interactions, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.60, 177 (1995)

work page 1995
[57]

K. G. Leach and S. Friedrich (BeEST), The BeEST Exper- iment: Searching for Beyond Standard Model Neutrinos Using 7Be Decay in STJs, J. Low Temp. Phys.209, 796 (2022), arXiv:2112.02029

work page arXiv 2022
[58]

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), arXiv:2111.12775

work page arXiv 2023
[59]

Katyal, A

V. Katyal, A. Chakraborty, B. K. Sahoo, B. Ohayon, C.- Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, and J. Behr, Testing for isospin symmetry breaking by combining isotope shift measure- ments with precise calculations in potassium, Phys. Rev. A111, 042813 (2025), arXiv:2412.05932

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

The uncertainty of the atomic screening correction was taken to be 10% of its actual size, following the treatment in Ref. [ 20]. This is an extremely conservative estimate and should by no means hinder future efforts to reduce uncertainties from other sources, such as improved mea- surements ofQ EC values

work page
[61]

Gorchtein and C.-Y

M. Gorchtein and C.-Y. Seng, The Standard Model The- ory of Neutron Beta Decay, Universe9, 422 (2023), arXiv:2307.01145

work page arXiv 2023
[62]

`O. L. Crosas and E. Mereghetti, Radiative corrections to superallowed beta decays at O (α2Z), J. High Energy Phys.02, 114, arXiv:2511.05481

work page arXiv
[63]

Z. Cao, R. J. Hill, R. Plestid, and P. Vander Griend, The Zα 2 correction to superallowed beta decays in effective field theory and implications for∣Vud∣, arXiv:2511.05446

work page arXiv
[64]

Towards better nuclear charge radii

I. Angeliet al., Towards better nuclear charge radii, arXiv:2604.08985

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[65]

R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Field Theory of the Fermi Function, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021803 (2024), arXiv:2309.07343

work page arXiv 2024
[66]

R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, All orders factorization and the Coulomb problem, Phys. Rev. D109, 056006 (2024), arXiv:2309.15929

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

Borah, R

K. Borah, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Renormalization of beta decay at three loops and beyond, Phys. Rev. D109, 113007 (2024), arXiv:2402.13307

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

S. R. White, Numerical canonical transformation ap- proach to quantum many-body problems, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 7472 (2002)

work page 2002
[69]

Heinz, A

M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, In-medium similarity renormalization group with three-body operators, Phys. Rev. C103, 044318 (2021)

work page 2021
[70]

S. R. Stroberg, T. D. Morris, and B. C. He, In-medium similarity renormalization group with flowing 3-body op- erators, and approximations thereof, Phys. Rev. C110, 044316 (2024)

work page 2024
[71]

Heinz, T

M. Heinz, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Improved structure of calcium isotopes from ab initio calculations, Phys. Rev. C111, 034311 (2025)

work page 2025
[72]

T. D. Morris, N. M. Parzuchowski, and S. K. Bogner, Mag- nus expansion and in-medium similarity renormalization group, Phys. Rev. C92, 034331 (2015), arXiv:1507.06725

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[73]

Heinz, Computational schemes for the Magnus expan- sion of the in-medium similarity renormalization group, Phys

M. Heinz, Computational schemes for the Magnus expan- sion of the in-medium similarity renormalization group, Phys. Rev. C113, L041301 (2026)

work page 2026
[74]

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), arXiv:2302.07962

work page arXiv 2023
[75]

off-diagonal

J. Hoppe, A. Tichai, M. Heinz, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Natural orbitals for many-body expansion methods, Phys. Rev. C103, 014321 (2021). Supplementary Information – S1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Details of IMSRG calculations In this section, we provide the technical details of the IMSRG method, including its setup and the calculation of nuclear charge ...

work page arXiv 2021