pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30669 · v1 · pith:DEZ3E7BCnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Optimized basis of covariant density functional theory: point coupling functionals and excited states

A. Dalbah , A. V. Afanasjev , B. Osei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords covariant density functional theorypoint coupling functionalsharmonic oscillator basisfission barriersbinding energiessingle-particle statesnuclear halo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimizing the oscillator frequency in the harmonic oscillator basis substantially improves accuracy for binding energies, fission barriers, and single-particle states in point-coupling covariant density functionals with truncated bases.

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

The paper extends earlier work on covariant density functional theory to point-coupling functionals and excited states. It shows that tuning the oscillator frequency ħω₀ of the harmonic oscillator basis produces much closer agreement with infinite-basis or extrapolated benchmarks when the fermionic basis is cut off at finite N_F. Globally optimized scaling factors f_opt(A) are derived for binding-energy accuracy across mass regions, and the same tuning improves fission potential-energy curves once N_F reaches at least 20.

Core claim

Using infinite-basis or extrapolated solutions as benchmarks, optimization of the oscillator frequency ħω₀ leads to substantial improvement in the description of binding energies, fission potential energy curves, and single-particle energies for point-coupling CEDFs in bases truncated at N_F; the same optimization also reproduces halo densities in very large HO bases.

What carries the argument

The mass-dependent scaling factors f_opt(A) that set the optimal oscillator frequency ħω₀ for a chosen basis size N_F in point-coupling covariant energy density functionals.

If this is right

  • Fission barriers and isomers in actinides and superheavy nuclei are described more accurately once the basis size reaches N_F = 20.
  • Binding energies reach a target accuracy ε with smaller bases after global optimization of f_opt(A).
  • Energies of bound single-particle states improve except for weakly bound neutron states with l = 0, 1, or 2.
  • Neutron halo densities obtained in coordinate-space calculations are reproduced once very large HO bases are used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same optimization procedure could lower computational cost for systematic surveys of deformed or exotic nuclei.
  • Extension to time-odd fields or time-dependent calculations might reveal further gains in accuracy for collective excitations.
  • The approach could be tested on other classes of covariant or non-relativistic functionals to check transferability.

Load-bearing premise

That infinite-basis or extrapolated solutions provide sufficiently accurate benchmarks against which to judge and optimize the finite-basis results.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the optimized finite-N_F results against independent coordinate-space calculations for binding energies or fission barriers across a range of nuclei would falsify the improvement if large systematic discrepancies remain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30669 by A. Dalbah, A. V. Afanasjev, B. Osei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The nuclei (solid squares) analyzed in the present pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as Fig. 2 but for normal-deformed ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As discussed in Ref. [1] the scaling factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The binding energies of the superdeformed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The comparison of calculated values of binding en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The convergence curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The distribution of optimal scaling factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows the distribution of optimal scaling factors fopt as a function of mass number A. One can see that there is no pronounced mass dependence of these factors reflecting that above some NF value the solutions with a number of the f values come very close to the solution with the fopt one. This is clearly seen, for example, in 290Lv where the f = 1.60 solution comes extremely close to the optimal solution… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Neutron density in very neutron rich [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The comparison of neutron densities obtained in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The dependence of the energies of weakly bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The evolution of the ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The present investigation focuses on the improvement of the accuracy of the description of physical observables of interest in moderately sized fermionic basis within the framework of covariant density functional theory. It extends previous study of Ref. [1] to point coupling (PC) covariant energy density functionals (CEDFs) and to excited states. Using as a benchmark the solutions corresponding either to infinite fermionic basis or those extrapolated to such a basis it is shown that the optimization of oscillator frequency $\hbar\omega_0$ of the harmonic oscillator (HO) basis leads to a substantial improvement in the description of different physical observables in the fermionic basis truncated at $N_F$. Globally optimized scaling factors $f_{opt}(A)$ of the oscillator frequency and the sizes $N_F^{\varepsilon}$ of the HO bases providing the required accuracy $\varepsilon$ in the calculations of the binding energies are generated for the PC functionals. The optimization of the basis also significantly improves the accuracy of the description of potential energy curves, defining the fission barriers and fission isomers in actinides and superheavy nuclei, provided that the size of the basis is at least equal to $N_F=20$. The optimization of the HO basis improves the accuracy of the description of the energies of bound single-particle states: the only exceptions are weakly bound neutron states with low orbital momenta $l=0$, 1 and 2. It is demonstrated for the first time that the halo densities of neutron halo nuclei generated in the coordinate space calculations are well reproduced in the calculations with very large fermionic HO bases.

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 extends prior work on optimizing the harmonic oscillator basis in covariant density functional theory (Ref. [1]) to point-coupling CEDFs. It claims that globally optimized mass-dependent scaling factors f_opt(A) for the oscillator frequency ħω₀, together with recommended basis sizes N_F^ε, yield substantial improvements in binding energies, fission potential-energy surfaces, single-particle energies, and neutron-halo densities when finite bases (truncated at N_F) are compared against infinite-basis or extrapolated solutions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies concrete, transferable prescriptions (f_opt(A) and N_F^ε tables) that improve the practical accuracy of PC-CEDF calculations for ground-state, fission, and excited-state observables without enlarging the basis. This is particularly useful for computationally intensive applications such as fission in actinides and superheavy nuclei, and it provides the first explicit demonstration that very large HO bases can reproduce coordinate-space halo densities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and benchmark section] Abstract and the section describing the benchmark procedure: the optimization is performed against infinite-basis or extrapolated solutions, yet the manuscript does not quantify the uncertainty or possible systematic bias of the extrapolation itself for fission barriers or near-continuum single-particle states. Because the reported improvements are measured exclusively relative to these benchmarks, any truncation or fitting bias in the extrapolation would be absorbed into f_opt(A) rather than corrected; this is load-bearing for the central claim that the optimized finite-basis results are more accurate.
  2. [Single-particle states section] Section on single-particle states and excited states: the paper notes exceptions for weakly bound neutron states with l = 0, 1, 2, but does not provide a quantitative breakdown (e.g., rms deviation or percentage of states affected) showing how these exceptions impact the overall accuracy claim for excited states. Without such statistics, it is unclear whether the improvement remains substantial once the exceptional cases are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation: the definition and range of applicability of f_opt(A) should be stated explicitly in a dedicated equation or table rather than only in the text, to avoid ambiguity when readers apply the factors to new nuclei.
  2. The manuscript should include a short comparison table (or reference to supplementary material) showing the numerical improvement in binding energies or barrier heights before and after optimization for at least one representative set of nuclei.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the detailed and insightful comments on our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We believe these clarifications and proposed revisions will strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and benchmark section] Abstract and the section describing the benchmark procedure: the optimization is performed against infinite-basis or extrapolated solutions, yet the manuscript does not quantify the uncertainty or possible systematic bias of the extrapolation itself for fission barriers or near-continuum single-particle states. Because the reported improvements are measured exclusively relative to these benchmarks, any truncation or fitting bias in the extrapolation would be absorbed into f_opt(A) rather than corrected; this is load-bearing for the central claim that the optimized finite-basis results are more accurate.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of assessing the reliability of the extrapolation procedure used as benchmark. In the original manuscript, the benchmarks are either direct infinite-basis calculations where feasible or extrapolations based on standard methods in the field. To address this, we will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated discussion on the extrapolation method, its convergence properties, and estimated uncertainties, particularly for fission barriers and single-particle states near the continuum. This will be supported by additional comparisons in cases where both infinite basis and extrapolated results are available. We agree that this strengthens the central claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Single-particle states section] Section on single-particle states and excited states: the paper notes exceptions for weakly bound neutron states with l = 0, 1, 2, but does not provide a quantitative breakdown (e.g., rms deviation or percentage of states affected) showing how these exceptions impact the overall accuracy claim for excited states. Without such statistics, it is unclear whether the improvement remains substantial once the exceptional cases are included.

    Authors: The manuscript identifies these exceptions explicitly to provide a balanced view. However, we agree that quantitative statistics would better contextualize the overall improvement. In the revised version, we will add a quantitative analysis, including rms deviations for the single-particle energies across the dataset, with a breakdown separating the weakly bound low-l states from the others. This will demonstrate that the improvement is substantial for the majority of states, while transparently reporting the exceptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optimization validated against independent infinite-basis benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's central procedure optimizes ħω₀ of the HO basis by matching finite-N_F results to solutions in the infinite fermionic basis (or extrapolations to it), which function as external model references rather than outputs of the optimization itself. This benchmark is independent of the finite-basis calculations being tuned, and the resulting f_opt(A) scaling factors are derived from that comparison. The extension of Ref. [1] to PC functionals and excited states uses the same external benchmark without any load-bearing self-citation that reduces the claim to prior work by definition. No self-definitional relations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatz smuggling appear in the derivation; the improvements in binding energies, fission barriers, and single-particle states are measured against the stated benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard nuclear DFT assumptions plus two optimized quantities derived from benchmarks; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • f_opt(A) = various per A
    Mass-number-dependent scaling factor for ħω₀ chosen to minimize deviation from infinite-basis benchmarks for binding energies at given accuracy ε.
  • N_F^ε = various per ε
    Minimum fermionic basis size required to reach accuracy ε after optimization.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Covariant point-coupling energy density functionals provide a valid description of nuclear ground and excited states.
    Invoked throughout as the framework whose observables are being computed more accurately.
  • domain assumption Infinite or extrapolated fermionic bases yield reference solutions accurate enough to serve as optimization targets.
    Stated explicitly when defining the benchmark used to tune ħω₀.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5818 in / 1556 out tokens · 36558 ms · 2026-06-28T20:54:19.247546+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

40 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Panel (b) shows the results in enhanced scale

    55) minimum of the 290Lv nucleus as a function of NF for different values of scaling factor f . Panel (b) shows the results in enhanced scale. Thin dashed line shows the extrapolated value of binding energy corresponding to infinite basis. Thus, some extrapolation procedure to infinite basis has to be employed to obtain extrapolated value of bind- ing energy...

  2. [2]

    8 case of Fig

    and in the f = 0 . 8 case of Fig. 7 is a general feature of the PC functionals in the calculations with low values of f = 0 . 8, 1. 0, and 1.2. The same analysis reveals that the convergence curves behave monotonically for higher values of f (see, for example, Fig. 7). However, these curves are strongly down-sloping at low and moderate 7 values of NF . As...

  3. [3]

    This approach is illustrated for deformed nuclei in Fig

    for meson exchange functionals which show rea- sonably smooth variation of fopt with mass number A. This approach is illustrated for deformed nuclei in Fig. 9 which compares convergence curves calculated with f = 1 . 0 and fopt. One can see that the value of fopt 8 0 500 1000 0 500 1000 0 500 1000B(NF) - B(NF=∞) [keV] 0 500 1000 10 20 30-500 0 500 1000 10...

  4. [4]

    substantially depends on two factors. First, these neutron states are located in the energy range which is characterized by a larger radius of the neutron potential as compared with that for more bound single-particle states (see, for example, Figs. 5(c) and (d) and Figs. 8(c) and (d) in Ref. [23]). As a result, their accurate de- scription requires a lar...

  5. [5]

    B. Osei, A. V. Afanasjev, and A. Dalbah, Global opti- mization of harmonic oscillator basis in covariant density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C 112, 054321 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    S. A. Coon, M. I. Avetian, M. K. G. Kruse, U. van Kolck, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Convergence properties of ab initio calculations of light nuclei in a harmonic oscillator basis, Phys. Rev. C 86, 054002 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Y. K. Gambhir, P. Ring, and A. Thimet, Relativistic mean field theory for finite nuclei, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 198, 132 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    S. G. Nilsson and I. Ragnarsson, Shapes and shells in nuclear structure, Shapes and shells in nuclear structure , (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    Kvaal, Harmonic oscillator eigernfunction expansion, quantum dots, and effective interactions, Phys

    S. Kvaal, Harmonic oscillator eigernfunction expansion, quantum dots, and effective interactions, Phys. Rev. B 88, 045321 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Taninah, B

    A. Taninah, B. Osei, A. V. Afanasjev, U. C. Perera, and S. Teeti, Toward accurate nuclear mass tables in covari- ant density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024321 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    R. N. Furnstahl, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Cor- rections to nuclear energies and radii in finite oscillator spaces, Phys. Rev. C 86, 031301(R) (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    S. More, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Universal properties of infrared oscillato r basis extrapolations, Phys. Rev. C 87, 044326 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Binder, A

    S. Binder, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, and K. A. Wendt, Effective filed theory in the harmonic os- cillator basis, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044332 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    S. A. Coon and M. K. G. Kruse, Properties of infrared extrapolations in a harmonic oscillator basis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25, 1641011 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Mazur, R

    A. Mazur, R. Sharypov, and A. Shirokov, Extrapola- tion to infinite model space of no-core shell model calcu- lations using machine learning, nuclear theory archieve arXiv:2511.05061v2 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Kn¨ oll, M

    M. Kn¨ oll, M. Lockner, P. Maris, R. J. McCarty, R. Roth, J. P. Vary, and T. Wolfgruber, Benchmarking ann ex- trapolations of the ground-state energies and radii of li isotopes, nuclear theory archieve arXiv:2501.18252v2 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Dobaczewski and J

    J. Dobaczewski and J. Dudek, Solution of the skyrme- hartree-fock equations in the cartesian deformed har- monic oscillator basis. i. the method, Comp. Phys. Comm. 102, 166 (1997)

    1997

  18. [18]

    Pillet and S

    N. Pillet and S. Hilaire, Towards an extended gogny force, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 193 (2017). 16

    2017

  19. [19]

    A. V. Afanasjev, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Superdeformed rotational bands in the a ∼ 140 − 150 mass region: A cranked relativistic mean field description, Nucl. Phys. A 608, 107 (1996)

    1996

  20. [20]

    P. Ring, Y. K. Gambhir, and G. A. Lalalzissis, Computer program for the relativistic mean field description of the ground state properties of even-even axially deformed nu- clei, Comp. Phys. Comm. 105, 77 (1997)

    1997

  21. [21]

    Nikˇ si´ c, N

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Dirhb - a relativistic self-consistent mean-field framework for atomic nuclei, Comp. Phys. Comm. 185, 1808 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    B. Osei, A. V. Afanasjev, A. Taninah, A. Dalbah, U. C. Perera, V. A. Dzuba, and V. V. Flambaum, Further steps toward the next generation of covariant energy density functionals, Phys. Rev. C 112, 044304 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    P¨ oschl, D

    W. P¨ oschl, D. Vretenar, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliuobov theory with finite range pairing forces in coordinate space: Neutron halo in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3841 (1997)

    1997

  24. [24]

    S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Spherical relativistic hartree theory in a woods-saxon basis, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034323 (2003)

    2003

  25. [25]

    Y. Tian, Z. Y. Ma, and P. Ring, A finite range pairing force for density functional theory in superfluid nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    Teeti and A

    S. Teeti and A. V. Afanasjev, Global study of separable pairing interaction in covariant density functional theor y, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034310 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    U. C. Perera and A. V. Afanasjev, Bubble nuclei: Single- particle versus coulomb interaction effects, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024321 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    U. C. Perera and A. V. Afanasjev, Differential charge radii: Proton-neutron interaction effects, Phys. Rev. C 107, 064321 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, New parametrization for the nuclear covariant energy density functional with a point-coupling interaction, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054319 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    Nikˇ si´ c, D

    T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Relativistic nuclear energy density functionals: adjusting parameters to bind- ing energies, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034318 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Angeli and K

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

    2013

  32. [32]

    Shanks, Non-linear transformation of divergent and slowly convergent sequences, J

    D. Shanks, Non-linear transformation of divergent and slowly convergent sequences, J. of Math. and Phys. 34, 1 (1955)

    1955

  33. [33]

    Wynn, On a device for computing the em(sn) trans- formation, Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Com- putation 190, 91 (1956)

    P. Wynn, On a device for computing the em(sn) trans- formation, Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Com- putation 190, 91 (1956)

    1956

  34. [34]

    P. J. Roache and P. M. Knupp, Completed richardson ex- trapolation, Comm. in Num. Meth. in Eng. 9, 365 (1993)

    1993

  35. [35]

    A. V. Afanasjev, E. Litvinova, and B. Osei, Basis trun- cation, statistical errors, and systematic uncertainties in relativistic approaches to nuclear response, submitted to Phys. Rev. C, see also arXiv:2512.23125 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    E. V. Litvinova and A. V. Afanasjev, Dynamics of nuclear single-particle structure in covariant theory of particle - vibration coupling: From light to superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014305 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    A. V. Afanasjev and H. Abusara, From cluster structures to nuclear molecules: The role of nodal structure of the single-particle wave functions, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024329 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Baran, M

    A. Baran, M. Kowal, P.-G. Reinhard, L. M. Robledo, A. Staszczak, and M. Warda, Fission barriers and prob- abilities of spontaneous fission for elements with z ≥ 100, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 442 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    Schunck and L

    N. Schunck and L. M. Robledo, Microscopic theory of nuclear fission: A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 116301 (2016)

    2016

  40. [40]

    Taninah, S

    A. Taninah, S. E. Agbemava, and A. V. Afanasjev, Co- variant density functional theory input for r-process sim- ulations in actinides and superheavy nuclei: The ground state and fission properties, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054330 (2020)

    2020