Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Ab Initio Complex Scaling and Similarity Renormalization Group for Continuum Properties of Nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a phase-adjusted renormalization group after complex scaling turns nuclear resonance problems into stable bound-state calculations.

desk verdict A genuinely new CS+SRG combination with honest benchmarking; the broad-resonance numbers rest on an extrapolation the authors themselves say is not robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01595 v1 pith:EWCVIBR3 submitted 2025-07-02 nucl-th

Osama Yaghi , Guillaume Hupin , Petr Navrátil This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords complexscalingsimilarityrenormalizationgroupno-coreshellmodelnuclearresonancescontinuumhelium-4tetraneutronchiraleffectivefieldtheory
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

This paper aims to establish that resonance properties of light nuclei—energies, widths, and thresholds—can be computed with ordinary bound-state many-body codes, bypassing the need for explicit continuum basis states. It does this by combining complex scaling, which rotates decaying states into square-integrable form, with the similarity renormalization group, run after the rotation with a phase-compensated generator that restores fast convergence. Benchmarked on helium-4, the method yields narrow-resonance parameters in line with R-matrix evaluations, shows that chiral NN interactions put broad T=1 states about 2-3 MeV too low, and finds no tetraneutron resonance near 0.8 MeV. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach, if correct, makes the nuclear continuum accessible for systems heavier than helium using existing computational tools.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified SRG generator $\eta(s)=e^{4i\theta}[T_\theta(s),H_\theta(s)]$. Complex scaling by angle $\theta$ multiplies kinetic operators by a phase; the $e^{4i\theta}$ factor compensates that phase so that the flow again suppresses off-diagonal matrix elements, which standard SRG generators stop doing once $\theta$ exceeds roughly 0.2 rad. The other load-bearing element is a momentum-space representation of the NN potential as a sum of $N_f$ functional basis functions, which keeps the complex-rotated integrals stable and pushes the validity of the ABC rotated-spectrum picture to $\theta\approx0.57$ rad in two-body tests. The solver is the translationally invariant No-Core Shell Model, a bound-state method, applied to the evolved CS-SRG Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Take the same chiral Hamiltonian and compute the four-nucleon scattering problem with explicit continuum boundary conditions, without complex rotation; extract the S-matrix pole of the lowest 0+;0 state and compare its energy and width with the extrapolated values in Table I. A disagreement beyond the quoted uncertainties would locate the failure in the theta and Nmax extrapolation rather than in the Hamiltonian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that the order of transformations is the key: when the similarity renormalization group is applied after complex scaling with a standard generator, off-diagonal suppression fails beyond rotation angles around 0.2 rad, but with the phase-compensated generator $\eta(s) = e^{4i\theta}[T_\theta(s), H_\theta(s)]$ the flow again decouples low- and high-momentum scales. The resulting CS-SRG Hamiltonian is diagonalized in a translationally invariant No-Core Shell Model basis, and resonance states appear as isolated eigenvalues whose position is stable against changes in the oscillator parameter $\hbar\omega$, while continuum states slide along the rotated cut. Extrapolations in model-space size and rotation angle then give resonance centroids and widths. On $^4$He the method reproduces the narrow evaluated resonances, shifts the broad T=1 states down by 2-3 MeV, and produces only continuum eigenvalues for the tetraneutron, so no 4n resonance near 0.8 MeV is seen.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the adjusted renormalization step preserving the true complex-scaled energy levels, and on the extrapolations from rotation angles no larger than about 0.3 radians and from finite basis sizes recovering the real resonance positions and widths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resonance energies and widths of light nuclei can be extracted from bound-state NCSM calculations, eliminating the need for explicit continuum basis states in this mass range.
  • For helium-4, narrow resonance parameters match R-matrix evaluations, while the broad T=1 states come out 2-3 MeV lower, so the evaluated widths of those states are not reproduced by the chiral NN interactions tested.
  • The 4He resonance spectrum depends only weakly on the NN parametrization, on the order of 100 keV, which points to 3N interactions as the likely source of any needed correction.
  • The same method sees no tetraneutron resonance near 0.8 MeV, supporting the body of few-body calculations that rule out such a state.
  • Because the solver is a bound-state code, the approach extends to A>4 systems and, with heavier ab initio methods, toward nuclei up to about A=16.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same phase-compensation idea may transfer to other complex-energy many-body approaches, wherever a rotation or Gamow-type basis changes the phase of the kinetic term; the $e^{4i\theta}$ factor is a template rather than a 4He-specific fix.
  • The systematic 2-3 MeV downward shift of broad T=1 4He states raises a question the paper leaves open: whether the R-matrix evaluated centroids and widths for these broad states are partly artifacts of the extraction model. A dedicated R-matrix reanalysis that treats the pole positions as free would separate force error from method error.
  • A natural next calculation would repeat the 4He spectrum with explicit chiral three-nucleon forces, since the paper includes only the induced 3N contribution, and watch whether the broad T=1 widths rise toward the evaluated values.
  • The functional-basis decomposition used here could be adopted as a general device for evaluating complex-rotated matrix elements of non-analytic potentials, independent of the SRG piece.
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 manuscript proposes a new ab initio method for nuclear continuum properties, combining complex scaling (CS) with similarity renormalization group (SRG) evolution performed after the complex rotation, and using a translationally invariant no-core shell model (NCSM) as the bound-state solver. The authors introduce a functional-basis representation of the chiral NN interaction, a modified SRG generator with an e^{4iθ} phase factor, and extrapolation procedures in Nmax and θ. They benchmark the complex-scaled spectrum on the np system up to θ = 0.57 rad, demonstrate improved Nmax convergence for the triton, and then extract resonance centroids and widths for 4He using three chiral NN interactions plus induced 3N forces, comparing with R-matrix evaluations. They find reasonable agreement for narrow T = 0 and some T = 1 centroids, but report downward shifts of broad T = 1 states and underestimated widths. As an application, they conclude that there is no tetraneutron resonance near 0.8 MeV. The central claim is that this CS-SRG-NCSM combination overcomes previous numerical limitations and makes bound-state NCSM solvers suitable for continuum studies of light nuclei.

Significance. If the extrapolation protocol were validated, this method would represent a practical advance: it avoids explicit continuum basis sets and would allow continuum properties to be studied with standard bound-state NCSM codes for A > 4 systems. The paper has genuine strengths: (i) the np benchmark validates the ABC spectrum up to 72% of the HO basis θmax; (ii) the triton convergence plots clearly show an SRG benefit over the bare CS Hamiltonian; (iii) the comparison with R-matrix data uses chiral Hamiltonians taken from the literature without tuning to 4He data, so the agreement for narrow states is a meaningful external benchmark; (iv) the tetraneutron conclusion is consistent with the majority of few-body calculations. However, the quantitative case for broad resonances and for the abstract's broad claim of 'a reliable representation of the initial Hamiltonian and its continuum properties' rests on an extrapolation in θ and Nmax that the authors themselves state is not yet robust. The paper is honest about these limitations, but the claims in the abstract and conclusion currently outrun the presented evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Fig. 4] The quantitative claim that the method yields reliable continuum properties is not supported for broad resonances. The caption of Table I states that from the fourth row the quality of extrapolation to higher θ becomes low, the text notes ε_Nmax ≳ 1 MeV and width underestimation of up to 2 MeV for T = 1 states, and the authors write that 'significantly more work is required to establish a robust extrapolation methodology for the CS angle.' Because the broad T = 1 states are exactly the cases where the finite-θ truncation is most severe, the abstract's 'reliable representation of the initial Hamiltonian and its continuum properties' should either be demonstrated against a system with known large width or be restricted to narrow resonances in the central claims.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The modified generator η(s) = e^{4iθ}[T_θ(s), H_θ(s)] is central to the method, but no derivation of the phase factor is given and no formal argument shows that the resulting flow is a spectrum-preserving similarity transformation. The only evidence is the observation that the standard generator fails beyond 0.2 rad and that 'other impediments appear beyond 0.3 rad.' Since the practical bound θ ≤ 0.3 rad is the direct cause of the broad-width underestimation, the paper should provide a proof or a dedicated numerical demonstration that the modified generator decouples the Hamiltonian without changing its eigenvalue spectrum, together with a detailed account of what limits θ to 0.3 rad.
  3. [Extrapolation forms in Table I] The functional forms E(Nmax) = E∞ + a exp(−b Nmax) and d/dθ Re(E(θ)) = −2 ΔE_thres sin(2θ) exp(−(θ/a)^b) are introduced without derivation and are fitted to the authors' own finite-basis, finite-θ results; no parameter values or goodness-of-fit statistics are reported. The statement that 'extrapolated results agree with exact calculations already published in the literature' therefore cannot be independently checked. A validation of these forms against known resonance parameters, or against an exactly solvable model with CS-SRG calculations at θ values beyond the current practical limit, is needed before the extrapolated widths in Table I can be used as quantitative results.
  4. [Tetraneutron section, Fig. 5] The conclusion that there is no tetraneutron resonance near 0.8 MeV is presented as a definitive result, but it rests on a single chiral Hamiltonian (I-N3LO) at θ = 0.3 rad and Nmax = 18. Because the paper has already established that moderate and broad widths can be underestimated at θ = 0.3 rad, the authors should either add a θ- and Nmax-convergence study for the 4n continuum around the hypothesized energy or soften the claim to 'no evidence in this calculation' rather than a definitive exclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2) and following text] The phrase 'c-normalization' is used without definition; please spell out the normalization convention for the complex-scaled wave functions.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The sentence 'For technical, the chiral 3NF is omitted' is ungrammatical; it should read 'For technical reasons, the chiral 3NF is omitted' or similar.
  3. [Reference [13]] The URL in reference [13] is malformed, containing two concatenated DOIs; it should be corrected to the single Phys. Rev. Lett. DOI.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The notation V^{ll'S12}_{NN}(k,k') is not defined; clarify whether 'S12' denotes the total spin or a tensor operator and define all indices.
  5. [Fig. 4 and Table I] The text cites both the TUNL Nuclear Data Project [17] and the older evaluation [16] for the R-matrix data; please clarify which evaluation is used for the comparison in Fig. 4 and Table I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central CS-SRG derivation is self-contained, and the acknowledged extrapolation limitations are validation concerns, not input-output reductions.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step that reduces the paper's central claim to its own inputs. The chiral EFT Hamiltonians (I-N3LO, N2LOsat, I-N4LO) are external inputs whose low-energy constants are constrained by nucleon-nucleon data, not by the 4He resonance observables; the comparisons to R-matrix evaluations [16] and to exact few-body calculations [18] are external benchmarks, not fits. The CS-SRG construction (Eqs. 1-6) is a stated transformation whose spectrum-preserving property relies on the ABC theorem [8,9], an external mathematical result, and the modified generator Eq. 6 is an explicitly introduced ansatz rather than a quantity defined in terms of the target resonance parameters. The finite-basis and finite-CS-angle extrapolations in Table I and its footnote are fits to the authors' own computed eigenvalues, so the extrapolated E_inf and Gamma_inf carry model uncertainty; the paper itself flags this clearly ('Significantly more work is required to establish a robust extrapolation methodology for the CS angle,' and 'the quality of extrapolation to higher theta becomes low'). That is a correctness/validation limitation, not circularity: the extrapolands are not experimental resonance parameters, and no evaluated R-matrix value is used to select the functional forms. Self-citations [3,13,14] are method comparisons or sources of the input Hamiltonian, and none carries the weight of the continuum claims. The tetraneutron conclusion likewise follows from the same independently benchmarked machinery and agrees with a body of external few-body calculations rather than being defined by them.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two numerical constructions that are not derived from first principles: the momentum-space functional fit of the NN potential and the phase-modified SRG generator. It also relies on the assumption that chiral NN interactions with only SRG-induced 3N forces, evaluated with a capped complex-scaling angle and an unvalidated extrapolation, are sufficient to extract broad-resonance widths. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Functional-basis coefficients (a_i, b_i, c_i, b'_i, c'_i) in Eq. (4) = Not reported; Nf=6 gives ~2% deuteron binding error, Nf=12 below keV
    Coefficients are obtained by minimizing the worst-case representation error of the NN potential in each partial wave; the complex-scaled Hamiltonian inherits this approximation.
  • Number of basis functions Nf = 12 for production results
    Convergence parameter of the momentum-space representation; larger Nf reduces approximation error below keV.
  • Complex-scaling angle theta = 0.3 rad (0.36 rad for some Table I extrapolations)
    Chosen as the practical limit of the SRG-evolved complex-scaled Hamiltonian; broader resonances require extrapolation in theta, so the choice affects reported widths.
  • SRG resolution scale lambda = 2.0-2.1 fm^-1
    Chosen to set the SRG flow; standard tunable resolution scale, converged results depend on it.
  • Extrapolation parameters a and b in E(Nmax) and theta-extrapolation forms = Not reported per state
    The final quoted resonance energies and widths in Table I are obtained by fitting these functional forms to finite-basis and finite-theta results, not by direct calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math ABC theorem for complex scaling applies to the finite-basis many-body Hamiltonians used here (single-channel result extended to multi-channel).
    Resonances are identified as complex-scaled eigenstates whose positions converge as hbar omega and theta vary; the paper invokes the ABC theorem from Refs. [8,9].
  • ad hoc to paper The modified SRG generator eta=e^{4i theta}[T_theta,H_theta] defines a spectrum-preserving similarity transformation and decouples high and low momenta for theta<=0.3 rad.
    No proof is supplied; the paper reports that the standard generator fails beyond theta=0.2 rad and that 'other impediments appear beyond 0.3 rad.'
  • domain assumption Chiral NN interactions from Refs. [12,14,15] (with SRG-induced 3N, but without chiral 3NF) are adequate for 4He resonance properties.
    The genuine chiral 3NF is omitted ('For technical, the chiral 3NF is omitted'), and the paper argues the remaining sensitivity to NN Hamiltonians is small.
  • domain assumption The functional-basis fit of the NN potential on the real momentum axis remains accurate after analytic continuation to complex momenta.
    The complex-scaled matrix elements are evaluated with Eq. (4) fitted to real-k potentials; the paper assumes this regularizes and faithfully represents the analytic structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional forms used for Nmax and theta extrapolation in Table I are valid for the studied resonances.
    The paper states 'significantly more work is required to establish a robust extrapolation methodology for the CS angle.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab Initio Complex Scaling and Similarity Renormalization Group for Continuum Properties of Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWCVIBR3

@misc{pith2026250701595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab Initio Complex Scaling and Similarity Renormalization Group for Continuum Properties of Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWCVIBR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01595}
}
abstract

We introduce a novel \abinitio many-body method designed to compute the properties of nuclei in the continuum. This approach combines well-established techniques, namely the Complex Scaling (CS) and Similarity Renormalization Group (SRG) methods while employing the translationally invariant No-Core Shell Model (NCSM) as a few-body solver. We demonstrate that this combination effectively overcomes numerical limitations previously encountered in exploring continuum properties of light nuclei with standard many-body techniques, and at the same time makes less imperative the need for a continuous set of basis states for the continuum. To benchmark the method for applications in the many-body sector, we apply it to the \textsuperscript{4}He system, where semi-exact calculations within a finite basis are feasible. Our extrapolated results agree with exact calculations already published in the literature. We argue that different NN parametrizations of chiral EFT Hamiltonians will not permit to reproduce evaluated resonance properties of \textsuperscript{4}He. As an application, we showcase the case of the tetraneutron. This work enables the application of the method to $A>4$-mass systems, providing a reliable representation of the initial Hamiltonian and its continuum properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The eigenvalues, denoted by ”+” signs, of the CS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Convergence with respect to the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The eigenvalues, denoted by ”+” signs, of the SRG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The eigenvalues, denoted by ”+” signs, of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Li, Y. Ma, N. Michel, B. Hu, Z. Sun, W. Zuo, and F. Xu, Physics 3, 977 (2021), ISSN 2624-8174, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8174/3/4/62

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Hagen, D

    G. Hagen, D. Dean, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and T. Papen- brock, Physics Letters B 656, 169 (2007), ISSN 0370- 2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269307010593

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero- Redondo, and A. Calci, Physica Scripta 91, 053002 (2016), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/ 91/5/053002

    doi:10.1088/0031-8949/ 2016

  4. [5]

    Idini, C

    A. Idini, C. Barbieri, and P. Navr´ atil, Physical Review Letters 123, 92501 (2019), ISSN 1079-7114, URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.092501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.092501 2019

  5. [6]

    B. G. Giraud and K. Kato, Annals of Physics 308, 115 (2003), ISSN 00034916

    work page 2003

  6. [7]

    Aoyama, T

    S. Aoyama, T. Myo, K. Kat¯ o, and K. Ikeda, Progress of Theoretical Physics 116, 1 (2006), ISSN 0033-068X, https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/116/1/1/19571980/116-1.pdf, URL https://doi. org/10.1143/PTP.116.1

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.116.1 2006

  7. [8]

    Aguilar and J

    J. Aguilar and J. M. Combes, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 22, 269 (1971), ISSN 0010-3616, URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01877510

    doi:10.1007/bf01877510 1971

  8. [9]

    Balslev and J

    E. Balslev and J. M. Combes, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 22, 280 (1971), ISSN 0010-3616, URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01877511

    doi:10.1007/bf01877511 1971

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    Papadimitriou and J

    G. Papadimitriou and J. Vary, Physics Let- ters B 746, 121 (2015), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S037026931500324X

    2015

  2. [11]

    Papadimitriou and J

    G. Papadimitriou and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C 91, 021001 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.91.021001

    2015

  3. [12]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Physical Review C 68, 041001 (2003), ISSN 0556-2813, URL http://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.041001

    2003 doi

  4. [13]

    E. D. Jurgenson, P. Navr´ atil, and R. J. Furnstahl, Physical Review Letters 103, 082501 (2009), ISSN 0031-9007, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.83.034301https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.103.082501

    2009

  5. [14]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forss´ en, M. Hjorth- Jensen, P. Navr´ atil, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.051301

    2015 doi

  6. [15]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y. Nosyk, Physical Re- view C 96, 024004 (2017), ISSN 2469-9985

    2017

  7. [16]

    Tilley, H

    D. Tilley, H. Weller, and G. Hale, Nuclear Physics A541, 1 (1992), ISSN 03759474, URL https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/037594749290635W

    1992

  8. [17]

    T. N. D. Group, Tunl nuclear data evaluation project (2025), URL https://nucldata.tunl.duke. edu/nucldata/,note={Accessed:19-Feb-2025}

    2025

  9. [18]

    Lazauskas, J

    R. Lazauskas, J. Carbonell, and E. Hiyama, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 073D03 (2017), ISSN 2050- 3911, https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2017/7/073D03/19368904/ptx078.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptx078

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    Michel, W

    N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, and M. P loszajczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 242502 (2023), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.242502

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Bacca, N

    S. Bacca, N. Barnea, W. Leidemann, and G. Orlandini, Physical Review Letters 110, 042503 (2013), ISSN 0031- 9007

    2013

  12. [21]

    Kegel, P

    S. Kegel, P. Achenbach, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, J. Beriˇ ciˇ c, D. Bosnar, L. Correa, M. Distler, A. Esser, H. Fonvieille, et al., Physical Review Letters 130, 152502 (2023), ISSN 0031-9007

    2023

  13. [22]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, M. Labiche, N. A. Orr, J. C. Ang´ elique, L. Axelsson, B. Benoit, U. C. Bergmann, M. J. G. Borge, W. N. Catford, S. P. G. Chappell, et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 044006 (2002), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.044006

    2002 doi

  14. [23]

    S. A. Sofianos, S. A. Rakityansky, and G. P. Vermaak, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 23, 1619 (1997), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0954-3899/23/11/010

    1997

  15. [24]

    N. K. Timofeyuk, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Par- ticle Physics 29, L9 (2003), URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/0954-3899/29/2/102

    2003 doi

  16. [25]

    S. C. Pieper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 252501 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90. 252501

    2003 doi

  17. [26]

    Kisamori, S

    K. Kisamori, S. Shimoura, H. Miya, S. Michi- masa, S. Ota, M. Assie, H. Baba, T. Baba, D. Beaumel, M. Dozono, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052501 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.052501

    2016

  18. [27]

    M. Duer, T. Aumann, R. Gernh¨ auser, V. Panin, S. Paschalis, D. M. Rossi, N. L. Achouri, D. Ahn, H. Baba, C. A. Bertulani, et al., Nature 606, 678–682 (2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    Faestermann, A

    T. Faestermann, A. Bergmaier, R. Gernh¨ auser, D. Koll, and M. Mahgoub, Physics Letters B 824, 136799 (2022), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370269321007395

    2022

  20. [29]

    Faestermann, New results on the tetraneutron, seen in context (2022), 2207.10542, URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2207.10542

    T. Faestermann, New results on the tetraneutron, seen in context (2022), 2207.10542, URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2207.10542

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    A. M. Shirokov, G. Papadimitriou, A. I. Mazur, I. A. Mazur, R. Roth, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 182502 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.182502

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    J. G. Li, N. Michel, B. S. Hu, W. Zuo, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054313 (2019), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054313

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Gandolfi, H.-W

    S. Gandolfi, H.-W. Hammer, P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 232501 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 118.232501

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    L. V. Grigorenko, N. K. Timofeyuk, and M. V. Zhukov, The European Physical Journal A 19, 187–201 (2004)

    2004

  25. [34]

    Lazauskas and J

    R. Lazauskas and J. Carbonell, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034003 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.72.034003. 7

    2005

  26. [35]

    Lazauskas and J

    R. Lazauskas and J. Carbonell, Phys. Rev. C 71, 044004 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.71.044004

    2005

  27. [37]

    Carbonell, R

    J. Carbonell, R. Lazauskas, E. Hiyama, and M. Kamimura, Few-Body Systems 58 (2017)

    2017

  28. [38]

    Deltuva, Physics Letters B 782, 238 (2018), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect

    A. Deltuva, Physics Letters B 782, 238 (2018), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370269318304052

    2018

  29. [39]

    Fossez, J

    K. Fossez, J. Rotureau, N. Michel, and M. Ploszajczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 032501 (2017), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.032501

    2017 doi

  30. [40]

    Deltuva, Phys

    A. Deltuva, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034001 (2018), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034001

    2018 doi

  31. [41]

    Deltuva and R

    A. Deltuva and R. Lazauskas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 069201 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.123.069201

    2019

  32. [42]

    Deltuva and R

    A. Deltuva and R. Lazauskas, Phys. Rev. C 100, 044002 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.100.044002

    2019

  33. [43]

    Ishikawa, Phys

    S. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034002 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 102.034002

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    M. D. Higgins, C. H. Greene, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 052501 (2020), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052501

    2020 doi

  35. [45]

    M. D. Higgins, C. H. Greene, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 103, 024004 (2021), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.024004

    2021 doi

  36. [46]

    Lazauskas, E

    R. Lazauskas, E. Hiyama, and J. Carbonell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 102501 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.102501

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.