Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Nuclear lattice effective field theory, with its leading two-body electromagnetic current included and lattice uncertainties quantified, reproduces the measured magnetic dipole moments of selected light nuclei and aluminum isotopes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Nuclear lattice EFT reproduces measured magnetic moments of selected light and aluminum nuclei once two-body electromagnetic currents are included, with error bars assigned to statistical, extrapolation, and rotational-symmetry-breaking effects.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection First NLEFT magnetic moments with two-body currents — real new results, but the quoted uncertainties rest on an unquantified perturbative truncation that could be as large as the two-body correction. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25464 v1 pith:4BOZDAFQ submitted 2026-07-28 nucl-th hep-latnucl-ex

Ab initio lattice calculation of nuclear magnetic dipole moments with systematic error quantifications

Teng Wang , Serdar Elhatisari , Xu Feng , Dean Lee , Bing-Nan Lu , Yuan-Zhuo Ma This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-latnucl-ex PACS 21.10.Ky
keywords nuclear magnetic momentsnuclear lattice effective field theorychiral effective field theorytwo-body electromagnetic currentsab initio nuclear structureuncertainty quantificationaluminum isotopesimaginary-time Monte Carlo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

These authors claim that nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT) can now produce controlled predictions of magnetic dipole moments, provided the leading two-body electromagnetic current is included. Their calculation covers 17 light nuclei up to A=12 and 9 aluminum isotopes, using an N3LO chiral Hamiltonian and a perturbation expansion around a sign-problem-free Hamiltonian. The one-body operator alone leaves several discrepancies; the two-body term contributes roughly 10% or less but is the correction that brings the lattice results into agreement with experiment, and the aluminum chain matches within 2σ for every isotope. The broader point is that a framework that scales to medium-mass nuclei can deliver quantitatively reliable electroweak observables with explicit uncertainties rather than uncontrolled model dependence.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ground-state magnetic dipole moments of selected light nuclei and aluminum isotopes can be computed ab initio on a lattice, with uncertainties that make comparison to experiment meaningful, provided two-body currents are kept. The one-body result alone is scattered and far from experiment; adding the first perturbative correction from the chiral Hamiltonian improves it systematically, and the leading two-body current supplies the final fine-tuning, most visibly for 3H, 3He, and 7Be. For aluminum isotopes the full result agrees with experiment within 2σ for all cases using a 2% rotational-symmetry-breaking uncertainty. The paper also notes that among the ab i

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. The multi-reference trial state is a carefully chosen superposition of shell-model Slater determinants with definite total spin J; it suppresses the J±1 excited-state contamination that otherwise makes the magnetic-moment signal converge slowly, as demonstrated for 8Li. The perturbation framework simulates a sign-problem-free leading-order Hamiltonian non-perturbatively and treats the difference with the full chiral Hamiltonian order by order, keeping the one-body current through first order and the two-body current at leading order. Finally, the two-body current operator (intrinsic plus Sachs terms) is regularized directly on the lattice. The combination mak

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corrections the authors left out of their calculation are genuinely small, and that the 2% allowance for lattice distortion of rotational symmetry is enough for every aluminum isotope; if either is wrong for a specific nucleus, the claimed agreement with experiment is not established.

What would settle it

Compute the next-order perturbative correction (second order for the one-body term, or first order for the two-body term) for a representative nucleus such as 11Li or 27Al and compare it to the quoted uncertainty; if the shift is comparable to or larger than the error bar, the assumption that neglected orders are small is refuted. A complementary check would be to measure the ground-state magnetic moment of 24Al and test the paper's extrapolation behavior for that isotope.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Magnetic moments become a validated observable in NLEFT, joining binding energies and radii as a benchmark quantity for the same Hamiltonian.
  • The aluminum-isotope agreement extends the method into the sd shell, where magnetic-moment systematics are currently used to probe shell evolution far from stability.
  • Because the two-body current is essential at the few-percent level, precise magnetic-moment data now provide direct constraints on the two-body electromagnetic current operator in chiral effective field theory.
  • The computed 24Al 1+ excited-state moment is a concrete, testable prediction for radioactive-beam experiments.
  • NLEFT's per-nucleus uncertainty estimates set a standard for comparing ab initio results, since the other methods in the comparison either miss some uncertainties or report none for several nuclei.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit: the same multi-reference trial-state technique should transfer to other rank-one electroweak observables, such as Gamow-Teller transitions or electric-quadrupole moments, where J±1 mixing slows convergence in exactly the same way.
  • The 2% rotational-symmetry allowance was inferred from three representative nuclei at one projection time; checking the Wigner-Eckart split for the remaining aluminum isotopes at multiple projection times would either confirm the blanket error or reveal an isotope where the central claim needs revision.
  • If the convergence assumption is correct, the next-order two-body current is the natural next target; its computed size would indicate whether the apparent fine-tuning is a genuine convergence feature or a numerical coincidence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT) calculations of magnetic dipole moments for selected A≤12 nuclei and aluminum isotopes with 23≤A≤31. The calculation uses the N3LO chiral Hamiltonian of Ref. [33], treats the difference from a sign-problem-free auxiliary Hamiltonian perturbatively, and computes the magnetic moment operator as one-body plus leading two-body electromagnetic currents. The central claim is that, within estimated uncertainties, the lattice results agree with experiment, that two-body currents are indispensable for this agreement, and that NLEFT provides the first systematic uncertainty quantification for this observable in this mass range. The paper also benchmarks against VMC, GFMC, and NCSM results.

Significance. If the central results are correct, this is a substantial step for NLEFT: it is the first NLEFT calculation to include two-body electromagnetic currents, and it demonstrates a level of uncertainty quantification for spin-dependent observables that is competitive with continuum ab initio methods. The trial-state construction, imaginary-time extrapolation analysis, and explicit numerical tables are valuable contributions, and the calculation involves no fitted parameters for the magnetic moments—the nucleon g-factors and chiral currents come from prior work. However, the significance is conditional: the central claim of precision agreement and the attribution of that agreement to two-body currents rests on an unquantified truncation of the perturbation expansion, and the aluminum error budget relies on a small-sample flat estimate. These points must be addressed before the paper's main conclusions can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (5)] The master formula (5) truncates the perturbative expansion at first order for μ1N and at zeroth order for μ2N, and the text states that higher-order terms are 'assumed to be small'. Table S2 shows that the first-order one-body correction is often several times larger than the entire two-body contribution: for 8Li, μ^(1)_1N = +0.317(38) vs μ^(0)_2N = +0.115(2); for 11B, -0.497(66) vs +0.105(2); for 11C, +0.424(78) vs -0.097(2); and for 28Al in Table S3, -0.398(64) vs +0.106(3). Since the claim that two-body currents are 'indispensable' is based on the difference between panels (b) and (c) of Fig. 2, the omitted μ^(2)_1N and μ^(1)_2N contributions must be bounded or shown to be small, not merely asserted. A convergence test for at least a few representative nuclei, or a quantitative estimate of the next-order terms, is required to support the central conclusion.
  2. [Supplement E, Table S1; Methodology] The rotational-symmetry-breaking uncertainty is assigned as a flat 2% for all aluminum isotopes based on three representative nuclei (3H, 9C, 27Al), evaluated at a single projection time τ=0.2 MeV⁻¹ and using only the LO Hamiltonian H_S (Table S1). For most Al isotopes in Table S3 this 2% systematic dominates the total error (e.g., 25Al has statistical error 0.049 and rotational error 0.074). No evidence is given that such a single-measurement, single-nucleus-per-shell estimate covers isotopes with different shell structures or deformations. The claim that all aluminum results agree with experiment 'within 2σ' depends critically on this undecomposed, blanket error. The authors should either derive a per-isotope uncertainty or provide evidence that the rotational indicator varies smoothly across the isotopic chain.
  3. [Tables S2 and S3 vs Eq. (5)] There is a direct inconsistency between the main text and the supplementary tables: Eq. (5) labels the two-body term as μ^(0)_2N, while the column headers in both Table S2 and Table S3 read μ^(1)_2N. The perturbative order of the two-body current is central to the truncation argument and to the comparison in Fig. 2. This must be corrected and the convention used consistently throughout the manuscript.
  4. [Table S4 and Figure 3] The NCSM entry for 9Be in Table S4 is 0.212(35) μN, which is identical to the NLEFT μ^(1)_1N value from Table S2 rather than a total magnetic moment (the experimental value is -1.177 μN). This appears to be a transcription error, and it invalidates the 9Be comparison in Figure 3 and the associated benchmark discussion. The table and figure should be regenerated with the correct NCSM value, and the discussion of the comparison for 9Be should be revised accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Uncertainty quantification section] There is a typo: 'enhanced for for spin-dependent observables' should read 'enhanced for spin-dependent observables'.
  2. [Supplement A, Eq. (S6)] In the definition around Eq. (S6), 'cdS_ij(ˆrij)' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'S_ij(ˆrij)'. Please check the notation.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract claims a 'comprehensive assessment of algorithmic uncertainties', but the two dominant systematic errors—perturbative truncation and rotational symmetry breaking—are handled by assumption or a flat estimate. This overstates the current uncertainty quantification. The Summary paragraph appropriately acknowledges that remaining errors are deferred; the abstract should be toned down to match.
  4. [References and notation] The paper uses 'N^3LO' in the abstract and 'N3LO' in the text; please unify the notation. Also, Ref. [43] is listed as 'Phys. Rev. C (2026), 10.1103/l43k-pjjg', which is unusual; please verify the DOI and volume/page information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: magnetic moments are computed from external operators and Hamiltonians; the perturbation truncation and 2% rotational error are explicit assumptions, not fitted inputs called predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the central results is self-contained with respect to the target observable. The magnetic moment operator is fixed by external inputs: the nucleon g-factors are quoted from CODATA (g_S=0.880, g_V=4.706), and the two-body current is taken from chiral EFT literature [55-58] with external constants g_A, F_pi, and m_pi. None of these are fitted to the reported magnetic moments, and no equation defines a predicted moment from the experimental moment. The N3LO Hamiltonian [33] and the perturbation/trial-state methods [41,43] are prior published work, including overlapping authors, but the paper does not reduce its results to those citations: the perturbative corrections are computed explicitly via Eqs. (S12)-(S13), and convergence is checked through imaginary-time extrapolations (Figs. S2, S3). The paper explicitly flags the main limitation: 'Higher-order perturbative terms neglected here are computationally demanding and assumed to be small. Their impact on the final result will be investigated in future works' (Methodology, after Eq. 5), and again in the Summary: 'Future work is needed to include the remaining errors missed here, including those induced by the perturbation method and chiEFT truncations.' That is an honest convergence caveat, not a circular step: the retained terms are evaluated from the stated operators and Hamiltonian, not regenerated to match experiment. The 2% rotational-symmetry uncertainty assigned to aluminum isotopes is an estimated error band based on representative nuclei (Supplement E), not a fitted parameter entering the central values, so it does not make the 'within 2-sigma' claim circular, although it is a correctness assumption. Overall, the predictions are genuinely derived from independently specified inputs, with no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation chain that forces the stated agreement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or symmetry-breaking mechanisms are introduced. The calculation depends on four assumptions: convergence of the truncated perturbation series, fidelity of the published Hamiltonian, sufficiency of the leading two-body current, and the indirect estimate of the lattice-spacing artifact. The last assumption is the most fragile because it is quantified through a '2% total uncertainty' assigned by hand for all aluminum isotopes.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Leaving corrections beyond μ1N(1) and μ2N(0) introduces errors assumed to be small.
    Stated explicitly in Eq. (5) and the following text: 'Higher-order perturbative terms neglected here are computationally demanding and assumed to be small.' No bound or estimate is computed, so the central numbers depend on this unverified assumption.
  • domain assumption The N3LO chiral Hamiltonian of Ref. [33] with a=1.32 fm is accurate enough for spin observables.
    The Hamiltonian is taken from the authors' own prior work (Ref. [33]), and the paper does not do an independent validation of this interaction against magnetic moments in the continuum limit.
  • domain assumption The leading two-body current is sufficient at the claimed precision.
    The paper uses only the leading power-counting piece of μ2N and neglects higher-order currents; the text says this 'is a step toward' future work. The 2% rot-symmetry error budget is comparable to the size of neglected current corrections, so the accuracy claim depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption χEFT is treated as non-renormalizable, so the lattice spacing artifact cannot be removed by a→0 extrapolation.
    Invoked in Supplement E following Ref. [47, 61] to justify the indirect estimate of rotational symmetry breaking instead of a direct continuum extrapolation. The magnitude of the artifact is then estimated from only three nuclei and one τ value.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab initio lattice calculation of nuclear magnetic dipole moments with systematic error quantifications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BOZDAFQ

@misc{pith2026260725464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab initio lattice calculation of nuclear magnetic dipole moments with systematic error quantifications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BOZDAFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25464}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Nuclear magnetic moments are sensitive probes of nuclear structure. However, their accurate quantitative description poses significant challenges, demanding both accurate nuclear and electromagnetic interactions as well as rigorous control of algorithmic uncertainties. Here, we present the first systematic calculation of magnetic dipole moments for selected light nuclei and aluminum isotopes within nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT), an \textit{ab initio} framework applicable to medium-mass and heavy nuclei. Our calculations employ a lattice next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order (N$^3$LO) chiral interaction together with electromagnetic currents consistently derived up to the two-body level. To achieve controlled predictions, we incorporate recently developed NLEFT algorithms and perform a comprehensive assessment of algorithmic uncertainties. Within the estimated uncertainties, our results are in good overall agreement with experiment and demonstrate that two-body currents are essential for reproducing the observed magnetic moments. We further benchmark our predictions against other \textit{ab initio} calculations for light nuclei ($A\leq12$). Our work establishes a solid foundation for \textit{ab initio} studies of electroweak observables using methods that scale efficiently to medium-mass and heavy nuclei while demonstrating state-of-the-art accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25464 by Bing-Nan Lu, Dean Lee, Serdar Elhatisari, Teng Wang, Xu Feng, Yuan-Zhuo Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Global comparison between the full NLEFT re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ratio between the magnetic moment calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The ratio between the theoretical prediction and the experimental value from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The magnetic moments of the aluminum isotopes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

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

82 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.73, 416 (1948)

    1948

  2. [2]

    Arima and H

    A. Arima and H. Horie, Prog. Theor. Phys.11, 509 (1954)

    1954

  3. [3]

    R. J. Blin-Stoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys.28, 75 (1956)

    1956

  4. [4]

    Castel and I

    B. Castel and I. S. Towner, Modern Theories of Nuclear Moments (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    Ichikawa et al., Nature Phys.15, 321 (2019)

    Y. Ichikawa et al., Nature Phys.15, 321 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    A. R. Vernon et al., Nature607, 260 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Suzuki, R

    T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C 67, 044302 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    J. M. Munoz, A. Belley, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, (2026), arXiv:2603.26905 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Schmidt, Zeitschrift fur Physik106, 358 (1937)

    T. Schmidt, Zeitschrift fur Physik106, 358 (1937)

    1937

  10. [10]

    Li and J

    J. Li and J. Meng, Front. Phys. (Beijing)13, 132109 (2018), arXiv:1808.10124 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Miyazawa, Prog

    H. Miyazawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.6, 801 (1951)

    1951

  12. [12]

    Villars, Phys

    F. Villars, Phys. Rev.86, 476 (1952)

    1952

  13. [13]

    S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. Cohen, W. Detmold, H. W. Lin, K. Orginos, A. Parre˜ no, M. J. Savage, and B. C. Tiburzi (NPLQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 252001 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Chang, W

    E. Chang, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, B. C. Tiburzi, and S. R. Beane (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D92, 114502 (2015), arXiv:1506.05518 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

    1979

  16. [16]

    Hergert, Front

    H. Hergert, Front. in Phys.8, 379 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Chambers-Wall, A

    G. Chambers-Wall, A. Gnech, G. B. King, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, R. Schiavilla, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 212501 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Chambers-Wall, A

    G. Chambers-Wall, A. Gnech, G. B. King, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, R. Schiavilla, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C110, 054316 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Lonardoni, S

    D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, J. E. Lynn, C. Petrie, J. Carl- son, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C97, 044318 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Forss´ en, E

    C. Forss´ en, E. Caurier, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C 79, 021303 (2009)

    2009

  21. [21]

    Choudhary, P

    P. Choudhary, P. C. Srivastava, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C102, 044309 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Choudhary, P

    P. Choudhary, P. C. Srivastava, M. Gennari, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C107, 014309 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    N. M. Parzuchowski, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, H. Herg- ert, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C96, 034324 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Heylen, C

    H. Heylen, C. S. Devlin, W. Gins, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, L. Filippin, R. F. G. Ruiz, M. Gode- froid, C. Gorges, J. D. Holt, A. Kanellakopoulos, S. Kauf- mann, A. Koszor´ us, K. K¨ onig, S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, T. Miyagi, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, R. S´ anchez, F. Sommer, L. V. Rodr ´ ıguez, L. Xie, Z. Y. Xu, X. F. Yang, and ...

    2021

  25. [25]

    Powel, B

    R. Powel, B. A. Brown, J. D. Holt, A. Klose, K. K¨ onig, J. Lantis, K. Minamisono, T. Miyagi, and S. Pineda, Phys. Rev. C105, 034310 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Miyagi, X

    T. Miyagi, X. Cao, R. Seutin, S. Bacca, R. F. G. Ruiz, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 232503 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Acharya, B

    B. Acharya, B. S. Hu, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, P. Navr´ atil, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 232504 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Lee, Prog

    D. Lee, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63, 117 (2009)

    2009

  29. [29]

    T. A. L¨ ahde and U.-G. Meißner, Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory: An introduction, Vol. 957 (Springer, 2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    T. A. L¨ ahde, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Phys. Lett. B732, 110 (2014), arXiv:1311.0477 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B797, 134863 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Niu and B.-N

    Z.-W. Niu and B.-N. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 222504 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Elhatisari, L

    S. Elhatisari, L. Bovermann, Y.-Z. Ma, E. Epelbaum, D. Frame, F. Hildenbrand, M. Kim, Y. Kim, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-N. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, G. Rupak, S. Shen, Y.-H. Song, and G. Stellin, Nature 630, 59–63 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Hildenbrand, S

    F. Hildenbrand, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, H. Meyer, Z. Ren, A. Herten, and M. Bode, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 062501 (2026), arXiv:2509.08579 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Y.-H. Song, M. Kim, Y. Kim, K. Cho, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, Y.-Z. Ma, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 872, 140086 (2026), arXiv:2502.18722 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162503 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, B.-N. Lu, and U.-G. Meißner, Nature Commun.14, 2777 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Z. Ren, S. Elhatisari, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 152502 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    K¨ oniget al., Phys

    K. K¨ oniget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 162502 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 133, 059901 (2024)]

    2024

  40. [40]

    Brinson et al., (2026), arXiv:2605.09139 [nucl-ex]

    A. Brinson et al., (2026), arXiv:2605.09139 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, Y.-Z. Ma, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 242501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    J. Liu, T. Wang, and B.-N. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 85 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    T. Wang, X. Feng, and B.-N. Lu, Phys. Rev. C (2026), 10.1103/l43k-pjjg

    work page doi:10.1103/l43k-pjjg 2026

  44. [44]

    Johnson, Phys

    R. Johnson, Phys. Lett. B114, 147 (1982)

    1982

  45. [45]

    Berg and A

    B. Berg and A. Billoire, Nucl. Phys. B226, 405 (1983)

    1983

  46. [46]

    J. E. Mandula, G. Zweig, and J. Govaerts, Nucl. Phys. B228, 109 (1983)

    1983

  47. [47]

    B.-N. Lu, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D92, 014506 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    S. Pal, S. Sarker, P. J. Fasano, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, M. A. Caprio, and R. A. M. Basili, Phys. Rev. C108, 024001 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    Schiavilla, A

    R. Schiavilla, A. Baroni, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lovato, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C99, 034005 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Pastore, S

    S. Pastore, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C87, 035503 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Men´ endez, D

    J. Men´ endez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 062501 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Engel, F

    J. Engel, F. Simkovic, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. C89, 064308 (2014), arXiv:1403.7860 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rept. Prog. Phys.80, 046301 7 (2017), arXiv:1610.06548 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rode- johann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 219 (2019), arXiv:1902.04097 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C80, 034004 (2009)

    2009

  56. [56]

    K¨ olling, E

    S. K¨ olling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C80, 045502 (2009)

    2009

  57. [57]

    K¨ olling, E

    S. K¨ olling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C84, 054008 (2011)

    2011

  58. [58]

    Krebs, E

    H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Few-Body Syst.60(2019), 10.1007/s00601-019-1500-5

    doi:10.1007/s00601-019-1500-5 2019

  59. [59]

    Seutin, O

    R. Seutin, O. J. Hernandez, T. Miyagi, S. Bacca, K. Hebeler, S. K¨ onig, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054005 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025010 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    B.-N. Lu, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D90, 034507 (2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    Piarulli, A

    M. Piarulli, A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, E. Lusk, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 052503 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    Doleschall, Phys

    P. Doleschall, Phys. Rev. C69, 054001 (2004)

    2004

  64. [64]

    J. E. Purcell, J. H. Kelley, E. Kwan, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A848, 1 (2010)

    2010

  65. [65]

    D. R. Tilley, C. M. Cheves, J. L. Godwin, G. M. Hale, H. M. Hofmann, J. H. Kelley, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A708, 3 (2002)

    2002

  66. [66]

    D. R. Tilley, J. H. Kelley, J. L. Godwin, D. J. Millener, J. E. Purcell, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A745, 155 (2004)

    2004

  67. [67]

    Borremans, D

    D. Borremans, D. L. Balabanski, K. Blaum, W. Gei- thner, S. Gheysen, P. Himpe, M. Kowalska, J. Lassen, P. Lievens, S. Mallion, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, N. Ver- meulen, and D. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. C72, 059902 (2005)

    2005

  68. [68]

    Neugart, D

    R. Neugart, D. L. Balabanski, K. Blaum, D. Borre- mans, P. Himpe, M. Kowalska, P. Lievens, S. Mallion, G. Neyens, N. Vermeulen, and D. T. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 132502 (2008)

    2008

  69. [69]

    R. L. Williams, L. Pfeiffer, J. C. Wells, and L. Madansky, Phys. Rev. C2, 1219 (1970)

    1970

  70. [70]

    Millman, P

    S. Millman, P. Kusch, and I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev.56, 165 (1939)

    1939

  71. [71]

    Wolber, H

    G. Wolber, H. Figger, R. A. Haberstroh, and S. Penselin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nuclei236, 337 (1970)

    1970

  72. [72]

    Ozawa, K

    A. Ozawa, K. Matsuta, T. Nagatomo, M. Mihara, K. Yamada, T. Yamaguchi, T. Ohtsubo, S. Momota, T. Izumikawa, T. Sumikama, Y. Nakashima, H. Fuji- wara, S. Kumashiro, R. Matsumiya, M. Ota, D. Shino- jima, H. Tanaka, T. Yasuno, S. Nakajima, T. Suzuki, K. Yoshida, K. Muranaka, T. Maemura, A. Chiba, Y. Ut- suno, M. Fukuda, K. Tanaka, I. Tanihata, Y. Nojiri, T. ...

    2006

  73. [73]

    Minamisono, J

    T. Minamisono, J. W. Hugg, J. R. Hall, D. G. Mavis, H. F. Glavish, and S. S. Hanna, Phys. Rev. C14, 376(R) (1976)

    1976

  74. [74]

    T. G. Cooper, J. Billowes, P. Campbell, and M. R. Pear- son, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 22, 99 (1996)

    1996

  75. [75]

    Nishimura et al., Hyperfine Interactions180, 71 (2007)

    D. Nishimura et al., Hyperfine Interactions180, 71 (2007)

    2007

  76. [76]

    Heylen, M

    H. Heylen, M. De Rydt, G. Neyens, M. L. Bissell, L. Caceres, R. Chevrier, J. M. Daugas, Y. Ichikawa, Y. Ishibashi, O. Kamalou, T. J. Mertzimekis, P. Morel, J. Papuga, A. Poves, M. M. Rajabali, C. St¨ odel, J. C. Thomas, H. Ueno, Y. Utsuno, N. Yoshida, and A. Yoshimi, Phys. Rev. C94, 034312 (2016)

    2016

  77. [77]

    S. E. Campbell, G. Bollen, B. A. Brown, A. Dockery, C. M. Ireland, K. Minamisono, D. Puentes, B. J. Rickey, R. Ringle, I. T. Yandow, K. Fossez, A. Ortiz-Cortes, S. Schwarz, C. S. Sumithrarachchi, and A. C. C. Vil- lari, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 152501 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    X. Z. Cai, H. Y. Zhang, W. Q. Shen, Z. Z. Ren, J. Feng, D. Q. Fang, Z. Y. Zhu, W. Z. Jiang, Y. G. Ma, C. Zhong, W. L. Zhan, Z. Y. Guo, G. Q. Xiao, J. S. Wang, Y. T. Zhu, J. C. Wang, J. X. Li, M. Wang, J. F. Wang, Z. J. Ning, Q. J. Wang, and Z. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. C65, 024610 (2002)

    2002

  79. [79]

    A. A. Kwiatkowski, C. Andreoiu, J. C. Bale, A. Chaud- huri, U. Chowdhury, S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, A. T. Gal- lant, A. Grossheim, G. Gwinner, A. Lennarz, T. D. Mac- donald, T. J. M. Rauch, B. E. Schultz, S. Seeraji, M. C. Simon, V. V. Simon, D. Lunney, A. Poves, and J. Dilling, Phys. Rev. C92, 061301 (2015)

    2015

  80. [80]

    Z. Xu, H. Heylen, K. Asahi, F. Boulay, J. Dau- gas, R. Groote, W. Gins, O. Kamalou, A. Kos- zor´ us, M. Lykiardopoulou, T. Mertzimekis, G. Neyens, H. Nishibata, T. Otsuka, R. Orset, A. Poves, T. Sato, C. Stodel, J. Thomas, N. Tsunoda, Y. Utsuno, M. Van- debrouck, and X. Yang, Phys. Lett. B782, 619 (2018)

    2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.