Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

High-precision ab initio calculations place tin's neutron dripline between A≈150–176, highly sensitive to the nuclear force and in tension with energy-density-functional predictions near A=174–178.

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 ↗

BCCSD[T] calculations of even-even tin isotopes predict a neutron dripline at A≈150–176 that is highly sensitive to chiral interactions and in tension with EDF results, while matching neutron-deficient S2n extrapolations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-11 challenge →

load-bearing objection First BCCSD[T] survey of the full even tin chain: real methodological step, honest dripline intervals, residual continuum/normal-ordering softness already flagged by the authors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05086 v1 pith:A5GSKIBP submitted 2026-07-06 nucl-th cond-mat.str-elnucl-ex

High-precision ab initio calculations of nuclear binding energies: Tin isotopes from dripline to dripline

Urban Vernik , Pepijn Demol , Thomas Duguet , Alexander Tichai This is my paper
classification nucl-th cond-mat.str-elnucl-ex
keywords ab initio nuclear structureBogoliubov coupled-clustertin isotopesneutron driplinechiral effective field theorytwo-neutron separation energiesr-process nucleosynthesis
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

This paper reports high-precision first-principles calculations of ground-state energies for every even-even tin isotope from the N=50 shell closure out to the neutron dripline. By extending Bogoliubov coupled-cluster theory with leading triples corrections, the authors reduce the many-body error on binding energies to below one percent, small enough that residual differences can be attributed mainly to the choice of chiral two- and three-nucleon forces. The calculations correctly reproduce the N=50 shell gap and match recent mass extrapolations on the proton-rich side. On the neutron-rich side they find that two-neutron separation energies stay nearly flat over a wide mass range, so the dripline location itself is finely tuned: roughly A=150–170 for one standard interaction and A=160–176 for another. Both intervals sit well below the A≈174–178 region favored by modern energy-density functionals, creating a clear discrepancy that matters for r-process nucleosynthesis calculations.

Core claim

Within the residual many-body uncertainty of a few MeV, the neutron dripline of even-even tin lies in the intervals A≈150–170 (1.8/2.0 EM interaction) and A≈160–176 (Δ-N2LOGO interaction). The location is therefore highly sensitive to the details of the chiral nuclear force and stands in tension with recent energy-density-functional predictions that place the dripline near A=174–178.

What carries the argument

Bogoliubov coupled-cluster singles-and-doubles with non-iterative triples (BCCSD[T]): a particle-number-breaking reference state plus an approximate T3 correction that captures the leading three-body correlations at O(N7) cost, cutting the many-body error on tin binding energies by roughly a factor of ten to less than 1 %.

Load-bearing premise

Normal-ordering three-nucleon forces into an effective two-body interaction introduces only moderate 1–2 % errors on bulk properties; if residual three-body operator effects grow near the continuum, both absolute energies and the finely tuned dripline shift outside the quoted uncertainty.

What would settle it

A precise mass measurement or continuum-aware ab initio calculation that places the two-neutron dripline of tin outside both quoted intervals (or firmly inside the EDF window A=174–178) would falsify the claimed location and its interaction dependence.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript advances Bogoliubov coupled-cluster theory by including non-iterative triples corrections (BCCSD[T]) for the first time and applies it to even-even tin isotopes from 100Sn to 180Sn using two chiral Hamiltonians (1.8/2.0 EM and Δ-N2LOGO). Ground-state energies and two-neutron separation energies are computed with residual many-body uncertainties reduced to ~1% of the correlation energy (plus ~3 MeV basis incompleteness). On the neutron-deficient side the calculations reproduce the N=50 shell closure and agree with recent Penning-trap-constrained extrapolations of S2n. On the neutron-rich side the drip line is predicted in the intervals A≈150–170 (EM) and A≈160–176 (Δ-N2LOGO), reflecting the flatness of S2n and remaining sensitivity to interaction details and residual systematics; this range is in tension with EDF predictions that place the drip line near A=174–178.

Significance. The work constitutes a genuine methodological advance: the first inclusion of triples in the Bogoliubov CC framework reduces many-body error by roughly an order of magnitude relative to earlier BCCSD surveys of the same chain, enabling precision tests of chiral interactions in the A~100–180 regime. The systematic comparison with VS-IMSRG, NLEFT and new mass extrapolations, together with open discussion of residual normal-ordering, continuum and particle-number-restoration uncertainties, makes the drip-line intervals falsifiable and useful for r-process network studies. Data are deposited on Zenodo, supporting reproducibility. If the quoted uncertainties hold, the demonstrated interaction sensitivity and the tension with EDF predictions are important for both nuclear-force phenomenology and astrophysical abundance calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. The drip-line claim (Fig. 3 and surrounding text) rests on S2n curves that become nearly flat near zero; residual systematics of a few MeV can therefore shift the zero-crossing by tens of mass units. The manuscript already lists the dominant sources (normal-ordering of 3N forces, basis incompleteness near the continuum, missing PN restoration) and quotes wide intervals. To make the claim fully load-bearing, a short quantitative estimate of how a 1–2% residual three-body-operator error (or continuum coupling) propagates into the A intervals for each Hamiltonian should be added, either by explicit variation or by a simple error-propagation argument.
  2. Footnote 1 notes that for 162Sn the BCCSD solution exhibits strong reference-state sensitivity (large ||T1|| norms) and that the triples correction is taken as an average over ħω=10 and 12 MeV. Because this nucleus lies inside the quoted drip-line window, a brief statement of the resulting uncertainty on S2n(162Sn) and whether it alters the lower edge of the EM interval is needed for internal consistency.
minor comments (4)
  1. Figure 1 caption and main text: the HO frequency used for VS-IMSRG (ħω=16 MeV) differs from the BCC value (ħω=12 MeV); a one-sentence remark that the comparison remains meaningful within the quoted basis uncertainty would help the reader.
  2. End Matter, Table II: the distinction between BCCSD[T], BCCSD(T) and BCCSD{T} with respect to particle-number shift is useful; a short cross-reference in the main text would clarify why only BCCSD[T] is employed for the production results.
  3. Typographical consistency: “ab initio” appears both with and without italics/hyphenation; “N=50” versus “N = 50”; and a few missing spaces around equals signs in the abstract and introduction.
  4. References [53,54] on r-process impact are cited but the concrete sensitivity of abundance patterns to a 10–20 unit shift in the Sn drip line is not quantified; a single sentence or pointer would strengthen the astrophysical motivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ab initio BCCSD[T] energies and S2n from external chiral Hamiltonians, with independent experimental and method comparisons; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations of prior BCC methodology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Chiral Hamiltonians (1.8/2.0 EM from Ref. [61], Δ-N2LOGO from Ref. [62]) are taken as external inputs without refitting to tin masses. Many-body equations (BCCSD amplitude equations plus non-iterative triples correction Et from Eqs. (2)–(3) and End Matter) are solved from the HFB reference without embedding the target S2n or dripline location. Dripline intervals (A≈150–170 and 160–176) are read off from computed S2n(N) curves crossing zero; residual uncertainties (normal-ordering 1–2 %, basis, missing PN restoration) are quantified separately and do not force the zero-crossing by construction. Comparisons to AME 2020, Penning-trap extrapolations, VS-IMSRG, NLEFT and EDF are independent external benchmarks. Self-citations (e.g. prior BCCSD works [13,25,46]) supply only the methodological framework already validated elsewhere; they are not used to import uniqueness theorems or to define the present observables. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled, and no result reduces to its own input by definition. Score 1 reflects only the ordinary presence of author-overlapping methodological citations that do not close any logical loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central dripline claim rests on two published chiral Hamiltonians, a controlled but approximate many-body truncation, and standard normal-ordering of three-nucleon forces. No new free parameters are fitted to tin data; the only adjustable numbers are conventional model-space cut-offs whose residual effect is estimated.

free parameters (2)
  • ħω (HO frequency) = 12 MeV
    Fixed at 12 MeV (with spot checks at 10 MeV); residual basis uncertainty estimated at ~3 MeV but not eliminated.
  • emax / E3max = 14 / 24
    One-body basis truncated at emax=14 and three-body at E3max=24; convergence claimed but residual incompleteness remains part of the error budget.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Chiral two- and three-nucleon interactions (1.8/2.0 EM and Δ-N2LOGO) are sufficiently soft and complete for A~100–180 nuclei once normal-ordered.
    Taken from Refs. [61,62] and used without re-fitting; residual interaction uncertainty is acknowledged as the dominant remaining error after many-body convergence.
  • domain assumption Normal-ordering of three-nucleon forces into a density-dependent two-body operator incurs only 1–2 % errors on bulk observables.
    Standard approximation in the field; residual three-body operator effects are not computed and could grow near the continuum.
  • ad hoc to paper BCCSD[T] residual error is ~1 % of the correlation energy and particle-number restoration can be neglected for energy differences at the present precision.
    Estimated from experience with closed-shell CC and from the size of triples corrections; not rigorously bounded for open-shell heavy systems.

reviewed 2026-07-11 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-precision ab initio calculations of nuclear binding energies: Tin isotopes from dripline to dripline." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5GSKIBP

@misc{pith2026260705086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-precision ab initio calculations of nuclear binding energies: Tin isotopes from dripline to dripline},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5GSKIBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05086}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The location of the neutron drip line in tin isotopes has important consequences for our fundamental understanding of nuclear structure and nuclear forces as well as for astrophysical nucleosynthesis. Performing high-precision ab initio calculations of even-even tin isotopes from $N=50$ to $N=126$ based on chiral two- and three-nucleon interactions, the predicted drip-line location is found to be highly sensitive to the employed nuclear interactions and to exhibit tension with recent energy-density-functional predictions. On the neutron-deficient side, results are consistent with extrapolated two-neutron separation energies constrained by recent Penning-trap mass measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05086 by Alexander Tichai, Pepijn Demol, Thomas Duguet, Urban Vernik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Ground-state energies of even-even tin isotopes with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-neutron separation energies around the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Absence of a shell closure in $^{140}$Sn

    nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Chiral-EFT ab initio computations yield a small 2+ energy in 140Sn under a closed 7/2- subshell assumption, contradicting that shell closure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hebeler, Phys

    K. Hebeler, Phys. Rep.890, 1 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Hergert, Front

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

    2020

  3. [3]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

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

    2009

  4. [4]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rep.503, 1 (2011). BCCSD{T} BCCSD(T) BCCSD[T] Def. of triples (21) (17) (17) Exp. forE (19)+(20) (19)+(20) (19) BMBPT(4) complete Yes Yes No PN shift Yes Yes No PN constrainable Yes No N/A Table II. Non-iterative triples methods along with the corre- sponding definition of six-quasi-particle amplitudes, expres- sion for...

    2011

  5. [5]

    Hammer, S

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

    2020

  6. [6]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 242501 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Miyagi, and T

    B.S.Hu, A.Ekström, C.Forssén, G.Hagen, W.G.Jiang, T. Miyagi, and T. Papenbrock, (2025), arXiv:2512.11723 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    S. J. Novario, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papen- brock, Phys. Rev. C102, 051303(R) (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Müller, M

    P. Müller, M. Heinz, P. Imgram, K. König, B. Maass, T. Miyagi, W. Nörtershäuser, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Nature Communications16, 6234 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Wolfgruber, T

    T. Wolfgruber, T. Gesser, M. Knöll, P. Maris, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C112, 014306 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    F. P. Gustafsson, L. V. Rodríguez, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, T. Miyagi, S. W. Bai, D. L. Balabanski, C. L. Binner- sley, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, T. E. Cocol- ios, G. J. Farooq-Smith, K. T. Flanagan, S. Franchoo, A. Galindo-Uribarri, G. Georgiev, W. Gins, C. Gorges, R. P. de Groote, H. Heylen, J. D. Holt, A. Kanel- lakopoulos, J. Karthein, S. Kaufmann,...

    2025

  13. [13]

    Demol, U

    P. Demol, U. Vernik, T. Duguet, and A. Tichai, Phys. Lett. B878, 140524 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    Miorelli, S

    M. Miorelli, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, G. Orlandini, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C94, 034317 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Bonaiti, S

    F. Bonaiti, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, and G. R. Jansen, Phys. Rev. C110, 044306 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Porro, A

    A. Porro, A. Schwenk, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C112, 054303 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    E. Zhou, C. Ding, J. Yao, B. Bally, H. Hergert, C. Jiao, and T. Rodríguez, Phys. Lett. B865, 139464 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Z. Li, T. Miyagi, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 182501 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Somá, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 133 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 134 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, 8 and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 155 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 233 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Stumpf, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152503 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Arthuis, C

    P. Arthuis, C. Barbieri, M. Vorabbi, and P. Finelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 182501 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Tichai, P

    A. Tichai, P. Demol, and T. Duguet, Phys. Lett. B851, 138571 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Arthuis, K

    P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, (2024), arXiv:2401.06675 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Door, C.-H

    M. Door, C.-H. Yeh, M. Heinz, F. Kirk, C. Lyu, T. Miyagi, J. C. Berengut, J. Bieroń, K. Blaum, L. S. Dreissen, S. Eliseev, P. Filianin, M. Filzinger, E. Fuchs, H. A. Fürst, G. Gaigalas, Z. Harman, J. Herkenhoff, N. Huntemann, C. H. Keitel, K. Kromer, D. Lange, A. Rischka, C. Schweiger, A. Schwenk, N. Shimizu, and T. E. Mehlstäubler, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 0...

    2025

  28. [28]

    Hildenbrand, S

    F. Hildenbrand, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, H. Meyer, Z. Ren, A. Herten, and M. Bode, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 062501 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    B. Hu, W. Jiang, T. Miyagi, Z. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, T. Papenbrock, S. R. Stroberg, and I. Vernon, Nat. Phys.18(2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Bonaiti, G

    F. Bonaiti, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Structure of the doubly magic nuclei208pb and 266pb from ab initio computations (2025), arXiv:2508.14217 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    V. Somà, T. Duguet, and C. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. C84, 064317 (2011)

    2011

  32. [32]

    Tichai, J

    A. Tichai, J. Langhammer, S. Binder, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B756, 283 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Tichai, R

    A. Tichai, R. Roth, and T. Duguet, Front. Phys.8, 164 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 096302 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    Tsukiyama, S

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

    2011

  36. [36]

    Tsukiyama, S

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

    2012

  37. [37]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 377 (2004)

    2004

  38. [38]

    Somà, Front

    V. Somà, Front. in Phys.8, 340 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    V. Somà, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, and P. Navrátil, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 135 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Hagen, G

    G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 172501 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 142501 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C 90, 041302(R) (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    Hergert, Phys

    H. Hergert, Phys. Scr.92, 023002 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    V. Somà, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, P. Navrátil, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C89, 061301(R) (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Signoracci, T

    A. Signoracci, T. Duguet, G. Hagen, and G. Jansen, Phys. Rev. C91, 064320 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    Duguet, J

    T. Duguet, J. Phys. G42, 025107 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Duguet and A

    T. Duguet and A. Signoracci, J. Phys. G44, 015103 (2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    Tichai, P

    A. Tichai, P. Arthuis, T. Duguet, H. Hergert, V. Somá, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B786, 195 (2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Engel, R. Wirth, T. R. Rodríguez, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 232501 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    Hagen, S

    G. Hagen, S. J. Novario, Z. H. Sun, T. Papenbrock, G. R. Jansen, J. G. Lietz, T. Duguet, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C105, 064311 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Marino, F

    F. Marino, F. Bonaiti, P. Demol, S. Bacca, T. Duguet, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C113, 044301 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    Storbacka and C

    M. Storbacka and C. Qi, Phys. Lett. B855, 138822 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Kuske, T

    J. Kuske, T. Miyagi, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Theoretical and Mathematical Physics)(Springer,2005)

    2005

  56. [56]

    Binder, P

    S. Binder, P. Piecuch, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, P. Navrátil, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. C88, 054319 (2013)

    2013

  57. [57]

    Miorelli, S

    M. Miorelli, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C98, 014324 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    Pulay, Chem

    P. Pulay, Chem. Phys. Lett.73, 393 (1980)

    1980

  59. [59]

    Demol,Ab initio description of singly open-shell nuclei via Bogoliubov coupled-cluster theory, Ph.D

    P. Demol,Ab initio description of singly open-shell nuclei via Bogoliubov coupled-cluster theory, Ph.D. thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Vernik,Triples Extension to Bogoliubov Coupled Clus- ter Theory, Master’s thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Bel- gium (2024)

    U. Vernik,Triples Extension to Bogoliubov Coupled Clus- ter Theory, Master’s thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Bel- gium (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C83, 031301(R) (2011)

    2011

  62. [62]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C102, 054301 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    Miyagi, S

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

    2022

  64. [64]

    Hagen, T

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

    2007

  65. [65]

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

    2012

  66. [66]

    Ripoche, A

    J. Ripoche, A. Tichai, and T. Duguet, Eur. Phys. J A 56, 02 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, B. Bally, Y. Beaujeault-Taudière, J.-P.Ebran,andV.Somà,Eur.Phys.J.A57,151(2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Heinz, A

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

    2021

  69. [69]

    Heinz, T

    M. Heinz, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C111, 034311 (2025)

    2025

  70. [70]

    Mougeot, D

    M. Mougeot, D. Atanasov, J. Karthein, R. N. Wolf, P. Ascher, K. Blaum, K. Chrysalidis, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, W. J. Huang, G. R. Jansen, I. Kulikov, Y. A. Litvinov, D. Lunney, V. Manea, T. Miyagi, T. Papen- brock, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, T. Steinsberger, S. R. Stroberg, Z. H. Sun, A. Welker, F. Wienholtz, S. G. Wilkins, and K. Zuber, Nature Physics17, ...

    2021

  71. [71]

    C. M. Ireland, F. M. Maier, G. Bollen, S. E. Campbell, X. Chen, H. Erington, N. D. Gamage, M. J. Gutiér- rez, C. Izzo, E. Leistenschneider, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, R. Orford, W. S. Porter, D. Puentes, M. Redshaw, R. Ringle, S. Rogers, S. Schwarz, L. Stackable, C. S. Sumithrarachchi, A. A. Valverde, A. C. C. Villari, and I. T. Yandow, Phys. Rev. C111, 014314 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    C. M. Ireland, G. Bollen, S. E. Campbell, X. Chen, 9 H. Erington, N. D. Gamage, K. Godbey, A. M. Houff, C. Izzo, B. Knight, S. Lalit, E. Leistenschneider, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, F. M. Maier, W. Nazarewicz, R. Orford, W. S. Porter, C. Quick, A. Ravlić, M. Redshaw, P.-G. Reinhard, R. Ringle, S. Schwarz, C. S. Sumithrarachchi, A. A. Valverde, and A. C. C. Vil...

    2026

  73. [73]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, A. M. Perhac, and M. Stoitsov, Nature486, 509 (2012)

    2012

  74. [74]

    Neufcourt, Y

    L. Neufcourt, Y. Cao, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, and O. B. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. C101, 044307 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    B. Hu, Q. Wu, J. Li, Y. Ma, Z. Sun, N. Michel, and F. Xu, Phys. Lett. B802, 135206 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Vernik, P

    U. Vernik, P. Demol, T. Duguet, and A. Tichai, 10.5281/zenodo.20931252 (2026)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20931252 2026

  77. [77]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett,Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory, Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009)

    2009

  78. [78]

    Urban, J

    M. Urban, J. Noga, S. J. Cole, and R. J. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys.83, 4041 (1985)

    1985

  79. [79]

    Raghavachari, G

    K. Raghavachari, G. W. Trucks, J. A. Pople, and M. Head-Gordon, Chem. Phys. Lett.157, 479 (1989)

    1989

  80. [80]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, The Journal of Chemical Physics128, 044110 (2008)

    2008

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 11, 2026.