Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Benchmarking electromagnetic observables in angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock reproduces full configuration-interaction electromagnetic observables reasonably well across selected sd- and pf-shell nuclei, including odd-A and odd-odd cases, though a few clear failures remain.

desk verdict A clean and honest PHF-vs-FCI benchmark for E2/M1 observables, with a useful density-matrix appendix; the hand-picked cases and qualitative error metrics keep the 'reasonably good agreement' claim from being fully quantitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06281 v1 pith:CO5GYR6L submitted 2026-08-06 nucl-th

Raul Bernal-Gonzalez , Calvin W. Johnson This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords angular-momentumprojectionprojectedHartree-FockshellmodelconfigurationinteractionbenchmarkE2transitionsM1electromagneticmomentssd/pfvalencespaces
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

Angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock (PHF) is a deliberately simple approximation: a single Slater determinant minimized by Hartree-Fock, then projected onto good angular momentum after variation. This paper asks whether such a cheap state can reproduce the electric quadrupole (E2) and magnetic dipole (M1) moments and transition strengths of full configuration-interaction (FCI) shell-model calculations. Benchmarking selected nuclei in the sd and pf shells with identical model spaces and interactions, the authors find reasonably good agreement for many even-even, odd-A, and odd-odd nuclei, with M1 observables agreeing better than expected. The agreement is qualified: quadrupole observables in 46Ti and B(E2) values in 34S are poorly reproduced. The point matters because PHF is a stepping stone for more elaborate many-body methods, so knowing what its bare densities get right is useful.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is angular-momentum projected-after-variation Hartree-Fock (PHF): one or more real Slater determinants obtained by unconstrained Hartree-Fock minimization, projected onto good total angular momentum by solving a small linear-algebra problem rather than by quadrature. From the projected states the authors construct one-body density matrices for arbitrary angular-momentum rank, then fold in single-particle reduced matrix elements, with effective charges and bare g-factors, to obtain moments and B-values. The same density-matrix pipeline is applied to FCI wave functions, so the two methods differ only in the densities, not in the operator treatment.

What would settle it

Compute PHF and FCI electromagnetic observables for all sd-shell and pf-shell nuclei (even-even, odd-A, and odd-odd) with the same interactions and operator conventions, and compare average relative deviations in B(E2) and B(M1); if the mean deviation over the full set is much larger than the scatter in the cases plotted here, the claim of reasonably good agreement would be refuted. A single sharper check: if the near-factor-of-two error in 34S B(E2) values recurs across a wide sample, the successes in the other nuclei are not representative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PHF, with no adjustment beyond the standard effective charges and bare g-factors, reproduces FCI electromagnetic observables well enough to serve as a simple alternative and as a foundation for more sophisticated methods. Using the same shell-model Hamiltonian and basis for both PHF and FCI, the authors extract one-body density matrices from angular-momentum-projected states and compute E2 and M1 moments and transitions through reduced matrix elements. They report that M1 moments are frequently well reproduced, including in odd-A and odd-odd nuclei, and that E2 observables are usually but not always reliable, with the exceptions of 46Ti quadrupole moments and transitions and 34S B(E2) values. The paper also notes that including multiple Hartree-Fock minima improves agreement in shape-coexisting cases, consistent with earlier spectral benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that PHF is broadly reliable rests on the assumption that the select sd- and pf-shell nuclei are representative, since no systematic criterion or aggregate error statistic over the full space is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PHF can stand in for FCI for electromagnetic observables in medium-light nuclei when full diagonalization is impractical, at least for the kinds of states tested here.
  • The reasonable M1 agreement indicates that simple projected mean-field states carry enough spin and orbital structure to be a useful starting point for magnetic observables, not just spectra.
  • When shape coexistence is present, using multiple Hartree-Fock minima rather than a single one is a cheap way to improve both spectra and electromagnetic observables.
  • The documented failures in 46Ti and 34S mean PHF should be validated against FCI or experiment before being trusted for quadrupole observables in specific nuclei.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the benchmark set is small and selected without a stated sampling rule, the 'reasonably good agreement' conclusion is likely to be read as a proof of concept rather than a statistical statement; a comprehensive sd/pf scan reporting mean absolute deviations would either confirm the pattern or reveal that the selected nuclei are unusually favorable.
  • The 46Ti and 34S failures suggest that quadrupole agreement is not guaranteed by deformation alone; a natural testable hypothesis is that PHF fails when the FCI state has meaningful configuration mixing beyond a single intrinsic shape, and that adding more reference states or a generator-coordinate step restores agreement.
  • The general one-body density formalism in the appendix could be reused for other rank-one and rank-two operators, such as those entering neutrino responses or dark-matter scattering, without re-deriving the projection machinery.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks angular-momentum projected after-variation Hartree-Fock (PHF) against full configuration interaction (FCI) for electric quadrupole (E2) and magnetic dipole (M1) moments and transitions in sd- and pf-shell nuclei. Both sets of calculations use the same model spaces, the same interactions (USDB and GX1A), and the same density-matrix pipeline, so the comparison isolates the PHF approximation error. The authors report reasonable agreement in many cases, including some odd-A and odd-odd nuclides, while explicitly acknowledging failures such as the 46Ti quadrupole observables and the 34S B(E2) values reported in Appendix B. An appendix derives the general formalism for one-body density matrices in multi-reference angular-momentum projection.

Significance. If the benchmarking were systematic, the paper would be a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a cheap mean-field-based method can reproduce several electromagnetic observables in a shell-model space, and it provides a detailed density-matrix formalism that will be useful for other applications such as dark-matter scattering calculations. The clean comparison setup, the absence of parameters fitted to the benchmarked quantities (effective charges, g-factors, and the oscillator parameter are standard literature values), and the explicit reporting of failures are all strengths. However, the current selection of nuclei and the lack of quantitative error metrics substantially limit the generality of the central claim. The methodological appendix is the strongest part of the paper; the benchmark conclusions need additional support before they can be regarded as a robust statement about PHF reliability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and Appendix B] The benchmark set is assembled without a stated selection criterion, and the central claim of 'reasonably good agreement' is not backed by quantitative aggregate measures. For example, the only data for 34S appear in Appendix B without discussion, and Table XI shows B(E2; 2+1 -> 0+1) = 20.77 e^2 fm^4 versus FCI 37.09 e^2 fm^4, a factor of 1.8 discrepancy; similarly, Section III.B reports 'poor agreement' for the 46Ti quadrupole observables. These failures are acknowledged but not integrated into any average deviation, median ratio, or fraction-within-tolerance statistic across the eleven nuclei. Without such metrics or a defined inclusion criterion, the qualitative conclusion is not falsifiable, and the phrase 'widest systematic such benchmarking' in Section III is not justified.
  2. [Section III, odd-A and odd-odd subsections] The correspondence between PHF and FCI states is not established for dense spectra. In Tables V, VII, and X and in the 48V and 63Zn discussions, states are labeled by total angular momentum and energy ordering, but no overlaps or wave-function similarity measures are reported. A PHF state that is the n-th state of a given J need not be the same physical state as the FCI n-th state, so comparisons of B(M1) and B(E2) values under this labeling can be meaningless. Because the paper's most surprising claim concerns odd-A and odd-odd nuclides, this state-assignment ambiguity is a load-bearing gap that should be addressed, for example by reporting overlaps or at least by restricting the comparison to states whose correspondence is supported by band structure or dominant configurations.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim that magnetic dipole 'transitions are overall better than expected' is not supported by the tabulated B(M1) data. In Table VII (25Mg), several B(M1) values differ from FCI by large factors, e.g., 13/2+1 -> 11/2+1: 0.01 vs 0.79 mu_N^2, and 5/2+2 -> 3/2+1: 0.01 vs 0.53 mu_N^2. The text in Section III.B states that B(M1) for 48V has 'several significant outliers' and that B(M1) for 63Zn 'do not agree well.' The abstract's wording thus appears to overstate the agreement for M1 transitions, even though M1 moments do agree well in several cases. This should be reworded to distinguish moments from transitions and to acknowledge the quantitative spread.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 20] The caption reads 'B(M2) transition strengths' but should read 'B(E2) transition strengths' for 64Cu.
  2. [Figure 18] Figure 18 appears to be an uncited duplicate of Figure 17(a); please remove it or reference it in the text.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'transitinos' in Section III.A, 'Cartersian' in Section II.C, 'Clebsh-Gordan' in Appendix A, 'seperate' in the Table IV caption, 'valance' in the Table V caption, and 'Mev' in the 48V discussion in Section III.B.
  4. [Figures 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 19, 21] The axis labels in several scatter plots are small and difficult to read; increasing the font size or adjusting the layout would improve legibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PHF electromagnetic observables are benchmarked against an independent FCI diagonalization with shared operators and fixed literature constants, so no prediction reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is structurally non-circular. The FCI results are obtained by exact Lanczos diagonalization of the same shell-model Hamiltonian in the same model space, entirely independent of the PHF wave functions. The PHF states are generated by minimizing the Hamiltonian expectation value over Slater determinants and then projecting; electromagnetic observables are computed afterward from one-body density matrices and do not feed back into the wave-function optimization. The E2 effective charges (e_p = 1.5e, e_n = 0.5e), the oscillator parameter b ≈ 1.0 A^(1/6) fm, and the bare M1 g-factors are standard literature values and are applied identically to both FCI and PHF, so no parameter is fitted to the PHF-FCI differences and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to prior projected-Hartree-Fock work [16] and to projection techniques [22,23] provide algorithmic background, but the electromagnetic benchmark itself is carried out here with new numerical results, so the central claim does not rest on an unverified self-citation chain. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or smuggle in an ansatz via citation. The unsystematic selection of benchmark nuclei and the lack of aggregate error metrics are legitimate concerns about generalization, not instances of circular derivation; they do not make the FCI-vs-PHF comparison self-referential. Therefore no circular step is present and the paper can be evaluated on the quality and representativeness of its benchmark choices rather than on circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark is a direct numerical comparison inside a fixed model space; no new physics parameters or entities are introduced. The external inputs are standard interactions and standard operator constants, and they are identical for both methods, so the comparison isolates the effect of the PHF approximation.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective charges e_p, e_n = e_p = 1.5e, e_n = 0.5e
    Standard effective charges from the sd-shell literature, used identically for FCI and PHF. They set the scale of E2 observables but do not affect the relative benchmark.
  • Oscillator parameter b = b = 1.0 A^(1/6) fm
    Standard radial parameter for the harmonic-oscillator basis, shared by both methods.
  • Bare g factors = g_l,p=1, g_l,n=0; g_s,p=5.5857 mu_N, g_s,n=-3.2863 mu_N
    Standard bare nucleon g factors from the literature, used identically for FCI and PHF.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Angular momentum projection by solving linear equations correctly restores good J from the broken-symmetry Slater determinant.
    Used throughout Section II.B and Appendix A; this is an established mathematical procedure.
  • domain assumption Full configuration interaction in the M-scheme basis gives the exact solution of the shell-model Hamiltonian within the chosen model space.
    This is the reference standard against which PHF is benchmarked; exact by construction in the finite basis.
  • domain assumption The chosen shell-model spaces (sd with USDB, pf with GX1A) and valence spaces are appropriate for the selected nuclei.
    The validity of the benchmark as a statement about nuclear structure depends on these standard interactions and spaces being meaningful references.
  • domain assumption The restricted HF search, using real Slater determinants with RT symmetry and multiple random starts, finds the relevant minima.
    The projection quality depends on the mean-field minima; the paper relies on gradient descent from random starts but does not prove completeness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking electromagnetic observables in angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CO5GYR6L

@misc{pith2026260806281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking electromagnetic observables in angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CO5GYR6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06281}
}
abstract

We benchmark electromagnetic transitions and moments (electric quadrupole and magnetic dipole) in angular-momentum projected-after-variation Hartree-Fock calculations against full configuration-interaction diagonalization results in a shell model basis. For such a simple approximation we find reasonably good agreement, including for many odd-$A$ and odd-odd nuclides. As previous work on excitation spectra found, results are frequently improved in cases with shape coexistence. Here we considered select cases from the $sd$- and $pf$-valences spaces. While electric quadrupole moments and transitions are, as one might expect, frequently (though not always) well reproduced, especially in even-even nuclides, magnetic dipole moments and transitions are overall better than expected. This continues the benchmarking of projected Hartree-Fock as a simple yet effective alternative to full configuration-interaction as well as an underlying foundation for many other many-body methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A16) below

    Compute uncoupled density matrix elements between two reference states (one of which may be rotated), Eq. (A16) below

    work page

  2. [2]

    Extract angular-momentum coupled densities using Clebsh-Gordan coeffients, Eq. (A17)

    work page

  3. [3]

    By quadrature or linear algebra, project out good angular momentum from the reference state|B⟩,Eq. A19)

    work page

  4. [4]

    (A useful check, however, is to reverse the order of steps (ii) and (iii), see Eq. (A21).)

    work page

  5. [5]

    By further coupling with Clebsch-Gordan coefficients extract the desired coupled density matrix element, Eq. (A14). We start by noting that a coupled one-body operator with good angular momentumJ t and third componentM t is h ˆa† ⊗ ˜b i Jt,Mt = X mimj ˆa† mi ˜b−mj (jami, jb −m j|JtMt) = X mimj ˆa† mi ˆbmj (−1)jb−mj (jami, jb −m j|JtMt),(A15) where we use ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    20Ne 20Ne has two HF minima, a prolate minimum at -36.40 MeV, and a second oblate local minimum at -31.83 MeV. 21 E(Mev) Ex (MeV) Q(e-fm 2) µ(µ N ) J π n FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF 0+ 1 -40.47 -39.90 0.0 0.0 – – – – 2+ 1 -38.72 -38.41 1.75 1.50 -13.63 -13.65 1.02 1.02 4+ 1 -36.30 -36.01 4.18 3.90 -17.06 -17.34 2.05 2.03 0+ 2 -33.77 -32.66 6.70 7.24 –...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Here we compare full configuration-interaction (FCI) versus angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock (PHF).µ N is the nuclear magneton

    24Mg 24Mg has a prolate and weakly triaxial (γ= 11.94 ◦) HF minima at -80.97 MeV E(MeV) Ex (MeV) Q(e-fm 2) µ(µ N ) J π n FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF 0+ 1 -87.10 -85.32 0.00 0.00 – – – – 2+ 1 -85.60 -84.05 1.50 1.28 -16.94 -17.14 1.03 1.02 2+ 2 -82.99 -81.37 4.12 3.95 +17.21 +17.45 1.04 1.04 4+ 1 -82.73 -81.21 4.37 4.11 -21.00 -21.10 2.07 2.04 3+ 1 -82...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Here we compare full configuration-interaction (FCI) versus angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock (PHF).µ N is the nuclear magneton

    25Mg 25Mg has a triaxial (γ= 19.08 ◦) HF minima at -89.11 MeV E(MeV) Ex (MeV) Q(e-fm 2) µ(µ N ) J π n FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF 5/2+ 1 -94.40 -92.65 0.00 0.00 +19.75 +20.57 -0.85 -0.79 1/2+ 1 -93.80 -91.39 0.61 1.26 – – -0.45 -0.77 3/2+ 1 -93.30 -91.18 1.10 1.47 -12.33 -12.24 +0.75 +0.64 7/2+ 1 -92.68 -91.05 1.72 1.60 +2.59 +2.45 +0.37 +0.39 5/2+ 2 ...

    work page

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    We compare full configuration-interaction (FCI) and angular-momentum projected Hartree-Fock (PHF) results

    32Si 32Si has an oblate HF minima at -166.344 MeV 23 B(M1) (µ2 N ) i→f FCI PHF 3/2+ 1 →1/2 + 1 0.02 0.18 7/2+ 1 →5/2 + 1 0.53 0.56 9/2+ 1 →7/2 + 1 0.68 0.57 11/2+ 1 →9/2 + 1 0.15 0.48 13/2+ 1 →11/2 + 1 0.01 0.79 7/2+ 2 →5/2 + 2 0.01 0.17 9/2+ 2 →7/2 + 2 0.00 0.00 7/2+ 3 →5/2 +...

  2. [10]

    An oblate minima at -198.097 MeV and a prolate (γ= 1.53) local minima at -197.026 Mev

    34S 34S has 2 HF minima. An oblate minima at -198.097 MeV and a prolate (γ= 1.53) local minima at -197.026 Mev. E(MeV) Ex (MeV) Q(e-fm 2) µ(µ N ) J π n FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF FCI PHF 0+ 1 -202.50 -200.17 0.00 0.00 – – – – 2+ 1 -200.37 -198.25 2.13 1.93 +3.97 +8.19 1.09 0.83 2...

  3. [11]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    Peter Ring and Peter Schuck.The nuclear many-body problem. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Brussard and P.W.M

    P.J. Brussard and P.W.M. Glaudemans.Shell-model applications in nuclear spectroscopy. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977

    1977

  5. [13]

    Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977

    Ian Stuart Towner.A shell model description of light nuclei. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977

    1977

  6. [14]

    Clarendon Press Oxford, 1980

    RD Lawson and RD Lawson.Theory of the nuclear shell model. Clarendon Press Oxford, 1980

    1980

  7. [15]

    B. A. Brown and B. H. Wildenthal. Status of the nuclear shell model.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 38:29–66, 1988

    1988

  8. [16]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker. The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure.Reviews of Modern Physics, 77:427–488, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    The generator coordinate method and quantised collective motion in nuclear systems.Reports on Progress in Physics, 50(1):1, 1987

    P-G Reinhard and K Goeke. The generator coordinate method and quantised collective motion in nuclear systems.Reports on Progress in Physics, 50(1):1, 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    Mean field and beyond description of nuclear structure with the Gogny force: a review.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 46(1):013001, 2018

    LM Robledo, TR Rodr ´ ıguez, and RR Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an. Mean field and beyond description of nuclear structure with the Gogny force: a review.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 46(1):013001, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Systematics of collective correlation energies from self-consistent mean-field calculations.The European Physical Journal A, 37(3):343–355, 2008

    P Kl¨ upfel, J Erler, P-G Reinhard, and JA Maruhn. Systematics of collective correlation energies from self-consistent mean-field calculations.The European Physical Journal A, 37(3):343–355, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Nuclear shell model by the quantum Monte Carlo diagonalization method.Phys

    Michio Honma, Takahiro Mizusaki, and Takaharu Otsuka. Nuclear shell model by the quantum Monte Carlo diagonalization method.Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:3315–3318, Oct 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Monte Carlo shell model for atomic nuclei.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 47(1):319–400, 2001

    T Otsuka, M Honma, T Mizusaki, N Shimizu, and Y Utsuno. Monte Carlo shell model for atomic nuclei.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 47(1):319–400, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    Hagen, S

    G. Hagen, S. J. Novario, Z. H. Sun, T. Papenbrock, G. R. Jansen, J. G. Lietz, T. Duguet, and A. Tichai. Angular- momentum projection in coupled-cluster theory: Structure of 34Mg.Phys. Rev. C, 105:064311, Jun 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    B. S. Hu, Z. H. Sun, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock. Ab initio computations of strongly deformed nuclei near 80Zr.Phys. Rev. C, 110:L011302, Jul 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Projected Hartree–Fock theory.The Journal of chemical physics, 136(16):164109, 2012

    Carlos A Jim´ enez-Hoyos, Thomas M Henderson, Takashi Tsuchimochi, and Gustavo E Scuseria. Projected Hartree–Fock theory.The Journal of chemical physics, 136(16):164109, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Symmetry restoration in mean-field approaches.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48(12):123001, 2021

    Javid A Sheikh, J Dobaczewski, Peter Ring, Luis Miguel Robledo, and Constantine Yannouleas. Symmetry restoration in mean-field approaches.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48(12):123001, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Benchmarking angular-momentum projected hartree–fock as an approximation.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48(9):095107, 2021

    Stephanie M Lauber, Hayden C Frye, and Calvin W Johnson. Benchmarking angular-momentum projected hartree–fock as an approximation.Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48(9):095107, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Exact solutions of the nuclear shell-model secular problem: Discrete nonorthogonal shell model within a variation-after-projection approach.Phys

    Duy Duc Dao and Fr´ ed´ eric Nowacki. Exact solutions of the nuclear shell-model secular problem: Discrete nonorthogonal shell model within a variation-after-projection approach.Phys. Rev. C, 114:014327, Jul 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Johnson, W

    Calvin W. Johnson, W. Erich Ormand, and Plamen G. Krastev. Factorization in large-scale many-body calculations. Computer Physics Communications, 184(12):2761 – 2774, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Bigstick: A flexible configuration- interaction shell-model code.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08432, 2018

    Calvin W Johnson, W Erich Ormand, Kenneth S McElvain, and Hongzhang Shan. Bigstick: A flexible configuration- interaction shell-model code.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08432, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    R. R. Whitehead, A. Watt, B. J. Cole, and I. Morrison. Computational methods for shell model calculations.Advances in Nuclear Physics, 9:123–176, 1977

    1977

  23. [31]

    Stetcu and C

    I. Stetcu and C. W. Johnson. Random phase approximation vs exact shell-model correlation energies.Phys. Rev. C, 66:034301, 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    C. W. Johnson and K. D. O’Mara. Projection of angular momentum via linear algebra.Phys. Rev. C, 96:064304, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    C. W. Johnson and C. F. Jiao. Convergence and efficiency of angular momentum projection.J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 46:015101, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    W. A. Richter, S. Mkhize, and B. Alex Brown.sd-shell observables for the USDA and USDB Hamiltonians.Phys. Rev. C, 78:064302, Dec 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Horoi, B

    M. Horoi, B. A. Brown, T. Otsuka, M. Honma, and T. Mizusaki. Shell model analysis of the 56Ni spectrum in the fullpf model space.Phys. Rev. C, 73:061305, Jun 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Princeton University Press, 1996

    Alan Robert Edmonds.Angular momentum in quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press, 1996

    1996

  29. [37]

    M. R. Gunye and Chindhu S. Warke. Electromagnetic properties of nuclei calculated from projected Hartree-Fock wave functions.Phys. Rev., 159:885–891, Jul 1967

    1967

  30. [38]

    Electromagnetic transitions and radiative capture in the generator-coordinate method

    D Baye and Pierre Descouvemont. Electromagnetic transitions and radiative capture in the generator-coordinate method. Nuclear Physics A, 407(1-2):77–97, 1983

    1983

  31. [39]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, J

    R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, J. L. Egido, and L. M. Robledo. Quadrupole collectivity inN≈28 nuclei with the angular momentum projected generator coordinate method.Phys. Rev. C, 65:024304, Jan 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    J. M. Yao, J. Engel, L. J. Wang, C. F. Jiao, and H. Hergert. Generator-coordinate reference states for spectra and 0νββ decay in the in-medium similarity renormalization group.Phys. Rev. C, 98:054311, Nov 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Generator-coordinate methods with symmetry-restored Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wave functions for large-scale shell-model calculations.Phys

    Noritaka Shimizu, Takahiro Mizusaki, Kazunari Kaneko, and Yusuke Tsunoda. Generator-coordinate methods with symmetry-restored Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov wave functions for large-scale shell-model calculations.Phys. Rev. C, 103:064302, Jun 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Alex Brown and W

    B. Alex Brown and W. A. Richter. New “USD” Hamiltonians for thesdshell.Phys. Rev. C, 74:034315, Sep 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki. Effective interaction forpf-shell nuclei.Phys. Rev. C, 65:061301, May 2002. 26

    2002

  36. [44]

    Honma, T

    M. Honma, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, and T. Mizusaki. New effective interaction forpf-shell nuclei and its implications for the stability of theN=Z= 28 closed core.Phys. Rev. C, 69:034335, Mar 2004

    2004

  37. [45]

    Shell-model description of neutron-rich pf-shell nuclei with a new effective interaction GXPF1.Eur

    M Honma, T Otsuka, BA Brown, and T Mizusaki. Shell-model description of neutron-rich pf-shell nuclei with a new effective interaction GXPF1.Eur. Phys. J. A, 25(1):499–502, 2005

    2005

  38. [46]

    dmscatter: A fast program for WIMP- nucleus scattering.Computer Physics Communications, 284:108597, 2023

    Oliver C Gorton, Calvin W Johnson, Changfeng Jiao, and Jonathan Nikoleyczik. dmscatter: A fast program for WIMP- nucleus scattering.Computer Physics Communications, 284:108597, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    G. H. Lang, C. W. Johnson, S. E. Koonin, and W. E. Ormand. Monte Carlo evaluation of path integrals for the nuclear shell model.Phys. Rev. C, 48:1518–1545, Oct 1993

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.