Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Statistical uncertainty quantification for multireference covariant density functional theory

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-23 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Statistical uncertainties in covariant density functional theory reproduce low-lying state observables for deformed nuclei but not near-spherical ones.

desk verdict This gives a workable Bayesian route to error bars on CDFT for deformed nuclei via million-sample posteriors and subspace projection, but the projection step lacks the checks needed to trust the reported agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2408.13209 v2 pith:FOKA5RPF submitted 2024-08-23 nucl-th nucl-ex

X. Zhang , C. C. Wang , C. R. Ding , J. M. Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords covariantdensityfunctionaltheorystatisticaluncertaintiesBayesianinferencenuclearstructurelow-lyingstatesdeformednucleisubspaceprojection
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

The paper introduces a Bayesian framework to quantify statistical uncertainties in a relativistic point-coupling energy density functional by sampling roughly one million parameter sets around the PC-PK1 values. Posterior distributions are obtained by conditioning on nuclear matter saturation properties, chiral force predictions, and measured B(E2) values, then propagated to finite nuclei through the subspace-projected CDFT method. This approach expands target wave functions in a subspace built from low-lying states of training parameterizations. The resulting uncertainty bands encompass the data for deformed nuclei 150Nd and 150Sm, while the same bands fail to cover the observables of near-spherical nuclei 136Xe and 136Ba.

What carries the argument

The subspace-projected (SP)-CDFT approach, which expands the wave functions of target EDF parameter sets in a low-dimensional subspace spanned by low-lying states obtained from a set of training parameterizations.

What would settle it

Performing the same Bayesian propagation with a substantially larger training subspace or with explicit quasiparticle excitations included would show whether the near-spherical nuclei observables remain outside the uncertainty bands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Sampling approximately one million parameter sets around PC-PK1 and inferring posteriors from nuclear matter properties and B(E2) data allows propagation via subspace-projected CDFT; the resulting statistical uncertainties bring calculated observables of low-lying states in 150Nd and 150Sm into agreement with experiment, whereas the same framework leaves the observables of 136Xe and 136Ba outside the uncertainty bands.

Load-bearing premise

The limited subspace of low-lying states from the training parameterizations is assumed to be sufficient to represent the wave functions of the target parameter sets for the studied nuclei.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observables of low-lying states in deformed nuclei 150Nd and 150Sm fall inside the calculated uncertainty bands once statistical errors are included.
  • Observables of low-lying states in near-spherical nuclei 136Xe and 136Ba remain outside the uncertainty bands.
  • Extending the model space to quasiparticle excitations is expected to reduce the discrepancy for the near-spherical cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same sampling and propagation procedure could be applied to additional nuclei to test whether the deformed-versus-spherical distinction persists across the chart.
  • Adding more experimental constraints such as excitation energies or radii would further narrow the posterior distributions and potentially alter the uncertainty bands.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Bayesian framework for statistical uncertainty quantification in relativistic point-coupling covariant density functional theory (CDFT). Approximately one million parameter sets are sampled around the PC-PK1 functional; posteriors are conditioned on nuclear-matter saturation properties, chiral-force predictions, and measured B(E2) values. These posteriors are propagated to low-lying states of 150Nd, 150Sm, 136Xe, and 136Ba via the newly introduced subspace-projected CDFT (SP-CDFT), in which target wave functions are expanded in a subspace spanned by low-lying states from a limited set of training parameterizations. The central claim is that observables of the deformed nuclei fall inside the resulting uncertainty bands while those of the near-spherical nuclei do not, indicating that the present model space is insufficient for the latter.

Significance. If the SP-CDFT subspace projection is shown to be accurate for the sampled parameter sets, the work supplies a concrete, statistically grounded test of where CDFT discrepancies can be absorbed by parameter uncertainties (deformed cases) versus where they indicate missing physics (spherical cases). The combination of large-scale Monte Carlo sampling with a reduced-basis propagation method is a practical advance for uncertainty quantification in energy-density-functional calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. [SP-CDFT method description] The central claim that deformed-nucleus observables are reproduced within uncertainties rests on the assumption that the subspace spanned by low-lying states from the training parameterizations faithfully represents the wave functions of posterior-sampled EDF sets (abstract and final paragraph). No quantitative bound on the projection error is reported for 150Nd or 150Sm, nor is any validation against full calculations for parameter sets distant from the training points provided. This directly affects whether the reported agreement is genuine or an artifact of the reduced basis.
  2. [Results on finite-nucleus propagation] The manuscript states that ~1 million samples are drawn from the posterior and propagated via SP-CDFT, yet supplies no convergence diagnostics for the Monte Carlo sampling nor any measure of posterior widths or sensitivity to the number of training parameterizations. Without these, the widths of the uncertainty bands used to judge agreement for 150Nd/150Sm versus disagreement for 136Xe/136Ba cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] The number and selection criteria for the training parameterizations used to build the SP-CDFT subspace are not stated explicitly; this information should be added to the methods section for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped identify areas where additional validation and diagnostics will strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that deformed-nucleus observables are reproduced within uncertainties rests on the assumption that the subspace spanned by low-lying states from the training parameterizations faithfully represents the wave functions of posterior-sampled EDF sets (abstract and final paragraph). No quantitative bound on the projection error is reported for 150Nd or 150Sm, nor is any validation against full calculations for parameter sets distant from the training points provided. This directly affects whether the reported agreement is genuine or an artifact of the reduced basis.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of the projection error is necessary to substantiate the reliability of SP-CDFT for the sampled parameter sets. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that reports the projection error on excitation energies and B(E2) values for 150Nd and 150Sm, obtained by comparing SP-CDFT results against full CDFT calculations performed for a representative subset of posterior samples lying outside the original training set. This will include explicit error bounds and a discussion of how the subspace dimension affects the accuracy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript states that ~1 million samples are drawn from the posterior and propagated via SP-CDFT, yet supplies no convergence diagnostics for the Monte Carlo sampling nor any measure of posterior widths or sensitivity to the number of training parameterizations. Without these, the widths of the uncertainty bands used to judge agreement for 150Nd/150Sm versus disagreement for 136Xe/136Ba cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit convergence checks and sensitivity measures. The revised version will include standard MCMC diagnostics (trace plots, autocorrelation times, and effective sample size) for the ~1 million posterior samples, together with the reported posterior widths for the EDF parameters and the propagated observables. We will also add a brief sensitivity study showing how the uncertainty bands change when the number of training parameterizations used to construct the SP-CDFT subspace is varied. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in Bayesian posterior propagation via SP-CDFT

full rationale

The paper constructs a prior by sampling ~1M parameter sets around PC-PK1, builds a PDF for nuclear matter properties, then infers posteriors from independent empirical nuclear-matter data at saturation, chiral-force predictions, and measured B(E2) values. Posteriors are propagated to low-lying observables of the target nuclei using the SP-CDFT subspace expansion, which is a fixed computational approximation based on a separate training set rather than a definitional identity or self-referential fit. The paper explicitly distinguishes outcomes for deformed versus near-spherical nuclei and notes the subspace limitation, confirming that reported agreement is not forced by construction but arises from the independent constraining data and the method's approximations. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs by definition or renames a fit as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Nine EDF parameters are varied around PC-PK1 values; the Bayesian likelihood incorporates empirical saturation density, symmetry energy, and B(E2) data as external constraints. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • nine point-coupling parameters
    Varied around PC-PK1 values to generate the prior; posterior obtained by Bayesian update with nuclear-matter and B(E2) data.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The relativistic point-coupling EDF form is an adequate starting point for the nuclei considered.
    Implicit in the choice of PC-PK1 as the central parameterization.
  • domain assumption The subspace spanned by training calculations captures the essential degrees of freedom for the target states.
    Required for the validity of the SP-CDFT approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical uncertainty quantification for multireference covariant density functional theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOKA5RPF

@misc{pith2026240813209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical uncertainty quantification for multireference covariant density functional theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOKA5RPF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2408.13209}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical framework to quantify statistical uncertainties in covariant density functional theory (CDFT) for both nuclear matter and finite nuclei, based on a relativistic point-coupling energy density functional (EDF). By sampling approximately one million parameter sets, with nine parameters varied around their values in the PC-PK1 functional, we construct a probability density function for nuclear matter properties. Incorporating empirical values of nuclear matter at saturation density and those of predictions from chiral nuclear forces, and measured $B(E2)$ values of finite nuclei, we infer posterior distributions for the model parameters within a Bayesian framework. These posterior distributions are then propagated to the low-lying states of finite nuclei using the newly developed subspace-projected (SP)-CDFT approach, in which the wave functions of target EDF parameter sets are expanded in a subspace spanned by low-lying states obtained from a set of training parameterizations. We find that the observables of low-lying states in deformed nuclei $^{150}$Nd and $^{150}$Sm are well reproduced once statistical uncertainties are taken into account. In contrast, those of near spherical nuclei $^{136}$Xe and $^{136}$Ba remain difficult to describe within the present framework, a limitation that is expected to be alleviated by extending the model space to include quasiparticle excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.13209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The speed-up factor of SP-CDFT calcula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The min-max and mean values of the relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Comparison of the ground-state properties and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The first-order sensitivity index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Same with Fig. 4 , but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) The energy per particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Histogram plots of nuclear-matter properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The correlation relation among di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Same as Fig. 9, for Nd 150 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The posterior distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig. 12, but replacing the data for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The correlations among the quantities of nuclear matter at saturation density, nuclear low-lying states and the NME of 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Benchmarking nuclear matrix elements of $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay with high-energy nuclear collisions

    nucl-th 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations show that flow observables in ultra-central 150Nd+150Nd collisions have Pearson correlations up to |r|=0.93 with the 0νββ nuclear matrix element, proposing collider data as a benchmark for nuclear theory.

  2. Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars

    nucl-ex 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RHIC isobar data are explained by different shapes of 96Ru and 96Zr, with 96Zr showing a large octupole deformation, so nuclear structure uncertainty, not the magnetic field, dominates the observed ratios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. Afanasjev, G. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Physics Reports 409, 101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0508020. 14

    work page arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    J. E. Drut, R. J. Furnstahl, and L. Platter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 64, 120 (2010), arXiv:0906.1463 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    G. A. Lalazissis, S. Raman, and P. Ring, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 71, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    L. Geng, H. Toki, and J. Meng, Progress of Theoretical Physics 113, 785 (2005), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/113/4/785/5123587/113-4-785.pdf

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, A. M. Perhac, , and M. Stoitsov, Nature 486, 509 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V . Afanasjev, and A. Taninah, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014318 (2019), arXiv:1811.11473 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Guo et al

    P. Guo et al. (DRHBc Mass Table), Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 158, 101661 (2024), arXiv:2402.02935 [nucl-th]

    2024

  3. [11]

    Li, L.-W

    B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rept. 464, 113 (2008), arXiv:0804.3580 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. V . Afanasjev and S. E. Agbemava, Phys. Rev. C93, 054310 (2016), arXiv:1604.07296 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and P. G. Reinhard, J. Phys. G 41, 074001 (2014), arXiv:1402.4657 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Skyrme, Nucl

    T. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys. 9, 615 (1959)

    1959

  7. [15]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972)

    1972

  8. [16]

    Gogny, P

    D. Gogny, P. Pires, and R. De Tourreil, Phys. Lett. B 32, 591 (1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    Decharge and D

    J. Decharge and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1568 (1980)

    1980

  10. [18]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys. 83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    P. G. Reinhard, Rept. Prog. Phys. 52, 439 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    J. Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9872

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Schwenk and J

    A. Schwenk and J. Polonyi (2004) arXiv:nucl-th /0403011

    2004

  15. [23]

    Gambacurta, L

    D. Gambacurta, L. Li, G. Colo, U. Lombardo, N. Van Giai, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C84, 024301 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Grasso, D

    M. Grasso, D. Lacroix, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Scripta 91, 063005 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    C. J. Yang, M. Grasso, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C96, 034318 (2017), arXiv:1706.00258 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bonnard, M

    J. Bonnard, M. Grasso, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034319 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1806.01084 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Liang, Y

    H. Liang, Y . Niu, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 779, 436 (2018), arXiv:1710.00650 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Burrello, J

    S. Burrello, J. Bonnard, and M. Grasso, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064317 (2021), arXiv:2103.05996 [nucl-th]

    2021

  21. [29]

    Marino, C

    F. Marino, C. Barbieri, A. Carbone, G. Colò, A. Lovato, F. Ped- eriva, X. Roca-Maza, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C104, 024315 (2021), arXiv:2103.14480 [nucl-th]

    2021

  22. [30]

    Navarro Pérez, N

    R. Navarro Pérez, N. Schunck, A. Dyhdalo, R. J. Furn- stahl, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054304 (2018), arXiv:1801.08615 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zurek, S

    L. Zurek, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, R. Navarro Pérez, N. Schunck, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014319 (2024), arXiv:2307.13568 [nucl-th]

    2024

  24. [32]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and P. Ring, arXiv:1904.04977 [nucl-th] (2019)

    1904

  25. [33]

    Grasso, Prog

    M. Grasso, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 256 (2019), arXiv:1811.01039 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. J. Furnstahl, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 85 (2020), arXiv:1906.00833 [nucl-th]

    2020

  27. [35]

    Goriely and R

    S. Goriely and R. Capote, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054318 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    J. D. McDonnell, N. Schunck, D. Higdon, J. Sarich, S. M. Wild, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 122501 (2015), arXiv:1501.03572 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V . Afanasjev, D. Ray, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054320 (2014), arXiv:1404.4901 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Giuliani, K

    P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, E. Bonilla, F. Viens, and J. Piekarewicz, (2022), arXiv:2209.13039 [nucl-th]

    2022

  31. [39]

    Salinas and J

    M. Salinas and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045802 (2023), arXiv:2301.09692 [nucl-th]

    2023

  32. [40]

    X. Sun, Z. Miao, B. Sun, and A. Li, Astrophys. J. 942, 55 (2023), arXiv:2205.10631 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  33. [41]

    Symmetry Restoration Methods,

    J. M. Yao, “Symmetry Restoration Methods,” in Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–36, arXiv:2204.12126 [nucl-th]

    2022

  34. [42]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck, The nuclear many-body problem (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980)

    1980

  35. [43]

    Bender and P.-H

    M. Bender and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024309 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    T. R. Rodríguez and J. L. Egido, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064323 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044311 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Nikši´c, D

    T. Nikši´c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodríguez, and R. R. Rodríguez-Guzmán, J. Phys. G 46, 013001 (2019), arXiv:1807.02518 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. A. Sheikh, J. Dobaczewski, P. Ring, L. M. Robledo, and C. Yannouleas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 123001 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Sun and S.-G

    X.-X. Sun and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064319 (2021), arXiv:2107.05925 [nucl-th]

    2021

  42. [50]

    E. F. Zhou and J. M. Yao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 32, 2340011 (2023), arXiv:2309.09488 [nucl-th]

    2023

  43. [51]

    T. R. Rodríguez and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252503 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    L. S. Song, J. M. Yao, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054309 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, Y . F. Niu, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 126, 103965 (2022), arXiv:2111.15543 [nucl-th]

    2022

  46. [54]

    Y . K. Wang, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138796 (2024), arXiv:2403.06455 [nucl-th]

    2024

  47. [55]

    Chupp, P

    T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019), arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Arrowsmith-Kron et al., Rept

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 084301 (2024), arXiv:2302.02165 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  49. [57]

    Severijns, M

    N. Severijns, M. Beck, and O. Naviliat-Cuncic, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 991 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0605029

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Alarcon et al

    R. Alarcon et al. (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

    2022

  51. [60]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054302 (2022), arXiv:2203.10577 [nucl-th]

    2022

  52. [61]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, and S. Stoica, Phys. Rev. C 107, 045501 (2023), arXiv:2302.03664 [nucl-th]

    2023

  53. [62]

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

    2020

  54. [63]

    Belley, T

    A. Belley, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    Zhang, C

    X. Zhang, C. C. Wang, C. R. Ding, and J. M. Yao, (2024), arXiv:2408.00691 [nucl-th]

    2024

  56. [65]

    Frame, R

    D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 032501 (2018)

    2018

  57. [66]

    M. C. Franzke, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Lett. B 830, 137101 (2022), arXiv:2108.02824 [nucl-th]

    2022

  58. [67]

    Sowi´nski and M

    T. Sowi´nski and M. A. Garcia-March, Phys. Rev. C106, 024002 (2022), arXiv:2202.07493 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022

  59. [68]

    V . V . Baran and D. R. Nichita, Phys. Rev. B107, 144503 (2023), arXiv:2212.14313 [cond-mat.supr-con]. 15

    2023

  60. [69]

    M. C. Franzke, A. Tichai, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024311 (2024), arXiv:2302.08373 [nucl-th]

    2024

  61. [70]

    Q. Y . Luo, X. Zhang, L. H. Chen, and J. M. Yao, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014309 (2024)

    2024

  62. [71]

    Ekström and G

    A. Ekström and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 252501 (2019), arXiv:1910.02922 [nucl-th]

    2019

  63. [72]

    König, A

    S. König, A. Ekström, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Physics Letters B 810, 135814 (2020)

    2020

  64. [73]

    R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Garcia, P. J. Millican, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135719 (2020), arXiv:2007.03635 [nucl-th]

    2020

  65. [74]

    Demol, T

    P. Demol, T. Duguet, A. Ekström, M. Frosini, K. Hebeler, S. König, D. Lee, A. Schwenk, V . Somà, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C 101, 041302 (2020), arXiv:1911.12578 [nucl-th]

    2020

  66. [75]

    Drischler, M

    C. Drischler, M. Quinonez, P. G. Giuliani, A. E. Lovell, and F. M. Nunes, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136777 (2021), arXiv:2108.08269 [nucl-th]

    2021

  67. [76]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014612 (2021), arXiv:2101.06336 [nucl-th]

    2021

  68. [77]

    Sarkar and D

    A. Sarkar and D. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 032501 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, A. J. Gar- cia, and X. Zhang, Front. in Phys. 10, 1092931 (2022), arXiv:2212.04912 [nucl-th]

    2022

  70. [79]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekström, R. J. Furnstahl, S. König, and D. Lee, (2023), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

    2023

  71. [80]

    J. M. Yao, J. Meng, P. Ring, and D. P. Arteaga, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044312 (2009)

    2009

  72. [81]

    E. F. Zhou, X. Y . Wu, and J. M. Yao, Phys. Rev. C109, 034305 (2024), arXiv:2311.15305 [nucl-th]

    2024

  73. [82]

    Burvenich, D

    T. Burvenich, D. G. Madland, J. A. Maruhn, and P. G. Rein- hard, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044308 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0111012

    2002 arXiv

  74. [83]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054319 (2010)

    2010

  75. [84]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenço, S. S. Avancini, B. V . Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providência, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl- th]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Drischler, R

    C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 202702 (2020)

    2020

  77. [86]

    D. L. Hill and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953)

    1953

  78. [87]

    Balian and E

    R. Balian and E. Brezin, Nuovo Cimento B Serie 64, 37 (1969)

    1969

  79. [88]

    Nikši´c, D

    T. Nikši´c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034308 (2006)

    2006

  80. [89]

    J. M. Yao, K. Hagino, Z. P. Li, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054306 (2014), arXiv:1403.4812 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [90]

    J. M. Yao, L. S. Song, K. Hagino, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 91, 024316 (2015)

    2015

  82. [91]

    Dutta and A

    S. Dutta and A. H. Gandomi, in Handbook of Probabilistic Models, edited by P. Samui, D. Tien Bui, S. Chakraborty, and R. C. Deo (Butterworth-Heinemann,

  83. [92]

    W. G. Jiang, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054301 (2020), arXiv:2006.16774

    2020

  84. [93]

    Z. H. Sun, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock (2024) arXiv:2404.00058 [nucl-th]

    2024

  85. [94]

    Qiu, B.-J

    M. Qiu, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, C.-X. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138435 (2024), arXiv:2312.07031 [nucl-th]

    2024

  86. [95]

    Sobol, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 55, 271 (2001), the Second IMACS Seminar on Monte Carlo Methods

    I. Sobol, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 55, 271 (2001), the Second IMACS Seminar on Monte Carlo Methods

    2001

  87. [96]

    Vernon, M

    I. Vernon, M. Goldstein, and R. Bower, Bayesian Analysis 5 (2010), 10.1214/10-BA524

    2010 doi

  88. [97]

    NuDat 2 Database,

    National Nuclear Data Center, “NuDat 2 Database,” (2020), https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2

    2020

  89. [98]

    Qi, Phys

    C. Qi, Phys. Lett. B 773, 616 (2017), arXiv:1810.07747 [nucl- th]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Ciriglianoet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.12169 [hep-ph]

    V . Ciriglianoet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.12169 [hep-ph]

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed May 23, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.