Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 120 references

By building the commutator operators in a complete one-body basis, the equation-of-motion method can take any correlated quantum state as its reference and carry ground-state correlations into the excitation spectrum.

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 ↗

An equation-of-motion method using an IMSRG(2) correlated reference and the full one-body operator space is implemented and applied to the dipole response of 4He and closed-shell oxygen isotopes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful EOM implementation on correlated references, with a load-bearing interpretation of complex eigenvalues as physical widths that needs benchmarking before the 16O conclusions can stand. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29396 v1 pith:F6WOLLTB submitted 2026-07-31 nucl-th cond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-phquant-ph

Revisiting the Equation-of-Motion Method: A Universal Framework for Correlated Quantum Systems

Andrea Porro This is my paper
classification nucl-th cond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords equation-of-motion methodcorrelated reference stateone-body operator basisgiant dipole resonancerandom-phase approximationab initio nuclear theoryspectral functionIMSRG(2)
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

The paper tries to establish that the equation-of-motion (EOM) formalism for excited states can be lifted off the traditional mean-field reference state and placed on any correlated wave function. Its central move is to construct the EOM commutator matrices directly as operators in the full one-body basis, independent of the state on which expectation values are taken. On an IMSRG(2) correlated reference, the method reproduces the giant dipole resonance in 4He and 16O and reduces the interaction spread of the 16O dipole peak compared to RPA. The appearance of complex eigenvalues is read as information about missing ground-state correlations rather than as a breakdown of the formalism. If this holds, EOM becomes a universal spectral-function tool for any many-body solver.

Core claim

The central claim is that the EOM matrices A, B, U, V—defined as expectation values of (double) commutators of excitation operators on a reference state—can be evaluated in a complete one-body operator basis without ever committing to a particle-hole picture or to an independent-particle vacuum. This makes the generalized RPA-type eigenvalue problem (H X = N X Ω) applicable to arbitrary reference states. When the reference is an IMSRG(2) state of a closed-shell nucleus, ground-state correlations are propagated to the excited-state response non-perturbatively; the resulting isovector dipole strength in 4He, 16O, 22O, and 24O is stable in model-space size and, for 16O, reduces the spread among

What carries the argument

The engine is the generalized eigenvalue problem H X = N X Ω, with the super-matrix H built from double-commutator expectation values ⟨Ψ|[η_a, H, η_b†]|Ψ⟩ and ⟨Ψ|[η_a, H, η_b]|Ψ⟩, and the metric N from single commutators; {η} is the Lie algebra of all one-body operators c†_a c_b. The paper's formal contribution is an angular-momentum-coupled, operator-level construction of these commutators that holds for any |Ψ⟩, so the same code can be run on HF or correlated states. The symplectic/time-dependent variational derivation justifies interpreting the solutions as normal modes of the energy function.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reference state is a stationary point of the energy under the full one-body variation group; the paper's own states are not, and the claim that the resulting complex eigenvalues are physical resonance widths rather than artifacts is the step on which the quantitative response results depend.

What would settle it

Take the same chiral Hamiltonian and 16O, but replace the IMSRG(2) reference with one variationally optimized under one-body rotations (e.g., orbital-optimized or self-consistent RPA). If the complex branches disappear and the dipole response peak or interaction spread shifts substantially, the claim that complex eigenvalues encode physical widths would be refuted. A second test: compute the energy-weighted sum rule from the full one-body EOM solution; if it is not exhausted even in the complete one-body basis, the interpretation of the complete spectrum as the physical response is questionabl

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

If this is right

  • EOM spectral functions can be computed from any correlated reference state whose one- and two-body densities are available, not just from Slater determinants.
  • Ground-state correlations are transferred to excited states in a non-perturbative, basis-independent way, effectively dressing the RPA one-body propagators.
  • The 16O dipole response shows a reduced interaction dependence compared to mean-field RPA, suggesting that correlated references absorb some of the interaction sensitivity.
  • The Hessian of the energy in the one-body space is now accessible, enabling orbital-optimization and self-consistent RPA strategies in nuclear theory.
  • Complex modes in the response may carry physical resonance width information and pinpoint missing correlation channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the complex-branch interpretation survives testing, the method could provide parameter-free resonance widths, eliminating the ad-hoc smearing parameter in response calculations.
  • The same operator-level construction should transfer directly to quantum-computing EOM, where the reference is a variational quantum state; the paper notes this connection but does not implement it.
  • A natural stress test is to use a variationally optimized (orbital-optimized or symmetry-projected) reference: if the complex branches vanish and the response moves, that confirms the paper's claim that they flag missing correlations rather than being intrinsic.
  • The two-body operator extension derived in the appendix could be used to build a second-RPA-type theory, though the paper notes it loses the Lie-algebra group structure.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a general equation-of-motion (EOM) framework for correlated quantum states, based on the time-dependent variational principle and formulated in a full one-body operator basis that is independent of the reference state. The method is applied to isovector dipole response in 4He, 16O, 22O, and 24O using IMSRG(2) correlated reference states and chiral interactions. The central claims are that the formalism provides a universal, non-perturbative way to propagate ground-state correlations to excited states, and that its use reduces the interaction spread of the 16O giant dipole resonance compared to RPA. The 4He benchmark against NCSM is presented as validation.

Significance. If the central claims are sustained, this is a valuable contribution. The derivation follows standard TDVP/Rowe constructions, the RPA limit is recovered for Hartree-Fock references, and the operator-level construction of the double-commutator matrix elements in a complete one-body basis is a genuine technical advance. The work is commendably transparent about numerical inputs: the chiral Hamiltonians are external inputs, and the harmonic-oscillator frequency, smearing width, and model-space truncation are not fitted parameters. The 4He NCSM comparison is an independent benchmark. However, the 16O results and the claimed reduction of interaction spread rest on an unvalidated interpretation of complex eigenvalues as physical resonance widths, which is at odds with the paper's own stability criterion for the EOM normal-mode problem. This is the load-bearing weakness that prevents the universal-framework claim from being fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV D, §II B] The central numerical claim — that the EOM-IMSRG(2) approach reduces the interaction spread of the 16O GDR from about 7 MeV (RPA) to about 4 MeV — depends on including complex-energy solutions of Eq. (15) as physical resonance widths. However, §II B states that normal modes are meaningful only when the reference state is a stationary point and ideally a minimum; otherwise the reference state is unstable and more closely resembles an excited state. Section IV D then concedes that neither HF nor IMSRG(2) is stable under general one-body transformations. In standard RPA (Thouless 1961; Rowe 1968), complex eigenvalues signal reference-state instability, not decay widths. The manuscript introduces no continuum coupling, emission mechanism, or independent validation for the width interpretation. This is an interpretive assumption, not a derivation, and it is load-bearing for the 16O results an
  2. [§IV D, Figs. 3–6] The composition of the plotted strength functions is unclear. Figure 6 shows the 'complex part' of the response with Γ=0, and the text states that complex energies carry their own smearing. Are the complex-branch contributions included in the curves of Figs. 3–5? If they are, the comparison with experiment in Fig. 4 rests entirely on the unvalidated width assumption. If they are not, the curves are incomplete, and quantitative statements such as the 7→4 MeV spread reduction are not well defined. The paper should state explicitly how real and complex branches are combined, and should present results with and without the complex branch.
  3. [§IV B] The 4He NCSM benchmark is a useful check of the real-branch response, but the paper does not report the complex-eigenvalue content for 4He. Since the 16O claim is strongly influenced by the complex sector (Fig. 6), the benchmark does not validate the questionable part of the calculation. The authors should quantify the complex branches in 4He or explicitly restrict the benchmark conclusion to the stable sector, and clearly state that the 16O interaction-spread claim depends on an additional physical assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV A] Typo: 'postive' should be 'positive'.
  2. [Footnote 1] Footnote 1 is dense and contains a substantive caveat about non-closure of Jπ sectors; consider moving it to the main text or an appendix.
  3. [Eq. (24)] The symbol ν is used both for eigenstate labels and for solution labels; please clarify the notation.
  4. [Figs. 2–5] Interaction names are inconsistent: 'N3LO T exas' appears in figures/captions while the text uses 'N3LO Texas'. Please standardize.
  5. [Abstract/Conclusions] The term 'universal' is used repeatedly. Given the demonstrated sensitivity to reference-state stability and the truncation of the operator basis, a more cautious term such as 'general' would better match the presented evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found: the EOM construction, IMSRG(2) input, and external benchmarks are independent; the complex-eigenvalue interpretation is a modeling risk, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mathematically self-contained. Eq. (15) follows from the time-dependent variational principle through Eqs. (7)-(14), and the double-commutator matrix elements entering Eqs. (16) are constructed explicitly in Appendix D, with full J-scheme expressions given in Eqs. (D14)-(D25). The derivation is traced to external references Refs. [66-68], not primarily to the author's own prior work; Refs. [69-70] are contextual implementation references and are not load-bearing. The reference state is an input: HF recovers standard RPA as a consistency check, and IMSRG(2) is generated by imsrg++, an external code. The 4He benchmark is an external comparison to NCSM calculations with the same NNLOopt interaction, and no parameter is fitted to NCSM or to the experimental photoabsorption data. Technical choices such as the harmonic-oscillator frequency, emax truncation, normal-ordered 3N approximation, and smearing width are not adjusted to reproduce the dipole response. The central quantitative comparison is across chiral interactions, so the claimed reduction of interaction spread is an output, not an input. The complex-eigenvalue sector is the only serious concern: the paper concedes that neither HF nor IMSRG(2) is stable under general one-body transformations, and standard RPA would interpret complex eigenvalues as instability rather than physical width. The paper then asserts that 'complex branches therefore encode physically relevant information' about missing correlation channels. That is an interpretive modeling assumption, a correctness risk, not a circular reduction of a prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to the predicted response functions. Hence no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical constants are fitted and no new particles or forces are introduced. The central numerical results rest on two hand-chosen numerical settings (HO frequency and smearing) and on the contentious interpretation of complex RPA-like eigenvalues as physical strength. The method itself is a re-implementation of a standard generalized eigenvalue problem, so the conceptual overhead is mainly the complex-solution interpretation rather than a large set of fitted parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Harmonic oscillator frequency ℏω = 16 MeV
    Chosen by hand for all calculations; no variation or uncertainty is reported, and convergence is checked only against emax.
  • Smearing width Γ = 1 MeV (0.5 MeV in Fig. 4)
    Artificial broadening added to visualize the response; the comparison to experiment in Fig. 4 depends on this choice.
  • Model-space truncation emax = 8
    Results are shown for emax = 4, 6, 8, but no systematic extrapolation or uncertainty is provided for the oxygen-isotope curves.
axioms (5)
  • standard math The TD variational principle (Eq. 4) with the symplectic structure of projective Hilbert space is the correct starting point for the EOM.
    This is the standard TDVP/Rowe construction; the paper follows Refs. [30-33].
  • standard math The full one-body operators c†_a c_b form a Lie algebra U(n) whose orbit is a symplectic submanifold with non-degenerate metric.
    Appendix B and C establish the variational-group structure needed for Eq. (15) to be well-defined.
  • domain assumption The reference state must be stationary, ideally a minimum, under the chosen variational manifold.
    Stated in Sec. II B as a consistency requirement, but the IMSRG(2) state does not satisfy this for full one-body variations, as admitted in Sec. IV D.
  • domain assumption IMSRG(2) with the normal-ordered two-body approximation for three-nucleon forces and emax = 8 is a faithful correlated reference for the dipole response.
    This is the computational setup used for all results; its accuracy is only benchmarked globally through the 4He comparison and qualitative agreement with experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper Complex-energy solutions of Eq. (15) can be interpreted as physical resonance widths and included in the response function.
    Sec. IV D and Figs. 6-7 rely on this interpretation, while most cited RPA literature treats complex eigenvalues as instability signals. This is load-bearing for the numerical response curves.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Equation-of-Motion Method: A Universal Framework for Correlated Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6WOLLTB

@misc{pith2026260729396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Equation-of-Motion Method: A Universal Framework for Correlated Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6WOLLTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29396}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A general implementation of the equation-of-motion (EOM) formalism for correlated many-body states is presented and applied to the description of collective excitations in atomic nuclei. While EOM approaches are traditionally formulated on top of independent-particle reference states, the present work extends the method to correlated reference states generated by modern many-body solvers. This formulation enables a consistent treatment of ground-state correlations and excited-state dynamics within a unified framework. Particular emphasis is placed on collective nuclear excitations employing chiral nuclear Hamiltonians in an ab initio context. The approach is motivated by the renewed interest in EOM techniques across several fields, including quantum chemistry and quantum computing, where they provide efficient and systematically improvable descriptions of excitation spectra. The present results demonstrate that the EOM framework offers a flexible and powerful tool for the microscopic description of nuclear spectroscopy beyond the traditional mean-field paradigm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29396 by Andrea Porro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Isovector dipole response in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Isovector dipole response in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as the bottom panel of Fig. 3 but for Γ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Isovector dipole response in closed-shell oxygen iso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Complex part of the dipole response in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.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

120 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    the use of an initial state|Ψ⟩that isnotthe exact ground state

  2. [2]

    Regarding the first point, the EOM method does not uniquely define a strategy to determine the optimal state |Ψ⟩entering Eq

    the truncation of the operator set{η a}. Regarding the first point, the EOM method does not uniquely define a strategy to determine the optimal state |Ψ⟩entering Eq. (15). The relevant question is therefore whether the chosen|Ψ⟩is a suitable reference with re- spect to the excitations spanned by the variational group, i.e., whether|Ψ⟩is stable under all c...

  3. [3]

    one-particle transformations; 2.N-particle excitations

  4. [4]

    δbc ( ja jb J1 J2 J jd ) QJ (ad)−δ ad(−)J1+J2+J ( ja jb J1 J J2 jc ) QJ (cb) # , (D10a) [ ˜AJ1 (ab), QJ2 (cd)]J = [J1][J2]

    scale transformations. Higher many-body transformations (but notN-body), like two-particle transformations of the form U= exp (X abcd Xabdc c† ac† bcccd ) ,(C1) as used in the so-called second-RPA [110–114], do not unfortunately constitute a unitary group (except, for the given example of two-body transformations, for two- particle systems), since the bas...

  5. [5]

    A. L. Fetter,Quantum theory of many-particle sys, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    J. W. Negele and H. Orland,Quantum Many-particle Systems, Frontiers in Physics (Perseus Books, Boulder, CO, 1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Prob- lem, 1st ed., Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, New York, 1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    Sachdev,Quantum phase transitions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2011)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum phase transitions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    Gonz´ alez and R

    L. Gonz´ alez and R. Lindh,Quantum chemistry and dynamics of excited states: methods and applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    E. A. Coello P´ erez and T. Papenbrock, Effective field theories for collective excitations of atomic nuclei, J. Phys. G52, 033001 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Hergert, A guided tour ofab initionuclear many- body theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A guided tour ofab initionuclear many- body theory, Front. Phys.8, 379 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

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

    2009

  14. [14]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear ef- fective field theory: Status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Krebs, Nuclear Currents in Chiral Effective Field Theory, Eur

    H. Krebs, Nuclear Currents in Chiral Effective Field Theory, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 234 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Miyagi,NuHamil: A numerical code to generate nuclear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur

    T. Miyagi,NuHamil: A numerical code to generate nuclear two- and three-body matrix elements from chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 150 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    D. J. Rowe, Equations-of-Motion Method and the Ex- tended Shell Model, Rev. Mod. Phys.40, 153 (1968)

    1968

  19. [19]

    McWeeny,Methods of molecular quantum mechanics, 2nd ed., Theoretical Chemistry (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1989)

    R. McWeeny,Methods of molecular quantum mechanics, 2nd ed., Theoretical Chemistry (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1989)

    1989

  20. [20]

    Schirmer,Many-body methods for atoms, molecules and clusters(Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 2018)

    J. Schirmer,Many-body methods for atoms, molecules and clusters(Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    J. F. Stanton and R. J. Bartlett, The equation of motion coupled-cluster method. A systematic biorthogonal ap- proach to molecular excitation energies, transition prob- abilities, and excited state properties, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 7029 (1993)

    1993

  22. [22]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett,Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    Blaizot and G

    J.-P. Blaizot and G. Ripka,Quantum theory of finite systems(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986)

    1986

  24. [24]

    D. J. Rowe,Nuclear Collective Motion(World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Suhonen,From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Mi- croscopic Nuclear Theory, Theoretical and Mathemati- cal Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007)

    J. Suhonen,From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Mi- croscopic Nuclear Theory, Theoretical and Mathemati- cal Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    Bacca, F

    S. Bacca, F. Marino, and A. Porro, Nuclear giant res- onances from first principles, (2026), arXiv:2604.07229 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Musia l, Equation-of-motion coupled-cluster models, inQuantum Chemistry and Dynamics of Excited States (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2020) Chap

    M. Musia l, Equation-of-motion coupled-cluster models, inQuantum Chemistry and Dynamics of Excited States (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2020) Chap. 4, pp. 77–108

    2020

  28. [28]

    P. J. Ollitrault, A. Kandala, C.-F. Chen, P. K. Barkout- sos, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, S. Sheldon, S. Woerner, J. M. Gambetta, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum equation of motion for computing molecular excitation energies on a noisy quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043140 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    P. J. Ollitrault, A. Miessen, and I. Tavernelli, Molecular Quantum Dynamics: A Quantum Computing Perspec- tive, Accounts Chem. Res.54, 4229 (2021). 17

    2021

  30. [30]

    Motta and J

    M. Motta and J. E. Rice, Emerging quantum comput- ing algorithms for quantum chemistry, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.12, e1580 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Motta, W

    M. Motta, W. Kirby, I. Liepuoniute, K. J. Sung, J. Cohn, A. Mezzacapo, K. Klymko, N. Nguyen, N. Yoshioka, and J. E. Rice, Subspace methods for electronic structure simulations on quantum computers, Electron. Struct.6, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    M. Q. Hlatshwayo, Y. Zhang, H. Wibowo, R. LaRose, D. Lacroix, and E. Litvinova, Simulating excited states of the Lipkin model on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. C106, 024319 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    M. Q. Hlatshwayo, J. Novak, and E. Litvinova, Quan- tum benefit of the quantum equation of motion for the strongly coupled many-body problem, Phys. Rev. C109, 014306 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Kramer and M

    P. Kramer and M. Saraceno,Geometry of the time- dependent variational principle in quantum mechanics (Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 1981)

    1981

  35. [35]

    Kramer, A review of the time-dependent variational principle, inJ

    P. Kramer, A review of the time-dependent variational principle, inJ. Phys. Conf. Ser., Vol. 99 (2008) p. 012009

    2008

  36. [36]

    D. J. Rowe, General variational equations for station- ary and time-dependent states, Nucl. Phys. A107, 99 (1968)

    1968

  37. [37]

    D. J. Rowe, A. Ryman, and G. Rosensteel, Many-body quantum mechanics as a symplectic dynamical system, Phys. Rev. A22, 2362 (1980)

    1980

  38. [38]

    Lathouwers, The generator coordinate representa- tion in an natural state formalism, Ann

    L. Lathouwers, The generator coordinate representa- tion in an natural state formalism, Ann. Phys.102, 347 (1976)

    1976

  39. [39]

    Bally and T

    B. Bally and T. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, Symmetry-projected vari- ational calculations with the numerical suite TAURUS: II. Configuration mixing of symmetry-projected refer- ence states, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 62 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    D. J. Thouless, Vibrational states of nuclei in the ran- dom phase approximation, Nucl. Phys.22, 78 (1961)

    1961

  41. [41]

    Schuck, D

    P. Schuck, D. S. Delion, J. Dukelsky, M. Jemai, E. Litvi- nova, G. Roepke, and M. Tohyama, Equation of Motion Method for strongly correlated Fermi systems and Ex- tended RPA approaches, Phys. Rept.929, 1 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, In- Medium Similarity Renormalization Group for Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 222502 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, The In-Medium Similarity Renormaliza- tion Group: A Novel Ab Initio Method for Nuclei, Phys. Rept.621, 165 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    S. R. Stroberg, S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, and J. D. Holt, Nonempirical Interactions for the Nuclear Shell Model: An Update, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 307 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Bonaiti, C

    F. Bonaiti, C. Balos, K. Godbey, G. Hagen, T. Pa- penbrock, and C. S. Woodward, Computing nuclear re- sponse functions with time-dependent coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. C113, 024312 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Som´ a, Ab initio description of monopole reso- nances in light- and medium-mass nuclei: I. Technical aspects and uncertainties of ab initio PGCM calcula- tions, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 133 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Som` a, Ab initio description of monopole reso- nances in light- and medium-mass nuclei: II. Ab initio PGCM calculations in 46Ti, 28Si and 24Mg, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 134 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Som` a, Ab initio description of monopole reso- nances in light- and medium-mass nuclei: III. Moments evaluation in ab initio PGCM calculations, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 155 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Porro, T

    A. Porro, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, M. Frosini, R. Roth, and V. Som` a, Ab initio description of monopole reso- nances in light- and medium-mass nuclei: IV. Angular momentum projection and rotation-vibration coupling, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 233 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

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

    2013

  51. [51]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, In- Medium Similarity Renormalization Group for Open- Shell Nuclei, Phys. Rev. C85, 061304 (2012)

    2012

  52. [52]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, The Shell Model as Unified View of Nuclear Structure, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 427 (2005)

    2005

  53. [53]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, and M. Hjorth- Jensen, Ab initio coupled-cluster approach to nuclear structure with modern nucleon-nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. C82, 034330 (2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 096302 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    Bacca, N

    S. Bacca, N. Barnea, G. Hagen, M. Miorelli, G. Orlan- dini, and T. Papenbrock, Giant and pigmy dipole res- onances in 4He, 16,22O, and 40Ca from chiral nucleon- nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. C90, 064619 (2014)

    2014

  56. [56]

    Marino, F

    F. Marino, F. Bonaiti, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, and G. R. Jansen, Structure and dynamics of open-shell nuclei from spherical coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. C 112, 014315 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Miorelli, S

    M. Miorelli, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Computing the dipole polarizability of 48Ca with in- creased precision, Phys. Rev. C98, 014324 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    N. M. Parzuchowski, T. D. Morris, and S. K. Bogner, Ab Initio Excited States from the In-Medium Similar- ity Renormalization Group, Phys. Rev. C95, 044304 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    N. M. Parzuchowski, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, H. Hergert, and S. K. Bogner, Ab initio electromagnetic observables with the in-medium similarity renormaliza- tion group, Phys. Rev. C96, 034324 (2017)

    2017

  60. [60]

    M. D. Prasad, S. Pal, and D. Mukherjee, Some aspects of self-consistent propagator theories, Phys. Rev. A31, 1287 (1985)

    1985

  61. [61]

    Datta, D

    B. Datta, D. Mukhopadhyay, and D. Mukherjee, Consis- tent propagator theory based on the extended coupled- cluster parametrization of the ground state, Phys. Rev. A47, 3632 (1993)

    1993

  62. [62]

    Asthana, A

    A. Asthana, A. Kumar, V. Abraham, H. Grimsley, Y. Zhang, L. Cincio, S. Tretiak, P. A. Dub, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Quantum self-consistent equation-of-motion method for comput- ing molecular excitation energies, ionization potentials, and electron affinities on a quantum computer, Chem. Sci.14, 2405 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Kim and A

    Y. Kim and A. I. Krylov, Two Algorithms for Excited- State Quantum Solvers: Theory and Application to EOM-UCCSD, J. Phys. Chem. A127, 6552 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Reinholdt, E

    P. Reinholdt, E. R. Kjellgren, J. H. Fuglsbjerg, K. M. Ziems, S. Coriani, S. P. A. Sauer, and J. Kongsted, 18 Subspace Methods for the Simulation of Molecular Re- sponse Properties on a Quantum Computer, J. Chem. Theor. Comput.20, 3729 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Raimondi and C

    F. Raimondi and C. Barbieri, Nuclear electromagnetic dipole response with the Self-Consistent Green’s Func- tion formalism, Phys. Rev. C99, 054327 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Duguet, J

    T. Duguet, J. P. Ebran, M. Frosini, H. Hergert, and V. Som` a, Rooting the EDF method into the ab ini- tio framework: PGCM-PT formalism based on MR- IMSRG pre-processed Hamiltonians, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 13 (2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    Reinhard, M

    P.-G. Reinhard, M. Brack, and O. Genzken, Random- phase approximation in a local representation, Phys. Rev. A41, 5568 (1990)

    1990

  68. [68]

    Reinhard, From sum rules to rpa: 1

    P.-G. Reinhard, From sum rules to rpa: 1. nuclei, Ann. Phys.504, 632 (1992)

    1992

  69. [69]

    Reinhard and Y

    P.-G. Reinhard and Y. K. Gambhir, Rpa in wavefunc- tion representation, Ann. Phys.504, 598 (1992)

    1992

  70. [70]

    Jin-Quan, C

    C. Jin-Quan, C. Bing-Qing, and A. Klein, Factorization of commutators: The Wick theorem for coupled opera- tors, Nucl. Phys. A554, 61 (1993)

    1993

  71. [71]

    Chen, The Wick theorem for coupled fermion clus- ters, Nucl

    J.-Q. Chen, The Wick theorem for coupled fermion clus- ters, Nucl. Phys. A562, 218 (1993)

    1993

  72. [72]

    Lu and C

    Y. Lu and C. W. Johnson, Transition sum rules in the shell model, Phys. Rev. C97, 034330 (2018)

    2018

  73. [73]

    Porro, A

    A. Porro, A. Schwenk, and A. Tichai, Impact of ground- state correlations on the multipole response of nuclei: Ab initio calculations of moment operators, Phys. Rev. C112, 054303 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    Bonaiti, A

    F. Bonaiti, A. Porro, S. Bacca, A. Schwenk, and A. Tichai, Ab initio calculations of monopole sum rules: From finite nuclei to infinite nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C113, 024333 (2026)

    2026

  75. [75]

    Heinz, A

    M. Heinz, A. Tichai, J. Hoppe, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, In-medium similarity renormalization group with three-body operators, Phys. Rev. C103, 044318 (2021)

    2021

  76. [76]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, B. Bally, Y. Beaujeault- Taudi` ere, J. P. Ebran, and V. Som` a, In-mediumk-body reduction ofn-body operators: A flexible symmetry- conserving approach based on the sole one-body density matrix, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 151 (2021)

    2021

  77. [77]

    Miyagi, S

    T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navr´ atil, K. Hebeler, and J. D. Holt, Convergedab initiocalculations of heavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C105, 014302 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    S. R. Stroberget al.,https://github.com/ ragnarstroberg/imsrg(2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Kherson- skii,Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum(World Scientific, 1988)

    1988

  80. [80]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Baardsen, C. Forss´ en, G. Ha- gen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. Jansen, R. Machleidt, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, J. Sarich, and S. M. Wild, Optimized Chiral Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 192502 (2013)

    2013

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.