Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Emergence of the halo in $^{11}$Li from full nuclear many-body dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The two-neutron halo of lithium-11 emerges from nuclear forces and full many-body dynamics alone.

desk verdict Solid ab initio demonstration that 11Li’s halo and weak S2n can emerge from a few-body-only Hamiltonian under full A-body neural VMC, with a clean Cso–phase-shift correlation; the force is deliberately minimal, so the result is credible inside that model but not yet unique under richer interactions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24636 v1 pith:ALNO6SGO submitted 2026-07-27 nucl-th

Yilong Yang , Pengwei Zhao This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords 11Lihaloabinitionuclearstructureneural-networkquantumMonteCarloneutron-alphascatteringspin-orbitinteractiondineutroncorrelationsmatterradii
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The celebrated two-neutron halo of 11Li has long been described with models that either freeze a 9Li core or miss key neutron correlations. This paper shows that the halo can appear from a minimal nuclear Hamiltonian fixed only by few-body data, solved as a full eleven-body problem with a neural-network variational Monte Carlo wave function. The calculation yields the weak two-neutron binding of 11Li and the sharp jump in matter radius from 9Li to 11Li. Halo size tracks the splitting of free-space P-wave neutron-alpha scattering phase shifts, so the same short-range spin-orbit strength that fits neutron-alpha scattering drives the halo. Dineutron pairs arise spontaneously in the many-body wave function, strongest in the outer halo, without assuming a preformed core-plus-valence structure. The result ties a few-body scattering observable directly to an emergent many-body structure.

What carries the argument

The improved essential Hamiltonian—central two- and three-nucleon contacts plus one short-range nucleon-nucleon spin-orbit term fixed only to neutron-alpha P-wave splitting—solved with the FeynmanNet neural-network variational Monte Carlo wave function for the full A-body problem.

What would settle it

Repeat the same A-body calculations while restoring explicit pion-exchange spin-orbit and three-nucleon forces: if the reported link between free-space n-α P-wave splitting and 11Li halo size and binding disappears, or if controlled variation of that splitting no longer moves the two-neutron separation energy and matter-radius difference as predicted, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With neural-network variational Monte Carlo and an improved essential Hamiltonian constrained solely by few-body observables, the halo of 11Li emerges from the underlying interactions and full A-body dynamics. The method reproduces lithium binding and separation energies, including a small positive two-neutron separation energy for 11Li, and the isotopic trend of matter radii with a sharp rise at 11Li. Halo size correlates with free-space P-wave neutron-alpha phase-shift splitting fixed by a short-range spin-orbit force, and dineutron correlations appear in the wave function without a core-plus-two-neutron assumption.

Load-bearing premise

That a minimal force law fixed only by few-body binding and neutron-alpha P-wave splitting, without explicit pion exchange, already contains the physics that creates the 11Li halo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Halo formation in 11Li can be traced to free-space neutron-alpha spin-orbit physics rather than only to assumed three-body forces or core excitation.
  • Dineutron correlations need not be inserted by hand; full A-body dynamics generate them and strengthen them in the halo tail.
  • Few-body P-wave neutron-alpha phase shifts become a quantitative diagnostic for emergent many-body halo structure.
  • The same continuum neural-network approach can be extended to other weakly bound and medium-mass neutron-rich nuclei.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the spin-orbit–halo correlation is general, measuring or tuning n-core P-wave splitting could flag which Borromean candidates will develop halos before full A-body runs.
  • The remaining underprediction of the 11Li matter radius is a direct test of whether restoring pion-range forces enlarges the halo as the authors suggest.
  • Knockout and reaction calculations built on these A-body wave functions could decide whether surface-peaked dineutron signals are structure or reaction artifacts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors apply their neural-network variational Monte Carlo method (FeynmanNet) to the lithium isotopic chain using an "improved essential Hamiltonian": central NN contact interactions fixed to np scattering data, a short-range T=1/2 3N contact fixed to 3H and 4He only, and a short-range NN spin-orbit term whose single strength C_so is fixed exclusively to the splitting of P-wave n-α phase shifts. With no lithium-isotope data used in the fit, they obtain separation energies along the chain with an rms deviation of 0.36 MeV, a small positive S_2n for 11Li (where NCSM predicts an unbound nucleus and GFMC has not been applied), an isotopic matter-radius trend with a sharp rise from 9Li to 11Li, and a neutron density tail demonstrating halo structure. Varying C_so, they show that the phase-shift splitting, S_2n, and the matter-radius difference δr_m^2 move together, identifying the neutron-alpha spin-orbit interaction as the driver of halo formation. They further extract dineutron correlations from event-by-event Monte Carlo configurations without assuming a core-plus-valence structure.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a landmark calculation: the first full-A-body continuum QMC demonstration that 11Li is weakly bound with a halo matter-radius increase, achieved with a Hamiltonian whose parameters are fixed without any lithium-isotope input — making the binding energies, radii, and the S_2n–phase-shift correlation genuine predictions rather than fits. The work ships explicit convergence tests (multiple initial radii converging to 0.03 fm agreement, N_det variation, three independent training runs), correctly finds 10Li unbound, and proposes a falsifiable link between a free-space few-body scattering observable (n-α P-wave splitting) and an emergent many-body property (halo size). That conceptual bridge, if robust, would be of broad interest beyond 11Li.

major comments (4)
  1. [Nuclear Hamiltonian, paragraph following Eq. (2)] The 3N interaction retains only the T=1/2 contact component because 3H and 4He do not constrain T=3/2, which is therefore set to zero. This is a defensible calibration choice for A≤4, but 11Li contains neutron triples in which the T=3/2 component is active, and the omitted interaction is not parametrically small a priori. Since the central result is a small positive S_2n (a near-threshold quantity), even a sub-MeV omitted contribution could change whether 11Li is bound and materially alter the halo tail. This is the load-bearing point for the claim in the abstract and Summary that the halo emerges 'from the underlying nuclear interactions' constrained 'solely by few-body observables.' The authors acknowledge the absence of explicit pion exchange only in connection with the residual radius discrepancy (discussion of Fig. 2(b)), but do not quantify the T=3/2 uncertainty on S_2n itself. I a
  2. [Emergence of Halo in 11Li, Fig. 4 and surrounding text] Because C_so = -2.8 fm^4 is calibrated on n-α P-wave splitting using the same incomplete Hamiltonian (no pion range, no tensor, no T=3/2 3N), it may partially represent missing spin-dependent physics rather than an isolated spin-orbit mechanism. Figure 4 demonstrates a clean sensitivity of S_2n and δr_m^2 to C_so within the fixed model, and this is a genuine result; but the manuscript's stronger language — 'establishing the crucial role of neutron-alpha spin-orbit interactions in halo formation' (abstract) — requires that the correlation be robust under enlarging the operator basis, which is not shown. At minimum, the claim should be scoped to the present Hamiltonian. Ideally, the authors could show that varying c_E (or the NN regulator) over a reasonable range does not produce comparable changes in S_2n and δr_m^2, which would establish that the halo observables respond specifically to
  3. [Emergence of Halo in 11Li, paragraph after Fig. 4] The mechanism paragraph asserts that 'the two halo neutrons predominantly occupy the 1p_1/2 orbital' and that increased spin-orbit splitting drives 1p_1/2 toward threshold. Within the correlated Slater–Jastrow–backflow wave function this single-particle statement is not directly defined, and no evidence from the calculation is presented (e.g., eigenvalues of the one-body density matrix, natural-orbital occupation numbers, or spectroscopic overlaps onto p_1/2 and p_3/2 configurations in 9Li+n). Since this paragraph supplies the physical interpretation of the Fig. 4 correlation — a central selling point of the Letter — the authors should either provide such a decomposition or present the argument explicitly as a plausibility argument borrowed from the shell-model picture rather than a finding of the calculation.
  4. [Emergence of Halo in 11Li / Fig. 2(a); FeynmanNet section] VMC energies are variational upper bounds, and S_2n(11Li) is a small difference of two large variational energies. The text quotes residual N_det uncertainties 'below 0.1 MeV for ground-state energies' and states that error bars on separation energies are smaller than the symbol size, but it is not stated how the uncertainty on the difference is obtained — in particular whether 9Li and 11Li are converged to comparable variational bias and whether the (likely correlated) systematic errors cancel in the difference. Given that the headline result is a positive S_2n of order a few hundred keV, a differential variational bias of that size is not obviously excluded by per-nucleus error estimates. A short convergence table of E(9Li), E(11Li), and S_2n versus N_det (or versus training duration) would close this. Relatedly, the statement that 10Li is unbound should note that a variational calcula
minor comments (5)
  1. [Nuclear Hamiltonian, phase-shift extraction paragraph] The n-α phase shifts are extracted via the Busch–Englert–Rzążewski–Wilkens formula generalized to higher partial waves (Ref. 46 was formulated for two atoms in a trap). The application to a composite, fermionic α projectile requires justification; a sentence pointing to the validation in Ref. 40 (or providing it) would help.
  2. [Fig. 2 and caption] Fig. 2(a) vertical axis label reads 'sepration energy' (typo), and the x-axis label 'Li isotope' is typeset awkwardly. The rms deviation σ = 0.36(2) MeV should state how the parenthetical uncertainty was estimated.
  3. [Dineutron correlations, Eq. (4) and Fig. 5] The identification of halo neutrons as 'the two most distant neutrons' from the core c.m. is a prescription, and Fig. 5 may depend on it (and on the r_cn bin boundaries). A brief robustness check against an alternative definition would strengthen the dineutron section; at minimum the prescriptive nature should be acknowledged. The Fig. 5 panel labels also appear garbled in the present version.
  4. [Reference [47]] The experimental n-α phase shifts are cited as a private communication from G. M. Hale. If possible, a published R-matrix evaluation (e.g., an ENDF-based analysis) should be cited alongside or instead, so that the central calibration input is independently accessible.
  5. [Various] δr_m^2 = (r_m^11)^2 − (r_m^9)^2 is introduced twice (text and Fig. 4 caption); define once. The Supplemental Material is cited with a placeholder '[URL]'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: Li halo observables are genuine predictions from a Hamiltonian fixed only on A≤4 and n–α data.

  1. self citation load bearing [FeynmanNet section; Nuclear Hamiltonian / phase-shift paragraph; Refs. [34], [40]]
    "Recently, deep-neural-network representations of nuclear many-body wave functions have significantly extended the capabilities of continuum QMC methods [31, 32]. ... Further details of the architecture can be found in Ref. [34]. ... Following Ref. [40], the phase shifts are calculated by placing the five nucleons in a harmonic-oscillator trap..."

    Method and n–α phase-shift extraction cite the authors’ own prior work. This is ordinary tool reuse, not a load-bearing uniqueness claim that forces the 11Li halo; the physics result still rests on the independent few-body calibration and the new A-body VMC runs. Flagged only as minor non-central self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external few-body benchmarks. Central NN contacts are fixed to np scattering lengths/ranges; the short-range 3N (c_E, R_3) is fixed solely to 3H and 4He (T=1/2 only); C_so is fixed exclusively to the free-space P-wave n–α phase-shift splitting, with the paper stating explicitly that no Li isotopic information enters the fit. Binding energies, S_2n, matter radii, density tails, and the Fig. 4 correlation (halo size vs phase-shift splitting under variation of that already-fixed C_so) are then computed outputs, not inputs renamed as predictions. Self-citations are limited to the authors’ prior FeynmanNet architecture and the trap-based phase-shift extraction method; they supply the computational tool, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the 11Li halo result. There is no self-definitional loop, no fit-to-Li-then-predict-Li step, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. Residual physics concerns (omitted T=3/2 3N, pion-range forces) affect completeness/robustness, not circularity of the claimed chain. Score 1 only for ordinary non-load-bearing method self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a deliberately minimal low-energy Hamiltonian plus the representational power of the neural-network ansatz. Parameters are fixed upstream of 11Li; the main domain assumptions are that contact LO-like forces plus one effective spin-orbit term suffice and that Monte Carlo sampling of |Ψ|^2 with a distance-based core/halo partition faithfully reports dineutron structure.

free parameters (5)
  • C_so (NN spin-orbit strength) = −2.8 fm^4
    Single short-range spin-orbit coupling fixed exclusively to the low-energy P3/2–P1/2 n-α phase-shift splitting; load-bearing for the claimed halo–phase-shift correlation.
  • c_E (3N contact strength) = 1.5514
    Three-nucleon coupling fixed to binding energies of 3H and 4He together with R_3.
  • R_3 (3N regulator) = 1.2 fm
    Range regulator of the short-range 3N force, co-determined with c_E from A≤4 binding.
  • Central NN contact parameters (model o) = as in Ref. [44]
    Four parameters of the central NN interaction fixed to np scattering lengths and effective ranges in S/T=0/1 and 1/0 channels (inherited from Ref. [44]).
  • N_det (number of backflow determinants) = 4 (6–9Li), 8 (11Li)
    Variational ansatz capacity: 4 for 6–9Li, 8 for 11Li; residual energy/radius uncertainty estimated but still a discrete model choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A minimal essential Hamiltonian (central NN + T=1/2-only short-range 3N + one short-range NN spin-orbit) constrained only by few-body observables is sufficient to generate the 11Li halo.
    Stated in the Nuclear Hamiltonian section; explicit pion exchange and T=3/2 3N are omitted by construction.
  • domain assumption The FeynmanNet Slater-Jastrow-backflow neural ansatz with the stated architecture can variationally represent the weakly bound, continuum-coupled 11Li ground state to the quoted accuracy.
    Invoked throughout the FeynmanNet and Emergence sections; supported by multi-run convergence but not proven complete.
  • domain assumption P-wave n-α phase shifts extracted via the Busch–Englert–Rzążewski–Wilkens formula in a harmonic trap equal the free-space splitting that controls the in-medium spin-orbit physics of 11Li.
    Method paragraph citing Refs. [40,45,46] and Fig. 1; links the fitted C_so to the halo correlation.
  • ad hoc to paper Halo neutrons may be identified event-by-event as the two neutrons farthest from the center of mass of the three protons plus six closest neutrons.
    Dineutron correlations section; the partition is a practical Monte Carlo definition, not derived from a cluster projection.
  • standard math Standard quantum many-body variational principle and Monte Carlo sampling of |Ψ|^2 yield unbiased estimators of energy, densities, and opening-angle distributions for the optimized ansatz.
    Background of the entire VMC analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Improved essential Hamiltonian independent evidence
    purpose: Minimal NN+3N+spin-orbit operator claimed to be sufficient for Li isotopes and the 11Li halo while remaining fixed by few-body data only.
    Named and defined in the Nuclear Hamiltonian section as the central interaction model; not a new particle or force carrier, but a paper-specific truncation of the nuclear force.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of the halo in $^{11}$Li from full nuclear many-body dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALNO6SGO

@misc{pith2026260724636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of the halo in $^11$Li from full nuclear many-body dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALNO6SGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24636}
}
abstract

The two-neutron halo nucleus $^{11}$Li is a paradigmatic quantum many-body system whose large spatial extent and weak binding have long challenged a microscopic description from first principles. Using a neural-network variational Monte Carlo approach, we present an \textit{ab initio} demonstration that the halo structure of $^{11}$Li emerges directly from the underlying nuclear interactions and full many-body dynamics. The calculation employs an essential nuclear Hamiltonian constrained solely by few-body observables and reproduces the binding and separation energies of Li isotopes, as well as the isotopic trend of their matter radii. We identify a correlation between the halo size in $^{11}$Li and the splitting of $P$-wave neutron-alpha scattering phase shifts, establishing the crucial role of neutron-alpha spin-orbit interactions in halo formation. Dineutron correlations are found to arise naturally from the many-body wave function without assuming a preformed core-plus-valence-neutron structure. These results provide a microscopic understanding of halo formation in $^{11}$Li and establish a link between few-body scattering observables and emergent many-body structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. compares the calculated low-energy P-wave neutron-alpha scattering phase shifts with the R-matrix analysis of experimental data [47]. The central Hamilto￾nian alone yields degenerate P3/2 and P1/2 phase shifts, in contrast to the substantial experimental splitting. Such splitting arises from spin-dependent components of nuclear interactions beyond leading central terms [48]. In the improved essential Hamiltonian, th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) depicts the matter radii along the Li iso￾topic chain. The calculated radii remain nearly constant from 6Li to 9Li and then increase sharply in 11Li, sig￾naling the emergence of a halo. Quantitatively, the cal￾culated radii agree with experiment within uncertainties for 6–9Li but remain somewhat smaller than the reported values for 11Li. The remaining discrepancy may reflect the absence of explicit pion-exchange… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Proton (lines) and neutron (dots) density distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Splitting between the computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Probability distributions of the opening angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. S. Jensen, K. Riisager, D. V. Fedorov, and E. Garrido, Structure and reactions of quantum halos, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 215 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    Tanihata, H

    I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida, N. Yoshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Yamakawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Measurements of Interaction Cross Sections and Nuclear Radii in the Lightp-Shell Region, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2676 (1985)

    1985

  3. [3]

    S´ anchez, W

    R. S´ anchez, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, G. Ewald, D. Albers, J. Behr, P. Bricault, B. A. Bushaw, A. Dax, J. Dilling, M. Dombsky, G. W. F. Drake, S. G¨ otte, R. Kirchner, H.- J. Kluge, T. K¨ uhl, J. Lassen, C. D. P. Levy, M. R. Pear- son, E. J. Prime, V. Ryjkov, A. Wojtaszek, Z.-C. Yan, and C. Zimmermann, Nuclear Charge Radii of 9,11Li: The Influence of Halo N...

    2006

  4. [4]

    Nakamura, A

    T. Nakamura, A. M. Vinodkumar, T. Sugimoto, N. Aoi, H. Baba, D. Bazin, N. Fukuda, T. Gomi, H. Hasegawa, N. Imai, M. Ishihara, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, T. Kubo, M. Miura, T. Motobayashi, H. Otsu, A. Saito, H. Saku- rai, S. Shimoura, K. Watanabe, Y. X. Watanabe, T. Yakushiji, Y. Yanagisawa, and K. Yoneda, Obser- vation of Strong Low-LyingE1 Strength in the T...

    2006

  5. [5]

    Kubota, A

    Y. Kubota, A. Corsi, G. Authelet, H. Baba, C. Caesar, D. Calvet, A. Delbart, M. Dozono, J. Feng, F. Flavi- gny, J.-M. Gheller, J. Gibelin, A. Giganon, A. Gillib- ert, K. Hasegawa, T. Isobe, Y. Kanaya, S. Kawakami, D. Kim, Y. Kikuchi, Y. Kiyokawa, M. Kobayashi, N. Kobayashi, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kondo, Z. Korkulu, S. Koyama, V. Lapoux, Y. Maeda, F. M. Marqu´ e...

    2020

  6. [6]

    P. G. Hansen, A. S. Jensen, and B. Jonson, Nuclear Ha- los, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.45, 591 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Hammer, C

    H.-W. Hammer, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips, Effective field theory description of halo nuclei, J. Phys. G44, 103002 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    G. F. Bertsch, B. A. Brown, and H. Sagawa, High-energy reaction cross sections of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C39, 1154 (1989)

    1989

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Sagawa, Density distributions of halo nuclei, Phys

    H. Sagawa, Density distributions of halo nuclei, Phys. Lett. B286, 7 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. Ring, Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov Description of the Neutron Halo in 11Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Relativistic continuum Hartree Bogoli- ubov theory for ground-state properties of exotic nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.57, 470 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Tomaselli, S

    M. Tomaselli, S. Fritzsche, A. Dax, P. Egelhof, C. Kozhuharov, T. K¨ uhl, D. Marx, M. Mutterer, S. Neu- maier, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, H. Wang, and H.-J. Kluge, Mi- croscopic model for charge and matter distributions of nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A690, 298 (2001), proc. Int. Symp. on N...

    2001

  5. [13]

    Varga, Y

    K. Varga, Y. Suzuki, and R. G. Lovas, Microscopic mul- ticluster model of 9,10,11Li, Phys. Rev. C66, 041302 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    T. Myo, Y. Kikuchi, K. Kat¯ o, H. Toki, and K. Ikeda, Systematic Study of 9,10,11Li with the Tensor and Pairing Correlations, Prog. Theor. Phys. 119, 561 (2008), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/119/4/561/5156966/119-4-561.pdf

    2008

  7. [15]

    N¨ ortersh¨ auser, T

    W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, T. Neff, R. S´ anchez, and I. Sick, Charge radii and ground state structure of lithium iso- topes: Experiment and theory reexamined, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024307 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´ atil, and J. P. Vary, Ab initio no core shell model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.69, 131 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Navr´ atil and B

    P. Navr´ atil and B. R. Barrett, Large-basis shell-model calculations forp-shell nuclei, Phys. Rev. C57, 3119 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    Forss´ en, E

    C. Forss´ en, E. Caurier, and P. Navr´ atil, Charge radii and electromagnetic moments of Li and Be isotopes from the ab initio no-core shell model, Phys. Rev. C79, 021303 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    M. A. Caprio, P. J. Fasano, and P. Maris, Robust ab initio prediction of nuclear electric quadrupole observables by scaling to the charge radius, Phys. Rev. C105, L061302 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body sys- tems, Prog

    D. Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body sys- tems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63, 117 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    T. A. L¨ adhe and U.-G. Meißner,Nuclear Lattice Effec- tive Field Theory: An Introduction, Lect. Note Phys. (Springer Cham, 2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Gandolfi, D

    S. Gandolfi, D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, and M. Piarulli, Atomic Nuclei From Quantum Monte Carlo Calcula- tions With Chiral EFT Interactions, Front. Phys.8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.00117 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Romero-Redondo, S

    C. Romero-Redondo, S. Quaglioni, P. Navr´ atil, and G. Hupin, How Many-Body Correlations andαCluster- ing Shape 6He, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 222501 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Calci, P

    A. Calci, P. Navr´ atil, R. Roth, J. Dohet-Eraly, S. Quaglioni, and G. Hupin, Can Ab Initio Theory Ex- plain the Phenomenon of Parity Inversion in11Be?, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 242501 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero-Redondo, and A. Calci, Unified ab initio approaches to nuclear structure and reactions, Phys. Scr.91, 053002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Navratil, S

    P. Navratil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, M. Gennari, and K. Kravvaris, Halo Nuclei from Ab Initio Nuclear Theory (2026), arXiv:2604.02612 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Ab Initio Study of the Beryllium Isotopes 7Be to 12Be, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162503 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Ab Initio Study on the Halo Structure in 11Be, Particles 9, 10.3390/particles9010025 (2026)

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    Elhatisari, L

    S. Elhatisari, L. Bovermann, Y.-Z. Ma, E. Epelbaum, D. Frame, F. Hildenbrand, M. Kim, Y. Kim, H. Krebs, 7 T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-N. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, G. Rupak, S. Shen, Y.-H. Song, and G. Stellin, Wavefunc- tion matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Natur...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Adams, G

    C. Adams, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Varia- tional Monte Carlo Calculations ofA≤4 Nuclei with an Artificial Neural-Network Correlator Ansatz, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 022502 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lovato, G

    A. Lovato, G. Carleo, B. Fore, M. Hjorth-Jensen, J. Kim, A. Rios, and N. Rocco, Neural-network quan- tum states for the nuclear many-body problem (2026), arXiv:2602.13826 [nucl-th]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Lovato, C

    A. Lovato, C. Adams, G. Carleo, and N. Rocco, Hidden- nucleons neural-network quantum states for the nuclear many-body problem, Phys. Rev. Research4, 043178 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Y. L. Yang and P. W. Zhao, Deep-neural-network ap- proach to solving the ab initio nuclear structure problem, Phys. Rev. C107, 034320 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, and A. Lovato, Distill- ing the Essential Elements of Nuclear Binding via Neural- Network Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 142501 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. Yang, E. Epelbaum, C. Ji, and P. Zhao, Zemach radii and nuclear structure effects in hyperfine splitting of Lithium (2025), arXiv:2509.01303 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Parnes, N

    E. Parnes, N. Barnea, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, and X. Zhang, Nuclear Responses with Neural-Network Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 032501 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Yang and P

    Y. Yang and P. Zhao, A consistent description of the relativistic effects and three-body interactions in atomic nuclei, Phys. Lett. B835, 137587 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Yang and P.-W

    Y.-L. Yang and P.-W. Zhao, Reconciling Light Nuclei and Nuclear Matter: Relativistic ab initio Calculations, Chinese Phys. Lett.42, 051201 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Y. Yang, E. Epelbaum, J. Meng, L. Meng, and P. Zhao, Chiral Symmetry and Peripheral Neutron-αScattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 172502 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Sorella, Wave function optimization in the variational Monte Carlo method, Phys

    S. Sorella, Wave function optimization in the variational Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. B71, 241103 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL] for details on the neural-network architecture, training setup, and conver- gence tests ofFeynmanNet

  35. [43]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Accu- rate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Schiavilla, L

    R. Schiavilla, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, L. E. Marcucci, M. Piarulli, and M. Viviani, Two- and three-nucleon contact interactions and ground-state energies of light- and medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054003 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, and M. Wilkens, Two Cold Atoms in a Harmonic Trap, Foundations of Physics28, 549 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Suzuki, Y

    A. Suzuki, Y. Liang, and R. K. Bhaduri, Two-atom en- ergy spectrum in a harmonic trap near a Feshbach reso- nance at higher partial waves, Phys. Rev. A80, 033601 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    G. M. Hale, Private communication (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Chiral Three-Nucleon Interactions in Light Nuclei, Neutron-αScattering, and Neutron Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 062501 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Tanihata, T

    I. Tanihata, T. Kobayashi, O. Yamakawa, S. Shimoura, K. Ekuni, K. Sugimoto, N. Takahashi, T. Shimoda, and H. Sato, Measurement of interaction cross sections using isotope beams of Be and B and isospin dependence of the nuclear radii, Phys. Lett. B206, 592 (1988)

    1988

  42. [50]

    Dobrovolsky, G

    A. Dobrovolsky, G. Alkhazov, M. Andronenko, A. Bauchet, P. Egelhof, S. Fritz, H. Geissel, C. Gross, A. Khanzadeev, G. Korolev, G. Kraus, A. Lobo- denko, G. M¨ unzenberg, M. Mutterer, S. Neumaier, T. Sch¨ afer, C. Scheidenberger, D. Seliverstov, N. Timo- feev, A. Vorobyov, and ...

    2006

  43. [51]

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

    2020

  44. [52]

    Esbensen, G

    H. Esbensen, G. F. Bertsch, and K. Hencken, Application of contact interactions to Borromean halos, Phys. Rev. C56, 3054 (1997)

    1997

  45. [53]

    Hagino and H

    K. Hagino and H. Sagawa, Pairing correlations in nuclei on the neutron-drip line, Phys. Rev. C72, 044321 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    Hagino, H

    K. Hagino, H. Sagawa, J. Carbonell, and P. Schuck, Co- existence of BCS- and BEC-Like Pair Structures in Halo Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 022506 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosen- bluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 1087 (1953), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  48. [56]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article- pdf/57/1/97/23940249/57-1-97.pdf

    1970

  49. [57]

    Kikuchi, K

    Y. Kikuchi, K. Ogata, Y. Kubota, M. Sasano, and T. Uesaka, Determination of a dineutron correla- tion in Borromean nuclei via a quasi-free knock- out (p,pn) reaction, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2016, 103D03 (2016), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2016/10/103D03/9621191/...

    2016

  50. [58]

    Horiuchi, Y

    W. Horiuchi, Y. Suzuki, and R. B. Wiringa, Glauber- Theory Calculations of High-Energy Nuclear Scattering Observables Using Variational Monte Carlo Wave Func- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 202501 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    Horiuchi, Y

    W. Horiuchi, Y. Suzuki, and R. B. Wiringa, Glauber- theory analysis of nuclear reactions on a 12C target with variational Monte Carlo wave functions, Phys. Rev. C 113, 064601 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.