pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16822 · v1 · pith:FWPG4QKGnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

2N and 3N Tensor Force in the N=34 Shell Evolution: An Ab Initio Perspective

Anil Kumar , Takayuki Miyagi , Noritaka Shimizu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 19:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords shell evolutiontensor forceN=34ab initioVS-IMSRGchiral interactionsnuclear structureshell gap
0
0 comments X

The pith

The N=34 shell gap closes in 62Ni because tensor forces from nucleon-nucleon interactions dominate as protons occupy the f7/2 orbital.

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

The paper tracks the N=34 shell gap across a chain of nuclei from calcium-54 to nickel-62 with first-principles calculations. It shows the gap shrinks steadily and vanishes by nickel-62 once enough protons sit in the f7/2 orbital. The work separates the nuclear forces into central, spin-orbit, and tensor pieces for both two-nucleon and three-nucleon terms. This separation reveals that the tensor component of the two-nucleon force drives most of the gap closure while the three-nucleon tensor term supplies a smaller share. A sympathetic reader would care because shell gaps set the locations of magic numbers that govern nuclear stability and reaction rates.

Core claim

The N=34 shell gap gradually decreases from 54Ca as the proton occupancy in the π0f7/2 orbital increases, and eventually disappears in 62Ni as a consequence of the tensor-force driven shell evolution. Our analysis reveals that this disappearance is predominantly governed by the NN tensor force, which accounts for approximately 83%, while the 3N tensor force also contributes about 17%.

What carries the argument

Spin-tensor decomposition scheme applied inside the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group method to isolate tensor contributions from chiral NN and 3N interactions.

If this is right

  • The N=34 gap closure is a direct result of tensor-driven shell evolution across the isotopic chain.
  • The NN tensor force supplies the large majority of the effect while 3N tensor forces add a measurable but smaller piece.
  • Similar component breakdowns can be performed for other shell gaps using the same VS-IMSRG framework.
  • Proton filling of the f7/2 orbital systematically reduces the gap from Ca to Ni.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same tensor mechanism may control shell evolution near other neutron numbers in the calcium region.
  • Transfer-reaction experiments on 62Ni could directly test the predicted gap closure.
  • Extending the orbital space or adding higher-body forces could shift the reported 83-to-17 percent split.
  • These results tie ab-initio force components to observable changes in nuclear magicity.

Load-bearing premise

The spin-tensor decomposition cleanly isolates tensor components from NN and 3N forces without significant cross-talk or truncation artifacts during the evolution for these nuclei.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic measurement of the N=34 shell gap size in 62Ni that either confirms a near-zero gap or finds a persisting gap of several MeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16822 by Anil Kumar, Noritaka Shimizu, Takayuki Miyagi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Excitation energies of low-lying 2+ 1 and 4+ 1 states of the N = 34 isotones (20 ≤ Z ≤ 28) calculated within the VS-ISMRG framework using the chiral EFT interactions 1.8/2.0 (EM) and ∆N 2LOGO(394), compared with results from the phenomenological GXPF1Bs effective interaction and experi￾mental data [87]. 56Ti. In the 54Ca case, the Ex(2+ 1 ) value calculated using 1.8/2.0 (EM) differs by about 800 keV from … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Monopole tensor component strength of the NN and 3N force for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Neutron ESPEs of 54Ca (Z = 20) and 62Ni (Z = 28) as a function of spin-tensor decomposition components of NN and 3N force. Results are shown for two chiral interactions: (a) 54Ca and (b) 62Ni obtained with the 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction; (c) 54Ca and (d) 62Ni obtained with the ∆N 2LOGO(394) interaction. The individual contributions from the NN and 3N tensor components are displayed separately to illustrate t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Systematically calculated ESPEs for N = 34 isotonic chain from Z = 20 to Z = 28, shown for the 1.8/2.0 (EM) (left panel) and ∆N 2LOGO(394) (right panel) interactions. Dotted lines denote calculations excluding the tensor components of the NN and 3N force, whereas solid lines show including their tensor contributions. vestigation of the 2π- exchange term clarified that the c3 LEC term plays a major role in … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Shell evolution plays a vital role in understanding the nuclear shell structures across the nuclear chart. In this work, we have investigated the $N = 34$ shell structure using the state-of-the-art ab-initio valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization (VS-IMSRG) approach. Notably, we employ nucleon-nucleon (NN) and three-nucleon (3N) interactions derived from chiral effective field theory and make use of the spin-tensor decomposition scheme to examine the contributions of individual interaction components. We discuss the evolution of the shell structures, which have been investigated by considering the roles of various components, including central, spin-orbit, and tensor effects of NN and 3N forces, respectively. The $N=34$ shell gap gradually decreases from $^{54}$Ca as the proton occupancy in the $\pi{0f_{7/2}}$ orbital increases, and eventually disappears in the $^{62}$Ni as a consequence of the tensor-force driven shell evolution. Our analysis reveals that this disappearance is predominantly governed by the NN tensor force, which accounts for approximately 83$\%$, while the 3N tensor force also contributes about 17$\%$.

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 investigates the evolution of the N=34 shell gap from 54Ca to 62Ni using the valence-space in-medium similarity renormalization group (VS-IMSRG) method with chiral EFT NN and 3N interactions. Applying spin-tensor decomposition to the effective valence-space Hamiltonian, the authors conclude that the gap disappearance is driven by tensor forces, with the NN tensor component contributing approximately 83% and the 3N tensor component contributing 17%.

Significance. If the spin-tensor decomposition remains valid after the VS-IMSRG flow, the work supplies a quantitative microscopic attribution of shell evolution to specific force components in an ab initio framework. This is a useful step toward understanding how NN and 3N tensor forces shape single-particle energies across isotopic chains. The calculations start from established chiral interactions and employ a controlled many-body method, which strengthens the result relative to phenomenological shell-model fits.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (spin-tensor decomposition and results)] The central 83%/17% attribution (abstract and §4) rests on spin-tensor decomposition of the final VS-IMSRG effective interaction. Because the IMSRG generator is not constructed to commute with the spin-tensor projectors, operator mixing between central, spin-orbit, and tensor channels can occur during the flow; this mixing is not quantified for the chosen valence space (0f7/2, 1p3/2, 1p1/2, 0g9/2) or for the 3N contributions. A concrete test—e.g., comparing the decomposed matrix elements before and after a short flow or using a generator that preserves the decomposition—would be required to confirm that the reported percentages are not artifacts of the similarity transformation.
  2. [Abstract and §4] No uncertainty estimates accompany the 83%/17% figures. The abstract and results sections give point values without error bars arising from IMSRG truncation (e.g., s- or sd- truncation level), chiral cutoff variation, or the decomposition procedure itself. Because the percentages are the headline quantitative claim, the absence of convergence checks or sensitivity analysis makes it impossible to judge whether the 83:17 ratio is robust or lies within the method’s systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure 3 (or equivalent) showing the decomposed single-particle energies would benefit from explicit labeling of the NN-tensor and 3N-tensor curves and from a supplementary panel that isolates the residual central and spin-orbit pieces.
  2. [§3] The notation for the valence-space orbits (π0f7/2, ν1p3/2, etc.) is clear, but a short table listing the exact single-particle energies used for the gap definition in each nucleus would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and the detailed, constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (spin-tensor decomposition and results)] The central 83%/17% attribution (abstract and §4) rests on spin-tensor decomposition of the final VS-IMSRG effective interaction. Because the IMSRG generator is not constructed to commute with the spin-tensor projectors, operator mixing between central, spin-orbit, and tensor channels can occur during the flow; this mixing is not quantified for the chosen valence space (0f7/2, 1p3/2, 1p1/2, 0g9/2) or for the 3N contributions. A concrete test—e.g., comparing the decomposed matrix elements before and after a short flow or using a generator that preserves the decomposition—would be required to confirm that the reported percentages are not artifacts of the similarity transformation.

    Authors: We agree that the IMSRG generator does not commute with the spin-tensor projectors and that operator mixing between channels is possible in principle. The spin-tensor decomposition is performed on the final effective valence-space Hamiltonian, which is the interaction actually diagonalized to obtain the shell gaps and single-particle energies. To quantify the extent of mixing, we will add to the revised manuscript a supplementary analysis showing the decomposed tensor components evaluated at several intermediate values of the flow parameter s. This will demonstrate that the dominant tensor contributions stabilize early and change little in the later stages of the flow, indicating that the reported 83%/17% split is not an artifact of the transformation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §4] No uncertainty estimates accompany the 83%/17% figures. The abstract and results sections give point values without error bars arising from IMSRG truncation (e.g., s- or sd- truncation level), chiral cutoff variation, or the decomposition procedure itself. Because the percentages are the headline quantitative claim, the absence of convergence checks or sensitivity analysis makes it impossible to judge whether the 83:17 ratio is robust or lies within the method’s systematic uncertainty.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit uncertainty estimates would strengthen the quantitative claim. The presented results use the IMSRG(2) approximation with a single chiral interaction. Performing a full set of calculations at varied truncations and cutoffs for the entire isotopic chain is computationally prohibitive at present. In the revised manuscript we will insert a new paragraph in §4 that discusses the observed stability of the shell gap with respect to the flow parameter and references earlier VS-IMSRG benchmarks on the sensitivity of N=34 results to chiral cutoff variations, thereby placing the 83:17 ratio in the context of the method’s known systematic uncertainties. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ab initio evolution followed by post-hoc decomposition

full rationale

The derivation begins with external chiral EFT NN+3N interactions evolved via VS-IMSRG to produce an effective valence-space Hamiltonian for the N=34 region. The spin-tensor decomposition is applied afterward to the evolved operator to quantify central, spin-orbit, and tensor contributions to the computed shell-gap changes from 54Ca to 62Ni. The reported 83%/17% split is an output of that decomposition on the calculated matrix elements, not an input, fit, or self-referential definition. No equation reduces to its own premise by construction, and the central result remains falsifiable against external data or alternative interactions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard nuclear many-body assumptions and chiral EFT interactions whose low-energy constants were determined in earlier papers; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Chiral effective field theory provides a systematic expansion for NN and 3N forces that is valid in the medium-mass regime.
    Invoked when employing NN and 3N interactions derived from chiral EFT.
  • domain assumption The valence-space IMSRG truncation and spin-tensor decomposition faithfully capture the dominant contributions to shell evolution.
    Underlying the quantitative separation into central, spin-orbit, and tensor components.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5749 in / 1483 out tokens · 41003 ms · 2026-05-19T19:41:52.947068+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    M. P. Reiter, S. Ayet San Andrés, E. Dunling, B. Kootte, E. Leistenschneider, C. Andreoiu, C. Babcock, B. R. Barquest, J. Bollig, T. Brunner, I. Dillmann, A. Finlay, G. Gwinner, L. Graham, J. D. Holt, C. Hornung, C. Jesch, R. Klawitter, Y . Lan, D. Lascar, J. E. McKay, S. F. Paul, R. Steinbrügge, R. Thompson, J. L. Tracy, M. E. Wieser, C. Will, T. Dickel,...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y . Utsuno, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Warner, Nature430, 517 (2004)

    D. Warner, Nature430, 517 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Matsuo, and D. Abe, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 162501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    R. V . F. Janssens, Nature459, 1069 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Iwasaki, T

    H. Iwasaki, T. Motobayashi, H. Akiyoshi, Y . Ando, N. Fukuda, H. Fujiwara, Z. Fülöp, K. Hahn, Y . Higurashi, M. Hirai, I. Hisanaga, N. Iwasa, T. Kijima, A. Men- goni, T. Minemura, T. Nakamura, M. Notani, S. Ozawa, H. Sagawa, H. Sakurai, S. Shimoura, S. Takeuchi, T. Teranishi, Y . Yanagisawa, and M. Ishihara, Physics Letters B491, 8 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    S. D. Pain, W. N. Catford, N. A. Orr, J. C. Angélique, N. I. Ashwood, V . Bouchat, N. M. Clarke, N. Curtis, M. Freer, B. R. Fulton, F. Hanappe, M. Labiche, J. L. Lecouey, R. C. Lemmon, D. Mahboub, A. Ninane, G. Normand, N. Soi´c, L. Stuttge, C. N. Timis, J. A. Tostevin, J. S. Winfield, and V . Ziman, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 032502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    N. Imai, N. Aoi, H. Ong, H. Sakurai, K. Demichi, H. Kawasaki, H. Baba, Z. Dombrádi, Z. Elekes, N. Fukuda, Z. Fülöp, A. Gelberg, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, K. Ishikawa, M. Ishihara, H. Iwasaki, E. Kaneko, S. Kanno, T. Kishida, Y . Kondo, T. Kubo, K. Ku- rita, S. Michimasa, T. Minemura, M. Miura, T. Moto- bayashi, T. Nakamura, M. Notani, T. Ohnishi, A. Saito, S....

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Krieger, K

    A. Krieger, K. Blaum, M. L. Bissell, N. Frömmgen, C. Geppert, M. Hammen, K. Kreim, M. Kowalska, J. Krämer, T. Neff, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Nörter- shäuser, C. Novotny, R. Sánchez, and D. T. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 142501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Meharchand, R

    R. Meharchand, R. G. T. Zegers, B. A. Brown, S. M. Austin, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, J. Deaven, A. Gade, G. F. Grinyer, C. J. Guess, M. E. Howard, H. Iwasaki, S. McDaniel, K. Meierbachtol, G. Perdikakis, J. Pereira, A. M. Prinke, A. Ratkiewicz, A. Signoracci, S. Stroberg, L. Valdez, P. V oss, K. A. Walsh, D. Weisshaar, and R. Winkler, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 122...

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Morse, E

    C. Morse, E. McCutchan, H. Iwasaki, C. Lister, V . Bader, D. Bazin, S. Beceiro Novo, P. Chowdhury, A. Gade, T. Johnson, C. Loelius, E. Lunderberg, E. Merchan, V . Prasher, F. Recchia, A. Sonzogni, D. Weisshaar, and K. Whitmore, Physics Letters B780, 227 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Motobayashi, Y

    T. Motobayashi, Y . Ikeda, K. Ieki, M. Inoue, N. Iwasa, T. Kikuchi, M. Kurokawa, S. Moriya, S. Ogawa, H. Mu- rakami, S. Shimoura, Y . Yanagisawa, T. Nakamura, Y . Watanabe, M. Ishihara, T. Teranishi, H. Okuno, and R. Casten, Physics Letters B346, 9 (1995)

    work page 1995

  13. [13]

    J. R. Terry, B. A. Brown, C. M. Campbell, J. M. Cook, A. D. Davies, D.-C. Dinca, A. Gade, T. Glasmacher, P. G. Hansen, B. M. Sherrill, H. Zwahlen, D. Bazin, K. Yoneda, J. A. Tostevin, T. Otsuka, Y . Utsuno, and B. Pritychenko, Phys. Rev. C77, 014316 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Wimmer, T

    K. Wimmer, T. Kröll, R. Krücken, V . Bildstein, R. Gern- häuser, B. Bastin, N. Bree, J. Diriken, P. Van Duppen, M. Huyse, N. Patronis, P. Vermaelen, D. V oulot, J. Van de Walle, F. Wenander, L. M. Fraile, R. Chapman, B. Ha- dinia, R. Orlandi, J. F. Smith, R. Lutter, P. G. Thi- rolf, M. Labiche, A. Blazhev, M. Kalkühler, P. Reiter, M. Seidlitz, N. Warr, A....

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Doornenbal, H

    P. Doornenbal, H. Scheit, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, K. Li, M. Matsushita, D. Steppenbeck, H. Wang, H. Baba, E. Ideguchi, N. Kobayashi, Y . Kondo, J. Lee, S. Michi- masa, T. Motobayashi, A. Poves, H. Sakurai, M. Takechi, Y . Togano, and K. Yoneda, Phys. Rev. C93, 044306 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Lic ˘a, F

    R. Lic ˘a, F. Rotaru, M. J. G. Borge, S. Grévy, F. Ne- goi¸ t˘a, A. Poves, O. Sorlin, A. N. Andreyev, R. Borcea, C. Costache, H. De Witte, L. M. Fraile, P. T. Greenlees, M. Huyse, A. Ionescu, S. Kisyov, J. Konki, I. Lazarus, M. Madurga, N. M ˘arginean, R. M ˘arginean, C. Mihai, R. E. Mihai, A. Negret, F. Nowacki, R. D. Page, J. Pakari- nen, V . Pucknell, ...

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Bastin, S

    B. Bastin, S. Grévy, D. Sohler, O. Sorlin, Z. Dombrádi, N. L. Achouri, J. C. Angélique, F. Azaiez, D. Baiborodin, R. Borcea, C. Bourgeois, A. Buta, A. Bürger, R. Chap- man, J. C. Dalouzy, Z. Dlouhy, A. Drouard, Z. Elekes, S. Franchoo, S. Iacob, B. Laurent, M. Lazar, X. Liang, E. Liénard, J. Mrazek, L. Nalpas, F. Negoita, N. A. Orr, Y . Penionzhkevich, Z. ...

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Force, S

    C. Force, S. Grévy, L. Gaudefroy, O. Sorlin, L. Cáceres, F. Rotaru, J. Mrazek, N. L. Achouri, J. C. Angélique, F. Azaiez, B. Bastin, R. Borcea, A. Buta, J. M. Dau- gas, Z. Dlouhy, Z. Dombrádi, F. De Oliveira, F. Ne- goita, Y . Penionzhkevich, M. G. Saint-Laurent, D. Sohler, M. Stanoiu, I. Stefan, C. Stodel, and F. Nowacki, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 102501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    A. Gade, B. A. Brown, J. A. Tostevin, D. Bazin, P. C. Bender, C. M. Campbell, H. L. Crawford, B. Elman, K. W. Kemper, B. Longfellow, E. Lunderberg, D. Rhodes, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 222501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Longfellow, D

    B. Longfellow, D. Weisshaar, A. Gade, B. A. Brown, D. Bazin, K. W. Brown, B. Elman, J. Pereira, D. Rhodes, and M. Spieker, Phys. Rev. C103, 054309 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Becheva, Y

    E. Becheva, Y . Blumenfeld, E. Khan, D. Beaumel, J. M. Daugas, F. Delaunay, C.-E. Demonchy, A. Drouart, M. Fallot, A. Gillibert, L. Giot, M. Grasso, N. Kee- ley, K. W. Kemper, D. T. Khoa, V . Lapoux, V . Lima, A. Musumarra, L. Nalpas, E. C. Pollacco, O. Roig, P. Roussel-Chomaz, J. E. Sauvestre, J. A. Scarpaci, F. Skaza, and H. S. Than, Phys. Rev. Lett.96,...

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Ozawa, T

    A. Ozawa, T. Kobayashi, T. Suzuki, K. Yoshida, and I. Tanihata, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5493 (2000)

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    C. R. Hoffman, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, J. Brown, G. Christian, P. A. DeYoung, J. E. Finck, N. Frank, J. Hin- nefeld, R. Howes, P. Mears, E. Mosby, S. Mosby, J. Re- ith, B. Rizzo, W. F. Rogers, G. Peaslee, W. A. Peters, A. Schiller, M. J. Scott, S. L. Tabor, M. Thoennessen, P. J. V oss, and T. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 152502 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    Kanungo, C

    R. Kanungo, C. Nociforo, A. Prochazka, T. Aumann, D. Boutin, D. Cortina-Gil, B. Davids, M. Diakaki, F. Fari- non, H. Geissel, R. Gernhäuser, J. Gerl, R. Janik, B. Jon- son, B. Kindler, R. Knöbel, R. Krücken, M. Lantz, H. Lenske, Y . Litvinov, B. Lommel, K. Mahata, P. Maier- beck, A. Musumarra, T. Nilsson, T. Otsuka, C. Perro, 8 C. Scheidenberger, B. Sitar...

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Tshoo, Y

    K. Tshoo, Y . Satou, H. Bhang, S. Choi, T. Naka- mura, Y . Kondo, S. Deguchi, Y . Kawada, N. Kobayashi, Y . Nakayama, K. N. Tanaka, N. Tanaka, N. Aoi, M. Ishi- hara, T. Motobayashi, H. Otsu, H. Sakurai, S. Takeuchi, Y . Togano, K. Yoneda, Z. H. Li, F. Delaunay, J. Gibelin, F. M. Marqués, N. A. Orr, T. Honda, M. Matsushita, T. Kobayashi, Y . Miyashita, T. ...

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    W. F. Rogers, S. Garrett, A. Grovom, R. E. Anthony, A. Aulie, A. Barker, T. Baumann, J. J. Brett, J. Brown, G. Christian, P. A. DeYoung, J. E. Finck, N. Frank, A. Hamann, R. A. Haring-Kaye, J. Hinnefeld, A. R. Howe, N. T. Islam, M. D. Jones, A. N. Kuchera, J. Kwiatkowski, E. M. Lunderberg, B. Luther, D. A. Meyer, S. Mosby, A. Palmisano, R. Parkhurst, A. P...

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    A. Huck, G. Klotz, A. Knipper, C. Miehé, C. Richard- Serre, G. Walter, A. Poves, H. L. Ravn, and G. Marguier, Phys. Rev. C31, 2226 (1985)

    work page 1985

  28. [28]

    Wienholtz, D

    F. Wienholtz, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Bre- itenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, S. George, F. Herfurth, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V . Manea, J. Menén- dez, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, J. Stanja, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zu- ber, Nature498, 346 (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Rosenbusch, P

    M. Rosenbusch, P. Ascher, D. Atanasov, C. Barbieri, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, A. Cipollone, S. George, F. Herfurth, M. Kowal- ska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V . Manea, P. Navrátil, D. Nei- dherr, L. Schweikhard, V . Somà, J. Stanja, F. Wienholtz, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 202501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, H. Baba, N. Fukuda, S. Go, M. Honma, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y . Shiga, P.-A. Söderström, T. Sumikama, H. Suzuki, R. Taniuchi, Y . Utsuno, J. J. Valiente-Dobón, and K. Yoneda, Nature 502, 207 (2013)

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Michimasa, M

    S. Michimasa, M. Kobayashi, Y . Kiyokawa, S. Ota, D. S. Ahn, H. Baba, G. P. A. Berg, M. Dozono, N. Fukuda, T. Furuno, E. Ideguchi, N. Inabe, T. Kawabata, S. Kawase, K. Kisamori, K. Kobayashi, T. Kubo, Y . Kubota, C. S. Lee, M. Matsushita, H. Miya, A. Mizukami, H. Nagakura, D. Nishimura, H. Oikawa, H. Sakai, Y . Shimizu, A. Stolz, H. Suzuki, M. Takaki, H. ...

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    H. N. Liu, A. Obertelli, P. Doornenbal, C. A. Bertu- lani, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Mor- ris, A. Schwenk, R. Stroberg, N. Achouri, H. Baba, F. Browne, D. Calvet, F. Château, S. Chen, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cortés, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, C. Hilaire, T. Isobe, T. Kobayashi, Y . Kubota, V . Lapoux, T. Motobay...

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Iimura, M

    S. Iimura, M. Rosenbusch, A. Takamine, Y . Tsunoda, M. Wada, S. Chen, D. S. Hou, W. Xian, H. Ishiyama, S. Yan, P. Schury, H. Crawford, P. Doornenbal, Y . Hi- rayama, Y . Ito, S. Kimura, T. Koiwai, T. M. Kojima, H. Koura, J. Lee, J. Liu, S. Michimasa, H. Miyatake, J. Y . Moon, S. Naimi, S. Nishimura, T. Niwase, A. Odahara, T. Otsuka, S. Paschalis, M. Petri...

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Otsuka, R

    T. Otsuka, R. Fujimoto, Y . Utsuno, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 082502 (2001)

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y . Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 232502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Arnould, S

    M. Arnould, S. Goriely, and K. Takahashi, Physics Re- ports450, 97 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Lalanne, O

    L. Lalanne, O. Sorlin, A. Poves, M. Assié, F. Hammache, S. Koyama, D. Suzuki, F. Flavigny, V . Girard-Alcindor, A. Lemasson, A. Matta, T. Roger, D. Beaumel, Y . Blu- menfeld, B. A. Brown, F. D. O. Santos, F. Delaunay, N. de Séréville, S. Franchoo, J. Gibelin, J. Guillot, O. Ka- malou, N. Kitamura, V . Lapoux, B. Mauss, P. Morfouace, J. Pancin, T. Y . Sait...

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Smirnova, B

    N. Smirnova, B. Bally, K. Heyde, F. Nowacki, and K. Sieja, Physics Letters B686, 109 (2010)

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Sahoo and P

    S. Sahoo and P. C. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. C112, L021301 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Q. Yuan, L. Y . Shen, M. Xie, H. H. Li, J. Li, X. XU, and W. Zuo, Chinese Physics C (2025). 9

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    N. A. Smirnova, K. Heyde, B. Bally, F. Nowacki, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C86, 034314 (2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

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

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Physics Reports503, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. König, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Coraggio, G

    L. Coraggio, G. De Gregorio, T. Fukui, A. Gargano, Y . Ma, Z. Cheng, and F. Xu, Progress in Particle and Nu- clear Physics134, 104079 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Hupin, J

    G. Hupin, J. Langhammer, P. Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, A. Calci, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C88, 054622 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Langhammer, P

    J. Langhammer, P. Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, A. Calci, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C91, 021301(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Kravvaris, K

    K. Kravvaris, K. R. Quinlan, S. Quaglioni, K. A. Wendt, and P. Navrátil, Phys. Rev. C102, 024616 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Navrátil, V

    P. Navrátil, V . G. Gueorguiev, J. P. Vary, W. E. Ormand, and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 042501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    Maris, J

    P. Maris, J. P. Vary, and P. Navrátil, Phys. Rev. C87, 014327 (2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Ekström, G

    A. Ekström, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Pa- penbrock, S. Bacca, B. Carlsson, and D. Gazit, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 262504 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 022502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, J. Simonis, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C90, 024312 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Y . Z. Ma, L. Coraggio, L. De Angelis, T. Fukui, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C100, 034324 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    M. Wang, Y . H. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. H. Zhou, H. S. Xu, M. L. Liu, J. G. Li, Y . F. Niu, W. J. Huang, Q. Yuan, S. Zhang, F. R. Xu, Y . A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, Z. Meisel, R. F. Casten, R. B. Cakirli, R. J. Chen, H. Y . Deng, C. Y . Fu, W. W. Ge, H. F. Li, T. Liao, S. A. Litvinov, P. Shuai, J. Y . Shi, Y . N. Song, M. Z. Sun, Q. Wang, Y . M. Xing, X. Xu, X. L....

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and Y . Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 032501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Hagen, M

    G. Hagen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 242501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Cipollone, C

    A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, and P. Navrátil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Y . Ma, F. Xu, L. Coraggio, B. Hu, J. Li, T. Fukui, L. De Angelis, N. Itaco, and A. Gargano, Phys. Lett. B802, 135257 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Zhang, Y

    S. Zhang, Y . Ma, J. Li, B. Hu, Q. Yuan, Z. Cheng, and F. Xu, Phys. Lett. B827, 136958 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Uesaka, Eur

    T. Uesaka, Eur. Phys. J. Plus131, 403 (2016)

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Tsunoda, T

    N. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, M. Hjorth-Jensen, K. Takayanagi, and T. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C95, 021304(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 39 (2013)

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, J. Phys. G40, 075105 (2013)

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    Fukui, G

    T. Fukui, G. De Gregorio, and A. Gargano, Physics Let- ters B855, 138839 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    G. R. Jansen, J. Engel, G. Hagen, P. Navratil, and A. Sig- noracci, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 142502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group for Closed and Open-Shell Nuclei

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C85, 061304 (2012), arXiv:1607.06882

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [68]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science69, 307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Elliott, A

    J. Elliott, A. Jackson, H. Mavromatis, E. Sanderson, and B. Singh, Nuclear Physics A121, 241 (1968)

    work page 1968

  70. [70]

    Kirson, Physics Letters B47, 110 (1973)

    M. Kirson, Physics Letters B47, 110 (1973)

    work page 1973

  71. [71]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 032502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 222502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. Bogner, T. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Physics Reports621, 165 (2016), memo- rial V olume in Honor of Gerald E. Brown

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    Heinz, A

    M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C103, 044318 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navrátil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, A. Schwenk, A. Nogga, M. Włoch, and P. Piecuch, Phys. Rev. C76, 034302 (2007)

    work page 2007

  77. [77]

    R. Roth, S. Binder, K. V obig, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and P. Navrátil, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 052501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    T. D. Morris, N. M. Parzuchowski, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C92, 034331 (2015). 10

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    B. C. He and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. C110, 044317 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    S. R. Stroberg, T. D. Morris, and B. C. He, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044316 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.