Abstract
With the combination of nuclear interactions from chiral effective field theory and various many-body techniques, one can perform systematically improvable ab initio calculations. As the improvable framework enables us to quantify the uncertainty, it is particularly useful to make a prediction for which performing experiments is difficult or even impossible. Neutron skin thickness, the difference between neutron and proton distribution radii, is a key quantity related to the properties of infinite nuclear matter. Since neutrons do not have a net electric charge, the neutron-distribution radius is difficult to measure, preventing precise measurement of neutron skin thickness. On the other hand, recent developments in laser spectroscopy techniques can provide detailed information on the charge distribution and opportunities for detailed comparisons to theoretical results. Testing the theoretical frameworks with the measurable charge radii should be a step toward predicting other quantities, such as neutron skin thickness. This contribution reviews recent advances in nuclear radii and neutron skin from ab initio calculations.
1 Introduction
The size of a nucleus is the fundamental observable of the nucleus, similar to the energies. The size can be quantified by mean-square (ms) radius or root-mean-square (rms) radius . Nuclear radii provide additional insights into nuclear structure. For example, a large radius signifies halo nuclei, whose nucleon density distributions are widely spread out compared to those of stable nuclei [1, 2]. Also, the behavior of charge radii over the isotopic chain can tell us about the nuclear structure, such as magic numbers and deformation [3–6].
The radii provide stringent tests of our theoretical understanding of nuclear systems. As the current nuclear theory is not directly connected with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the fundamental theory of strong force governing a nucleus, disagreements between measured and theoretical radii indicate insufficiencies in our understanding of not only quantum many-body problems but nuclear interactions. Addressing these disagreements sheds light on how the theoretical models could be improved [7–10].
Moreover, a precise understanding of nuclear radii can impact astrophysics. The neutron skin thickness , defined as , with the ms neutron radius and proton radius , strongly correlates with infinite nuclear matter properties [11, 12]. Although infinite nuclear matter does not exist on Earth, it is realized as a neutron star in the universe. The mass and radius of a neutron star are typical observables. Theoretically, neutron star mass and radius can be calculated by solving the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation with the nuclear equation of state (EoS). The EoS is characterized by energy per particle as a function of density and proton-neutron asymmetry . Note that , , and are proton, neutron, and nucleon densities, respectively. Then, one expands around :Here, is the energy of symmetric nuclear matter, and is the symmetry energy. Around the symmetric nuclear matter saturation density , and can be expanded aswith saturation energy , incompressibility , symmetry energy at , and slope of the symmetry energy . As seen in many studies, is strongly correlated with the radius and maximum mass of neutron stars (see Ref. [13] for example). From available mean-field theory calculations, unfortunately, is not sufficiently constrained. At the same time, one can find a strong correlation between of 208Pb and . The correlation indicates that a precise knowledge of illuminates physics in neutron stars.
Furthermore, is relevant for the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CENS). Neutrinos interact with a nucleus via the neutral current, and thus, the nuclear weak form factor is essential in CENS cross section calculations. Since the weak charges of neutron and proton are almost −1 and 0, respectively, CENS cross sections are sensitive to neutron density distribution. Precise measurements of CENS cross sections will allow us to extract [14]. Conversely, precise calculations may impact investigations of neutrino properties.
In the above two examples, precise knowledge of is crucial. However, the experimental determination is unfortunately limited as the neutron density distribution is difficult to measure. Therefore, reliable theoretical calculations are strongly needed. A nuclear ab initio calculation framework is a possible approach to predict quantified uncertainty. In this contribution, we discuss the current status of ab initio calculations for nuclear charge radii and neutron skin thickness. This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, the framework of nuclear ab initio calculations is briefly introduced. In Section 3, recent results of charge radii are presented to demonstrate the quality of the ab initio calculations. Recent progress in neutron skin from ab initio calculations is summarized in Section 4. The conclusions is presented in Section 5.
2 Ab initio nuclear theory
Here, we briefly discuss an ab initio nuclear theory. All the properties of nuclei are expected to be explained if one begins with QCD. The ab initio nuclear theory should be defined in terms of quarks and gluons degrees of freedom. Of course, it is currently impossible to compute the properties of nuclei starting from QCD, except for very light nuclei, though the recent progress in QCD simulation on a lattice is remarkable [15, 16]. A possible way is to rely on the nucleon degrees of freedom. However, it makes the definition of ab initio calculations ambiguous. Actually, it seems the definitions of nuclear ab initio calculations have been evolving. Up to the 2000s, nuclear ab initio calculation was regarded as a framework to solve exactly nuclear many-body problems. In the calculation, one begins with a nuclear Hamiltonian, which precisely reproduces, for example, the nucleon-nucleon scattering phase shifts. Nowadays, one of the interpretations of nuclear ab initio calculation is a systematically improvable framework both for obtaining operators expressed in terms of nucleon degrees of freedom and for solving nuclear many-body problems [17, 18]. The systematically improvable framework, in principle, enables us to quantify the propagated theoretical uncertainty, and thus, a probabilistically meaningful prediction can be made. There are two key points to build the framework, i.e., constructing nuclear operators and solving the nuclear many-body problem. In the following, these aspects will be discussed.
2.1 Nuclear Hamiltonian and radius operator
Interactions between nucleons are the essential ingredient for understanding the nuclear structure. The history of nuclear interactions began with the pion-exchange theory proposed by Yukawa in 1935 [19], and many efforts have been made since then. Although our understanding of nuclear interactions remains incomplete, chiral effective field theory (ChEFT) provides a systematically improvable way to derive them.
The chiral effective Lagrangian is described using the pion and nucleon (and delta isobar as an option) degrees of freedom. The terms entering the Lagrangian are constrained by the chiral symmetry. While the symmetry restricts the number of allowed terms, one still has an infinite number of terms. To organize a controllable framework, Weinberg introduced a power counting scheme defined by the ratio of two energy scales [20–22]. The first energy scale corresponds to the pion mass or Fermi momentum of the system of interest. The second scale is the breakdown scale and roughly corresponds to the meson mass, MeV, which has already been integrated out from the theory. Then, the Lagrangian is expanded according to the power of the small parameter . In the same manner, an expansion for nuclear interactions can be defined [23–25], and the diagrams are shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
There are several points worth emphasizing. In the expansion, not only nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction terms , but also many-nucleon interactions, such as three-nucleon interaction and four-nucleon interaction can be derived systematically. The expansion in Figure 1 naturally explains the hierarchy of the many-body interactions, e.g., . The unknown parameters, referred to as low-energy constants (LECs), appear in the expansion and are illustrated by solid dots, filled circles, filled squares, filled diamonds, and open squares in the figure. The LECs are constrained by the existing experimental data, for example, nucleon-nucleon scattering data. The power counting scheme suggests the possibility of performing an uncertainty quantification. Some uncertainty quantification methods can be found in Refs. [26–29]. Finally, ChEFT can provide us with systematic expansions for couplings to the electroweak sector [30–36]. Owing to the systematic expansion, one can derive higher-order two-body current operators, which solve the long-standing quenching problem in the Gamow-Teller transition [37]. The importance of the two-body current operators for the magnetic observables was also reported [31, 32, 38–40].
From ChEFT, up to the 3N term, one can find nuclear Hamiltonianwith the kinetic energy term , NN interaction , and 3N interaction . The second quantization form of the operator is given aswith the creation (annihilation) operator of a single-particle state . Assuming a widely used harmonics oscillator single-particle state, represents a set of quantum numbers , where is the radial quantum number, is the orbital angular momentum, is the total angular momentum, is the -component of , and is the -component of the isospin. The , , are the matrix elements of the one-body kinetic term, NN and 3N interactions, respectively. Note that includes a correction due to the translational invariance of the system as well as the Coulomb interaction between protons.
2.1.1 Radius operators
In addition to Hamiltonian, we briefly discuss the radius operators. Classically, an ms radius can be computed with the corresponding density aswith the normalization factor . However, the coordinate-space density might not always be useful. Actually, for charge density distribution, it is not straightforward to include the contributions of the nucleon charge density. In the momentum space, such contribution is already built in by definition, and we begin with the momentum-space density . With , one can define the angle-averaged form factor Now, we can use the well-known partial wave decomposition formula for the plane wave function: . Here, is the order spherical Bessel function of the first kind, and is the spherical harmonics with the usual notation. Note that indicates the unit vector, i.e., . Owing to the orthonormality of the spherical harmonics, one finds . Since the small limit of the is known asthe ms radius is obtained as
We can apply Equation 4 to find, for example, the ms point-proton radius using the intrinsic point-proton density:Here, indicates that -th nucleon is proton (neutron), is the coordinate vector of the -th nucleon, and is the center-of-mass vector, . Plugging this into (Equation 2) and performing the angular integral, one finds the point-proton form factor as with . Thus the point-proton ms radius is given aswith the proton number , the normalization of the form factor: . In the same manner, with the neutron number , the ms point-neutron radius can be found asSo far, the radii are classically defined. However, one can obtain the ms point-proton and point-neutron radius operators by applying the usual quantization procedure to Equations 5, 6, respectively. Writing the expectation value of and operators as and , respectively, the neutron skin thickness is defined as
In nuclear physics, the most frequently measured is the charge radius, as it can be precisely measured by electromagnetic probes. To this end, one can begin with the intrinsic charge density :with nucleon mass , momentum of -th nucleon , center-of-mass momentum , and Sachs form factors and . Here, and are given as.with proton/neutron Sachs form factors and . Note that the higher order terms in are omitted. Again, owing to the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics, the charge form factor is obtained aswith the -th nucleon’s orbital angular momentum , which is often approximated as . From Equation 4, the ms charge radius is obtained aswithHere, is the proton/neutron charge radius, and is the proton/neutron magnetic moment. Note that and are used. From Equation 8, the ms charge radius is interpreted as the sum of the ms point-proton radius and corrections. The and are the nucleon finite-size corrections. The and are known as Darwin-Foldy and spin-orbit terms, respectively. Note that depends on the nuclear wave function, while the other corrections are not. The charge density given in Equation 7 is a standard starting point. At higher orders in ChEFT, however, additional contributions to the charge density can be found [33, 34, 36, 41, 42]. So far, investigating the effects of the two-body charge density is limited to the light nuclei [43]. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify the effects of such terms on the charge radii.
Finally, we note the 4th moment of charge density . Very recently, it was shown that a sequence of isotope shifts of are measurable [44]. In Ref. [44], was approximately computed as the 4th moment of the point-proton density . For future work, we note the operator expression. With the expansion in Equation 3, can be obtained from the second derivative of the charge form factor:Similar to the derivation of , one can find the expression of aswith the 4th moment of proton/neutron charge density , defined as . Also, the 4th moment of the point-proton density and spin-orbit correction arewith the ms proton/neutron magnetic radius , defined as . We note that depends on , as discussed in Ref. [45].
2.2 Many-body problem
The problem now is to solve the non-relativistic many-body Schrödinger equationwhere and are the eigenstate and corresponding energy, respectively. The range of the applicability of ab initio many-body methods has been expanding rapidly over the past decades [17]. In the 2000s, researchers in the nuclear physics community started to use numerical methods, whose computational cost scales polynomially as a function of . This development has been essential for enabling numerous ab initio nuclear structure studies, and the achievements in the quarter century are highlighted in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
A straightforward way to solve the equation would be to insert the completeness relation with the known orthonormal basis set . Then, the problem is equivalent to diagonalize the Hamiltonian matrix:The component of the vector is given by . To solve the eigenvalue problem numerically, one needs to introduce the truncation to a finite number of bases , and needs to be increased until the results converge. On a supercomputer, a typical limit of is . Due to this limitation, applications of the exact diagonalization method are usually limited up to systems [17, 47, 48, 49, 50]. Another option is the quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method (see Ref. [51–53] for applications in nuclear physics). Similarly to the exact diagonalization method, a typical QMC application limit is also . An alternative method is solving the problem on the lattice, known as nuclear lattice EFT [54, 55]. Remarkably, recent efforts have made the calculations up to possible [56]. Despite the limitations, the results from the above mentioned exact methods are valuable to benchmark those from the approximate many-body methods discussed below.
2.2.1 Normal ordering
To compute the medium and heavy-mass nuclei, one can use expansion methods based on a reference state . The first step is to take normal order for all the creation and annihilation operator strings with respect to . Then, Hamiltonian (Equation 1) can be rewritten asHere, , , , and are the zero-, one-, two-, and three-body parts of the Hamiltonian after the rearrangement, and the superscript [n] indicates that the term is -body. Each term is given asThe brace indicates that the creation and annihilation operators are normal ordered with respect to , i.e., . If is uncorrelated, for example, the Hartree–Fock solution, , , , and can be written aswith the one-body density . Since the effect of term is usually small [57–60], we omit the term, known as the normal-ordered two-body (NO2B) approximation:
2.2.2 Similarity transformation method
Beginning with Hamiltonian (Equation 9), one needs to evaluate the effects of the many-body correlations on top of the reference state. To incorporate the many-body correlations, the diagrammatic expansion or similarity transformation methods can be applied. As diagrammatic expansion methods, one can find many-body perturbation theory [61] and self-consistent Green’s function method [62, 63]. In this review, we quickly introduce the similarity transformation methods. The many-body Schrödinger equation is equivalent towithIn general, operator includes up to -body terms:The transformation makes the reference state the eigenstate of , without changing the energy eigenvalue of the original Hamiltonian. In other words, the transformation suppresses the off-diagonal matrix elements between and the other states, which is known as the decoupling.
In the coupled-cluster method [64] (CCM), is known as the cluster operator, which includes only the particle-hole excitation operators. As a consequence, the transformed Hamiltonian becomes non-Hermitian. While, in the in-medium similarity renormalization group [65, 66] (IMSRG), is chosen as the anti-Hermitian and includes not only the particle-hole excitation operators but also the de-excitation counterparts, and becomes Hermitian.
During the transformation (Equation 10), the many-body terms are induced. This can be seen by rewriting the transformation with the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff (BCH) formula:Assuming that the operator has one- and two-body parts, the commutator is classified asThe commutator of and operators induces the three-body term. In the end, nested commutators will induce up to -body term. To make numerical calculations feasible, making an approximation is unavoidable. A typical approximation is to keep up to the two-body part for , , and all the commutators:This approximation is very efficient and usually accurate enough. Discussions on extensions beyond the two-body approximation in CCM and IMSRG can be found in Refs. [57, 59, 67–75].
In the IMSRG, is obtained by solving the following ordinary differential equation [76]:withand the -th Bernoulli number . The and are the flow parameter and anti-Hermitian generator of the differential equation, respectively. The equation is solved from to with the initial condition . Note that is also truncated at the two-body level. In usual applications, the white generator (and its variants) is used, where the matrix element is expressed aswith the s-dependent transformed Hamiltonian , the off-diagonal matrix element to be suppressed , and the energy difference . Once is obtained, the radius operators can also be transformed with the BCH transformation. One of the advantages of the IMSRG is that one can choose and as desired, and it enables us to decouple a small valence space with the other space, known as valence-space IMSRG (VS-IMSRG) [77]. With well-established shell-model calculation codes such as ANTOINE [78], NuShell [79], BIGSTICK [80], KSHELL [81], etc., one can access open-shell systems and excited states starting from the underlying Hamiltonian and without any phenomenological adjustments.
2.3 Parameter optimization strategy
As discussed in
Section 2.1, unknown LECs appear in ChEFT. Here, we summarize how the LECs of the frequently used interactions in this review were determined.
• [82]: Combinations of next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (LO) NN and next-to-next-to-leading order (LO) 3N interactions. The LECs of the NN part are optimized with the NN scattering phase-shift and deuteron data by Entem and Machleidt [83]. Further, the NN part was softened by free-space SRG [84] with the momentum scale . The LECs of the 3N part non-locally regulated with the momentum scale were determined with the triton binding energy and 4He radius. Depending on the pion-nucleon couplings s from Entem and Machleidt (EM) [83], NN partial wave analysis (PWA) [85], and Epelbaum, Glöckle, and Meißner (EGM) [86], some choices are available. A widely used combination is and with s from Ref. [83], i.e., 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction. The 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction reproduces the ground-state energies up to heavy systems [87–89], while it significantly underestimates the radii [87].
•N2LO [7]: LO NN and 3N interactions, which are non-locally regulated with the momentum scale 450 MeV. All the LECs were optimized simultaneously with the few-body data and some selected properties up to systems with the POUNDerS algorithm [90]. It reproduces the ground-state energies and charge radii simultaneously roughly up to systems.
•N2LOGO(394) [9]: LO NN and 3N interactions from ChEFT with delta isobar excitation effects [91] (-full ChEFT). The NN and 3N interactions are non-locally regulated with the momentum scale 394 MeV, which is approximately 2 . NN and 3N LECs are simultaneously optimized with the few-body data and nuclear matter properties with the POUNDerS algorithm [90]. It reproduces the ground-state energies and radii of the to 132 systems [9].
•N2LO non-implausible interactions [46, 92, 93]: A set of LO NN and 3N interactions obtained with -full ChEFT. The NN and 3N interactions are non-locally regulated. With an implausibility measure, one can iteratively exclude a region of the initial parameter space. The procedure is known as history matching [94, 95]. Typical observables defining the implausibility measure are few-body data, including the NN scattering phase-shift data. In Ref. [46], the 34 non-implausible parameter sets were found.
3 Charge radius
The nuclear charge radius is the most precisely measurable nuclear radius via electron scattering, laser spectroscopy, and muonic atom spectroscopy techniques. Here, we briefly discuss the recent progress in the charge radius studies from ab initio calculations. For simplicity, we omit angle brackets when writing expectation values. For example, is simply written as . Similarly, rms radii are denoted by , , , etc.
3.1 Light nuclei
Radius data are valuable for optimizing nuclear interactions. For example, the deuteron radius was used to check the quality of high-precision nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials such as AV18 [96] and CD-Bonn [97]. Furthermore, the data of few-body systems are important to constrain the three-nucleon (3N) interaction. The inclusion of few-body data to optimize nuclear Hamiltonians has become feasible due to the developments in exact many-body techniques such as Faddeev [98], Faddeev-Yakubovsky [99], hyperspherical harmonics [100], no-core shell-model [101], and QMC [52, 53]. In ChEFT, two additional parameters and appear in the 3N one-pion and contact diagrams at the leading order. Since it is known that the binding energies of 3N systems are strongly correlated, additional data are needed to constrain and . Thus, the radii of the few-body systems are the potential candidates to further constrain the 3N LECs. For example, and in the widely used 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction are determined to reproduce the triton binding energy and 4He matter radius. Also, the radii data were used to define the implausibility measure and to exclude the parameter space domains [46, 92, 93].
Moreover, the radii of few-body systems will be used to test the effect of the higher-order terms in the charge density operator. Deriving the analytical form of the charge radius operators is expected to be non-trivial for higher-order terms, especially the two-body contributions. In that case, computing the charge form factor and resorting to Equation 4 would be the most straightforward way. Indeed, in Table 1, within the numerical precision, one can see the equivalence between the two approaches, i.e., computing charge radii from the radius operator and the derivative of the form factor. All the radii are computed with the 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction. The significant disagreement with the experimental 4He radius seems to be due to the updated proton radius [104].
TABLE 1
| Nuclide | Radius operator | Form factor | Exp | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| () | () | (fm) | () | () | (fm) | (fm) | |
| 3H | 2.606 | 0.001 | 1.77 | 2.606 | 0.001 | 1.77 | |
| 3He | 3.206 | 1.97 | 3.206 | 1.97 | |||
| 4He | 2.096 | 1.65 | 2.096 | 1.65 | |||
Radii of three-body systems and 4He, computed with the Jacobi-coordinate no-sore shell model [102,103] using the 1.8/2.0 (EM) [82, 83] interaction.
To compute , , fm, , , and are used [104]. The entries in radius operators are computed from Equation 8, and those in form factor are computed from Equation 4.
3.2 Medium-mass and heavy nuclei
In the late 2000s to early 2010s, applications of the many-body methods whose computational costs scale polynomially with the system size began, such as the coupled-cluster method (CCM) [64], self-consistent Green’s function approach [62, 63], and in-medium similarity renormalization group (IMSRG) [65, 66, 77] enabling us to access medium-mass nuclei [17]. Initially, the numerical calculations were mostly done for the ground-state energies; soon after, the calculations of radii began. Owing to the advancement, it became possible to optimize the nuclear interactions using both few-body data and, for example, 16O radius [7–9]. The inclusion of beyond-few-body data enables us to extrapolate our knowledge from well-known to less-known systems.
Numerical calculations for heavy nuclei have been a challenge. As found in Refs. [105, 106], the calculations did not fully converge with respect to the 3N interaction space. Although the authors of Ref. [106] claimed that the extraction of radii is possible due to the convergence pattern of the computed radii, the fully converged results still need to be pursued. By leveraging the NO2B approximation (Equation 9), commonly used in standard calculations, one can overcome the limitation. In Ref. [89], a new technique to store the 3N matrix elements entering the NO2B Hamiltonian was introduced, which allows the reduction of memory size by two orders of magnitude. Due to this technical development, it is currently possible to obtain numerically converged results for systems.
The study of charge radii provides insights into both nuclear interactions and the employed many-body approximations. Since the global behavior of charge radii appears to be well approximated by Hartree-Fock calculations, the deviations from experimental data indicate the insufficiency of the employed nuclear interaction. For example, the frequently used 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction tends to predict too small radii [87]. Intuitively, smaller radii correspond to a higher density near the center of nuclei, which, in turn, is expected to lead to a higher saturation density in infinite nuclear matter calculations. Indeed, it was shown that the 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction shows saturation at a higher density than empirical estimates [107]. Recently, based on a similar idea of the 1.8/2.0 (EM) interaction and optimizing with respect to the 16O data in addition to the few-body data, some nuclear interactions were developed. These interactions can accurately reproduce the ground-state energies and radii across the nuclear chart, including the neutron-rich region [10].
Recent advancements in experimental techniques, in particular laser spectroscopy, have significantly improved the precision of charge radii measurements, especially for exotic nuclei [4], providing stringent tests of employed nuclear Hamiltonian and many-body methods. Figure 3 shows the charge radii of nickel isotopes [108]. Panels (a) and (b) in the figure compare the results with the CC, SCGF, and IMSRG methods using the interaction in absolute and relative scales, respectively, as well as those from the experiments. Here, the CC and SCGF uncertainties were estimated including the many-body uncertainty, while the IMSRG error bars were obtained from only the model-space variations (see [108] for more details). The theory results are consistent with each other, with only a few exceptions in the neutron deficient side, where the SCGF and IMSRG results do not overlap. From the figure, it is expected that the many-body method uncertainty for the absolute radii near spherical nuclei is about a few percent. Also, ab initio results reproduce the isotope shifts in the nickel isotopes.
FIGURE 3
In Figure 4, the odd-even staggering (OES) of binding energy and charge radius of the copper isotopes are shown. The OES is defined asHere, is either binding energy or charge radius. In the figure, it is observed that the OES of the binding energy is reasonably reproduced both in density functional theory (DFT) and VS-IMSRG calculations. On the other hand, in the OES of the charge radius, the difference between DFT and VS-IMSRG results can be seen. In the DFT, it looks neither Fy(std) [109] nor Fy [110, 111] can reproduce the reduction towards . The VS-IMSRG results by 2.0/2.0 (PWA) and 1.8/2.0 (EM) interactions [82] reproduce the trend, while the size of the OES is imperfect around , which is likely due to the missing proton excitations from orbital. We note that the two interactions shown here do not reproduce the absolute charge radii as expected from the failure to reproduce the nuclear saturation density. The figure demonstrates that the radii OES is sensitive to the nuclear structure and that ab initio calculations sometimes could reproduce the detailed behavior of the radii as well as (or even better than) the DFT. A similar reproduction of the detailed behavior in the VS-ISMRG was also observed in a heavier region [113].
FIGURE 4
Despite the success discussed above, we should not forget that many challenges remain in ab initio radius calculations [114–119]. A typical example would be the behavior in the calcium charge radii in 40–48Ca [109, 120]. The earlier shell-model calculation [120] demonstrated that the excitation across is essential to explain the behavior from 40Ca to 48Ca. However, even if one explicitly includes such excitations in the VS-IMSRG [121], the parabolic isotope shift behavior could not be reproduced, although it was found that activating the 40Ca core is needed to reproduce the magnetic dipole moment [39]. Note that the recent work with IMSRG showed that the inclusion of triple correlation effects does not resolve this issue [75]. These issues must be addressed in future studies.
4 Neutron skin thickness
The neutron skin thickness is a key quantity to connect our understanding of finite nuclei and infinite nuclear matter. A pioneering work with the ab initio framework was done by Hagen et al. [122], where they computed point-proton and neutron radii of 48Ca based on [82] and [7] interactions. They found a strong correlation between them, and a smaller neutron skin range compared to the DFT results. Their findings are strengthened by the measurement of electric dipole polarizability of 48Ca [123]. Also, the recent CREX [124] experiment result, (48Ca) fm, is consistent with the result in Ref. [122], which is (48Ca) fm.
208Pb is the most appealing nucleus in terms of neutron skin calculations as it shows a strong correlation with the nuclear matter properties. In Ref. [46], a first prediction for the neutron skin of 208Pb was made after incorporating the uncertainties due to both nuclear Hamiltonians and many-body approaches. The results are illustrated in Figure 5. In the work, starting from the 34 non-implausible interactions after the history-matching technique (green distribution), the interactions are weighted according to the reproduction of the selected data of 48Ca, to approximately obtain the posterior predictive distribution under the 48Ca data (blue distribution). The procedure was validated with the existing data, and the predicted credible range of the 208Pb neutron skin is (208Pb) fm (pink distributions). Also, nuclear matter properties are summarized in Table 2 with a minor correction [130]. Remarkably, the predicted range excludes a thicker neutron skin predicted in mean-field type studies. It was found that the reproduction of the phase shift data in an intermediate energy prevents to have a thicker neutron skin.
FIGURE 5
TABLE 2
| Neutron skins | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Observable | Median | 68% CR | 90% CR |
| (48Ca) | 0.164 | [0.141,0.187] | [0.123,0.199] |
| (208Pb) | 0.171 | [0.139,0.200] | [0.120,0.221] |
| Nuclear matter properties | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Median | 68% CR | 90% CR |
| 0.167 | |||
| 31.1 | |||
| 52.7 | |||
| 287 | |||
Median, 68% and 90% credible regions of neutron skins and nuclear matter properties.
An experimentally clean extraction of neutron distribution is challenging as the neutron’s net electric charge vanishes. Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES) offers a model-independent way to access the neutron distribution because the process detects the contribution from the weak boson. Since the exchanged boson couples with the weak charge, which is almost for the neutron and 0 for the proton, the neutron distribution can be deduced. In CREX and PREX experiments, the neutron skin thicknesses of 48Ca [124] and 208Pb [125] were measured through the PVES process, respectively. In Figure 6, the situation is summarized. In the figure, the correlated uncertainty of the ab initio result is estimated by assuming that the distribution can be expressed by a multivariate normal distribution. For the covariance matrix, we use the 68% credible ranges found in Ref. [46] and the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient is obtained with the 19 non-implausible interaction results that are consistent with both credible ranges of 48Ca and 208Pb. This procedure would approximately account for the correlation due to the LEC variations. A way to quantify the correlated uncertainty, including other sources such as the EFT and many-body methods, is being pursued and will be addressed in future work. As shown in the figure, none of the currently available theoretical models fall within (or overlap with) the region of the combined CREX and PREX results. We should, however, note that the comparison in terms of neutron skins might not be ideal, as the experimentally measured quantities were PVES asymmetry. For the ab initio calculations, to access the PVES asymmetries in a consistent way, similar to the recent work for the conversion process [145], one would need to consistently compute nuclear densities and electron wave function. Additionally, the currently neglected contributions, such as the electromagnetic and weak two-body currents, may play a role. Therefore, further investigation would be needed to draw a conclusion.
FIGURE 6
Finally, it is worth noting that there could be another observable that correlates with and the properties of nuclear matter. Recently, a strong correlation between the charge radii difference in mirror nuclei and the relevant quantities has been suggested, mainly in the mean-field studies [146–150]. Since is probed purely by the electromagnetic processes, experimental measurements of are expected to be easier than those of , where weak or strong interaction would be involved. Testing the suggested correlations is currently in progress within the ab initio framework [151, 152].
5 Conclusion
This review focuses on the recent progress in ab initio studies for nuclear radii. The current nuclear ab initio framework consists of deriving the nuclear Hamiltonian and relevant operators from ChEFT and solving the quantum many-body problem with a controllable approximation. The advantage of the framework is that one can quantify the uncertainties at each step and propagate them to the final results. It is particularly useful to make a prediction for which performing experiments is difficult or even impossible.
The range of applicability of the ab initio calculations is rapidly expanding, which is primarily driven by developments in the many-body methods whose computational costs scale polynomially with the system size. Currently, 208Pb is accessible starting from ChEFT. However, it does not mean that one can accurately compute the properties of all the nuclei up to 208Pb. The emergence of collective phenomena, such as deformation and clustering, based on the underlying interactions is still an open question. The related recent efforts focusing on the deformation can be found in Refs. [153–163].
Recent developments in experimental techniques have significantly improved the precision of charge radii measurements, providing stringent tests of the theoretical models. We observed that the results from different ab initio many-body methods starting with the same nuclear Hamiltonian basically agree with each other. Through the comparison, we find a few percent uncertainty due to the many-body approximation for the near spherical systems. Although the reproduction of the absolute charge radii strongly depends on the employed interaction, the local trends seem to be well reproduced by the ab initio calculations. For example, the performance of the ab initio results looks better than that of DFT for the odd-even staggering of the charge radii in the copper isotopes.
As suggested in many earlier mean-field theory studies, precise knowledge of can be a key to shedding light on neutron star physics. Since the experimental determination is difficult as involves the neutron density distribution, a reliable theoretical prediction is strongly required. After quantifying the uncertainties from the nuclear Hamiltonian and many-body methods, in Ref. [46], the predicted credible ranges are given as (48Ca) fm and (208Pb) fm. While the predicted range of 48Ca is consistent with the CREX experimental result, there is a mild tension between theory and PREX experimental results in 208Pb (see Figure 6). The reason for the tension is still unclear, and further efforts are needed.
Statements
Author contributions
TM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work is in part supported by JST ERATO Grant No. JPMJER2304, Japan.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all his collaborators for fruitful discussions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
TanihataI. Neutron halo nuclei. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. (1996) 22:157–98. 10.1088/0954-3899/22/2/004
2.
TanihataISavajolsHKanungoR. Recent experimental progress in nuclear halo structure studies. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2013) 68:215–313. 10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.07.001
3.
RuizRFGVernonAR. Emergence of simple patterns in many-body systems: from macroscopic objects to the atomic nucleus. Eur. Phys. J. A (2020) 56:136. 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00134-8
4.
YangXWangSWilkinsSRuizRG. Laser spectroscopy for the study of exotic nuclei. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2023) 129:104005. 10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104005
5.
ReinhardPGNazarewiczW. Statistical correlations of nuclear quadrupole deformations and charge radii. Phys. Rev. C (2022) 106:014303. 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014303
6.
NaitoTOishiTSagawaHWangZ. Comparative study on charge radii and their kinks at magic numbers. Phys. Rev. C (2023) 107:054307. 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054307
7.
EkströmAJansenGRWendtKAHagenGPapenbrockTCarlssonBDet alAccurate nuclear radii and binding energies from a chiral interaction. Phys. Rev. C (2015) 91:051301. 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.051301
8.
HütherTVobigKHebelerKMachleidtRRothR. Family of chiral two-plus three-nucleon interactions for accurate nuclear structure studies. Phys. Lett. B (2020) 808:135651. 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135651
9.
JiangWGEkströmAForssénCHagenGJansenGRPapenbrockT. Accurate bulk properties of nuclei from A = 2 to ∞ from potentials with Δ isobars. Phys. Rev. C (2020) 102:054301. 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.054301
10.
ArthuisPHebelerKSchwenkA. Neutron-rich nuclei and neutron skins from chiral low-resolution interactions. arXiv (2024). 10.48550/arXiv.2401.06675
11.
AlexBB. Neutron radii in nuclei and the neutron equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2000) 85:5296–9. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5296
12.
Roca-MazaXCentellesMViñasXWardaM. Neutron skin of 208Pb, nuclear symmetry energy, and the parity radius experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2011) 106:252501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.252501
13.
ErlerJHorowitzCJNazarewiczWRafalskiMReinhardPG. Energy density functional for nuclei and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. C (2013) 87:044320. 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.044320
14.
CadedduMGiuntiCLiYFZhangYY. Average CsI neutron density distribution from COHERENT data. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 120:072501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.072501
15.
IshiiNAokiSHatsudaT. Nuclear force from lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007) 99:022001. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.022001
16.
BeaneSRChangECohenSDDetmoldWLinHWLuuTCet alLight nuclei and hypernuclei from quantum chromodynamics in the limit of SU(3) flavor symmetry. Phys. Rev. D (2013) 87:034506. 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034506
17.
HergertH. A guided tour of ab initio nuclear many-body theory. Front. Phys. (2020) 8:1. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00379
18.
EkströmAForssénCHagenGJansenGRJiangWPapenbrockT. What is ab initio in nuclear theory?Front. Phys. (2023) 11. 10.3389/fphy.2023.1129094
19.
YukawaH. On the interaction of elementary particles. I. Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Japan (1935) 17:48–57. 10.11429/ppmsj1919.17.0_48
20.
WeinbergS. Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians. Phys. Lett. B (1990) 251:288–92. 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90938-3
21.
WeinbergS. Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon-pion interactions and nuclear forces. Nucl. Phys. B (1991) 363:3–18. 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90231-L
22.
WeinbergS. Three-body interactions among nucleons and pions. Phys. Lett. B (1992) 295:114–21. 10.1016/0370-2693(92)90099-P
23.
EpelbaumEKrebsHReinertP. High-precision nuclear forces from chiral EFT: state-of-the-art, challenges, and outlook. Front. Phys. (2020) 8:1–30. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098
24.
EpelbaumEHammerHWMeißnerUG. Modern theory of nuclear forces. Rev. Mod. Phys. (2009) 81:1773–825. 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773
25.
MachleidtREntemD. Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces. Phys. Rep. (2011) 503:1–75. 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001
26.
EpelbaumEKrebsHMeißnerUG. Improved chiral nucleon-nucleon potential up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order. Eur. Phys. J. A (2015) 51:53. 10.1140/epja/i2015-15053-8
27.
FurnstahlRJPhillipsDRWesolowskiS. A recipe for EFT uncertainty quantification in nuclear physics. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. (2015) 42:034028. 10.1088/0954-3899/42/3/034028
28.
MelendezJAWesolowskiSFurnstahlRJ. Bayesian truncation errors in chiral effective field theory: nucleon-nucleon observables. Phys. Rev. C (2017) 96:024003. 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024003
29.
MelendezJAFurnstahlRJPhillipsDRPratolaMTWesolowskiS. Quantifying correlated truncation errors in effective field theory. Phys. Rev. C (2019) 100:044001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044001
30.
ParkTSMarcucciLESchiavillaRVivianiMKievskyARosatiSet alParameter-free effective field theory calculation for the solar proton-fusion and hep processes. Phys. Rev. C (2003) 67:055206. 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.055206
31.
PastoreSGirlandaLSchiavillaRVivianiMWiringaRB. Electromagnetic currents and magnetic moments in chiral effective field theory (χeft). Phys. Rev. C (2009) 80:034004. 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.034004
32.
PastoreSPieperSCSchiavillaRWiringaRB. Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of electromagnetic moments and transitions in A ≤ 9 nuclei with meson-exchange currents derived from chiral effective field theory. Phys. Rev. C (2013) 87:035503. 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.035503
33.
KöllingSEpelbaumEKrebsHMeißnerUG. Two-pion exchange electromagnetic current in chiral effective field theory using the method of unitary transformation. Phys. Rev. C (2009) 80:045502. 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.045502
34.
KöllingSEpelbaumEKrebsHMeißnerUG. Two-nucleon electromagnetic current in chiral effective field theory: one-pion exchange and short-range contributions. Phys. Rev. C (2011) 84:054008. 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054008
35.
KrebsHEpelbaumEMeißnerUG. Nuclear axial current operators to fourth order in chiral effective field theory. Ann. Phys. (N. Y). (2017) 378:317–95. 10.1016/j.aop.2017.01.021
36.
KrebsHEpelbaumEMeißnerUG. Nuclear electromagnetic currents to fourth order in chiral effective field theory. Few-body Syst. (2019) 60:31. 10.1007/s00601-019-1500-5
37.
GysbersPHagenGHoltJDJansenGRMorrisTDNavrátilPet alDiscrepancy between experimental and theoretical β-decay rates resolved from first principles. Nat. Phys. (2019) 15:428–31. 10.1038/s41567-019-0450-7
38.
Friman-GayerURomigCHütherTAlbeKBaccaSBeckTet alRole of chiral two-body currents in 6Li magnetic properties in light of a new precision measurement wit. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2021) 126:102501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.102501
39.
MiyagiTCaoXSeutinRBaccaSRuizRFGHebelerKet alImpact of two-body currents on magnetic dipole moments of nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024) 132:232503. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.232503
40.
Chambers-WallGGnechAKingGBPastoreSPiarulliMSchiavillaRet alQuantum Monte Carlo calculations of magnetic form factors in light nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024) 133:212501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.212501
41.
PastoreSGirlandaLSchiavillaRVivianiM. Two-nucleon electromagnetic charge operator in chiral effective field theory χEFT up to one loop. Phys. Rev. C (2011) 84:024001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024001
42.
KrebsH. Nuclear currents in chiral effective field theory. Eur. Phys. J. A (2020) 56:234. 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00230-9
43.
KingGBChambers-WallGGnechAPastoreSPiarulliMWiringaRB. Longitudinal form factors of A ≤ 10 nuclei in a chiral effective field theory approach. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 110:054325. 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.054325
44.
DoorMYehCHHeinzMKirkFLyuCMiyagiTet alSearch for new bosons with ytterbium isotope shifts. arXiv:2403 (2024) 07792. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.063002
45.
KurasawaHSuzukiT. The nth-order moment of the nuclear charge density and contribution from the neutrons. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. (2019) 2019. 10.1093/ptep/ptz121
46.
HuBJiangWMiyagiTSunZEkströmAForssénCet alAb initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces. Nat. Phys. (2022) 18:1196–200. 10.1038/s41567-022-01715-8
47.
HergertHBinderSCalciALanghammerJRothR. Ab initio calculations of even oxygen isotopes with chiral two- plus three-nucleon interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013) 110:242501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.242501
48.
RothRCalciALanghammerJBinderS. Evolved chiral NN + 3N Hamiltonians for ab initio nuclear structure calculations. Phys. Rev. C (2014) 90:024325. 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024325
49.
HaoYNavrátilPNorrgardEBIliašMEliavETimmermansRGEet alNuclear spin-dependent parity-violating effects in light polyatomic molecules. Phys. Rev. A (2020) 102:052828. 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.052828
50.
FroesePNavrátilP. Ab initio calculations of electric dipole moments of light nuclei. Phys. Rev. C (2021) 104:025502. 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.025502
51.
PieperSCWiringaRB. Quantum monte carlo calculations of light nuclei. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2001) 51:53–90. 10.1146/annurev.nucl.51.101701.132506
52.
CarlsonJGandolfiSPederivaFPieperSCSchiavillaRSchmidtKEet alQuantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics. Rev. Mod. Phys. (2015) 87:1067–118. 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067
53.
GandolfiSLonardoniDLovatoAPiarulliM. Atomic nuclei from quantum Monte Carlo calculations with chiral EFT interactions. Front. Phys. (2020) 8. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00117
54.
LeeD. Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2009) 63:117–54. 10.1016/j.ppnp.2008.12.001
55.
LähdeTAMeißnerUG. Nuclear lattice effective field theory. In: Lecture notes in physics, 957. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2019). 10.1007/978-3-030-14189-9
56.
ElhatisariSBovermannLMaYZEpelbaumEFrameDHildenbrandFet alWavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems. Nature (2024) 630:59–63. 10.1038/s41586-024-07422-z
57.
HagenGPapenbrockTDeanDJSchwenkANoggaAWłochMet alCoupled-cluster theory for three-body Hamiltonians. Phys. Rev. C (2007) 76:034302. 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.034302
58.
RothRBinderSVobigKCalciALanghammerJNavrátilP. Medium-mass nuclei with normal-ordered chiral NN + 3N interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2012) 109:052501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.052501
59.
BinderSLanghammerJCalciANavrátilPRothR. Ab initio calculations of medium-mass nuclei with explicit chiral 3N interactions. Phys. Rev. C (2013) 87:021303. 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.021303
60.
DjärvTEkströmAForssénCJansenGR. Normal-ordering approximations and translational (non)invariance. Phys. Rev. C (2021) 104:024324. 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024324
61.
TichaiARothRDuguetT. Many-body perturbation theories for finite nuclei. Front. Phys. (2020) 8:1–29. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00164
62.
DickhoffWBarbieriC. Self-consistent Green’s function method for nuclei and nuclear matter. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2004) 52:377–496. 10.1016/j.ppnp.2004.02.038
63.
SomàV. Self-consistent Green’s function theory for atomic nuclei. Front. Phys. (2020) 8:1–31. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00340
64.
HagenGPapenbrockTHjorth-JensenMDeanDJ. Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei. Rep Prog. Phys. (2014) 77:096302. 10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/096302
65.
HergertHBognerSMorrisTSchwenkATsukiyamaK. The In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group: a novel ab initio method for nuclei. Phys. Rep. (2016) 621:165–222. 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.007
66.
HergertH. In-medium similarity renormalization group for closed and open-shell nuclei. Phys. Scr. (2017) 92:023002. 10.1088/1402-4896/92/2/023002
67.
RothRGourJRPiecuchP. Ab initio coupled-cluster and configuration interaction calculations for O 16 using the V UCOM interaction. Phys. Rev. C (2009) 79:054325. 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.054325
68.
MorrisTDSimonisJStrobergSRStumpfCHagenGHoltJDet alStructure of the lightest tin isotopes. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 120:152503. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.152503
69.
MiorelliMBaccaSHagenGPapenbrockT. Computing the dipole polarizability of 48Ca with increased precision. Phys. Rev. C (2018) 98:014324. 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.014324
70.
HeinzMTichaiAHoppeJHebelerKSchwenkA. In-medium similarity renormalization group with three-body operators. Phys. Rev. C (2021) 103:044318. 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.044318
71.
BonaitiFBaccaSHagenG. Ab initio coupled-cluster calculations of ground and dipole excited states in He 8. Phys. Rev. C (2022) 105:034313. 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034313
72.
BonaitiFBaccaSHagenGJansenGR. Electromagnetic observables of open-shell nuclei from coupled-cluster theory. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 110:044306. 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044306
73.
HeBCStrobergSR. Factorized approximation to the in-medium similarity renormalization group IMSRG(3). Phys. Rev. C (2024) 110:044317. 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044317
74.
StrobergSRMorrisTDHeBC. In-medium similarity renormalization group with flowing 3-body operators, and approximations thereof. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 110:044316. 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044316
75.
HeinzMMiyagiTStrobergSRTichaiAHebelerKSchwenkA. Improved structure of calcium isotopes from ab initio calculations. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 111:034311. 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034311
76.
MorrisTDParzuchowskiNMBognerSK. Magnus expansion and in-medium similarity renormalization group. Phys. Rev. C (2015) 92:034331. 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034331
77.
StrobergSRHergertHBognerSKHoltJD. Nonempirical interactions for the nuclear shell model: an update. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2019) 69:307–62. 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120
78.
CaurierENowackiF. Present status of shell model techniques. Acta Phys. Pol. B (1999) 30:705.
79.
BrownBRaeW. The shell-model code NuShellX@MSU. Nucl. Data Sheets (2014) 120:115–8. 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022
80.
JohnsonCWOrmandWEMcElvainKSShanH. BIGSTICK: a flexible configuration-interaction shell-model code. arXiv:1801 (2018) 08432. 10.48550/arXiv.1801.08432
81.
ShimizuNMizusakiTUtsunoYTsunodaY. Thick-restart block Lanczos method for large-scale shell-model calculations. Comput. Phys. Commun. (2019) 244:372–84. 10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011
82.
HebelerKBognerSKFurnstahlRJNoggaASchwenkA. Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions. Phys. Rev. C (2011) 83:031301. 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031301
83.
EntemDRMachleidtR. Accurate charge-dependent nucleon-nucleon potential at fourth order of chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. C (2003) 68:041001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.041001
84.
BognerSKFurnstahlRJPerryRJ. Similarity renormalization group for nucleon-nucleon interactions. Phys. Rev. C (2007) 75:061001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.061001
85.
RentmeesterMCMTimmermansRGEde SwartJJ. Determination of the chiral coupling constants c3 and c4 in new pp and np partial-wave analyses. Phys. Rev. C (2003) 67:044001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.044001
86.
EpelbaumEGlöckleWMeißnerUG. The two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order. Nucl. Phys. A (2005) 747:362–424. 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.107
87.
SimonisJStrobergSRHebelerKHoltJDSchwenkA. Saturation with chiral interactions and consequences for finite nuclei. Phys. Rev. C (2017) 96:014303. 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014303
88.
StrobergSRHoltJDSchwenkASimonisJ. Ab initio limits of atomic nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2021) 126:022501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.022501
89.
MiyagiTStrobergSRNavrátilPHebelerKHoltJD. Converged ab initio calculations of heavy nuclei. Phys. Rev. C (2022) 105:014302. 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014302
90.
KortelainenMLesinskiTMoréJNazarewiczWSarichJSchunckNet alNuclear energy density optimization. Phys. Rev. C (2010) 82:024313. 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024313
91.
EkströmAHagenGMorrisTDPapenbrockTSchwartzPD. Δ isobars and nuclear saturation. Phys. Rev. C (2018) 97:024332. 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.024332
92.
KondoYAchouriNLFalouHAAtarLAumannTBabaHet alFirst observation of 28O. Nature (2023) 620:965–70. 10.1038/s41586-023-06352-6
93.
JiangWGForssénCDjärvTHagenG. Nuclear-matter saturation and symmetry energy within Δ -full chiral effective field theory. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 109:L061302. 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L061302
94.
BowerRGGoldsteinMVernonI. Galaxy formation: a Bayesian uncertainty analysis. Bayesian Anal (2010) 5. 10.1214/10-BA524
95.
VernonIGoldsteinMBowerR. Galaxy Formation: bayesian history matching for the observable universe. Stat. Sci. (2014) 29. 10.1214/12-STS412
96.
WiringaRBStoksVGJSchiavillaR. Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking. Phys. Rev. C (1995) 51:38–51. 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38
97.
MachleidtR. High-precision, charge-dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential. Phys. Rev. C (2001) 63:024001. 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.024001
98.
FaddeevLD. Scattering theory for a three particle system. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. (1960) 39:1459.
99.
YakubovskyO. On the Integral equations in the theory of N particle scattering. Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. (1967) 5:937.
100.
MarcucciLEDohet-EralyJGirlandaLGnechAKievskyAVivianiM. The hyperspherical harmonics method: a tool for testing and improving nuclear interaction models. Front. Phys. (2020) 8. 10.3389/fphy.2020.00069
101.
BarrettBRNavrátilPVaryJP. Ab initio no core shell model. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (2013) 69:131–81. 10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.10.003
102.
NavrátilPBarrettBR. Four-nucleon shell-model calculations in a Faddeev-like approach. Phys. Rev. C (1999) 59:1906–18. 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.1906
103.
NavrátilPVaryJPBarrettBR. Large-basis ab initio no-core shell model and its application to 12 C. Phys. Rev. C (2000) 62:054311. 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054311
104.
NavasSAmslerCGutscheTHanhartCHernández-ReyJJLourençoCet alReview of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D (2024) 110:030001. 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001
105.
BinderSLanghammerJCalciARothR. Ab initio path to heavy nuclei. Phys. Lett. B (2014) 736:119–23. 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.010
106.
ArthuisPBarbieriCVorabbiMFinelliP. Ab initio computation of charge densities for Sn and Xe isotopes. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2020) 125:182501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.182501
107.
DrischlerCHebelerKSchwenkA. Chiral interactions up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order and nuclear saturation. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 122:042501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042501
108.
Malbrunot-EttenauerSKaufmannSBaccaSBarbieriCBillowesJBissellMLet alNuclear charge radii of the nickel isotopes 58–68,70Ni. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2022) 128:022502. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.022502
109.
ReinhardPGNazarewiczW. Toward a global description of nuclear charge radii: exploring the Fayans energy density functional. Phys. Rev. C (2017) 95:064328. 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064328
110.
GorgesCRodríguezLVBalabanskiDLBissellMLBlaumKChealBet alLaser spectroscopy of neutron-rich tin isotopes: a discontinuity in charge radii across the N=82 shell closure. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 122:192502. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.192502
111.
MillerAJMinamisonoKKloseAGarandDKujawaCLantisJDet alProton superfluidity and charge radii in proton-rich calcium isotopes. Nat. Phys. (2019) 15:432–6. 10.1038/s41567-019-0416-9
112.
de GrooteRPBillowesJBinnersleyCLBissellMLCocoliosTEDay GoodacreTet alMeasurement and microscopic description of oddˆˆe2ˆˆ80ˆˆ93even staggering of charge radii of exotic copper isotopes. Nat. Phys. (2020) 16:620–4. 10.1038/s41567-020-0868-y
113.
KartheinJRickettsCMGarcia RuizRFBillowesJBinnersleyCLCocoliosTEet alElectromagnetic properties of indium isotopes illuminate the doubly magic character of 100Sn. Nat. Phys. (2024) 20:1719–25. 10.1038/s41567-024-02612-y
114.
Garcia RuizRFBissellMLBlaumKEkströmAFrömmgenNHagenGet alUnexpectedly large charge radii of neutron-rich calcium isotopes. Nat. Phys. (2016) 12:594–8. 10.1038/nphys3645
115.
NovarioSJHagenGJansenGRPapenbrockT. Charge radii of exotic neon and magnesium isotopes. Phys. Rev. C (2020) 102:051303. 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.051303
116.
HeylenHDevlinCSGinsWBissellMLBlaumKChealBet alHigh-resolution laser spectroscopy of 27–32Al. Phys. Rev. C (2021) 103:014318. 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014318
117.
KoszorúsÁVormawahLBeerwerthRBissellMCampbellPChealBet alProton-neutron pairing correlations in the self-conjugate nucleus 42Sc. Phys. Lett. B (2021) 819:136439. 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136439
118.
KoszorúsÁYangXFJiangWGNovarioSJBaiSWBillowesJet alPublisher Correction: charge radii of exotic potassium isotopes challenge nuclear theory and the magic character of N = 32. Nat. Phys. (2021) 17:539. 10.1038/s41567-021-01192-5
119.
KönigKFritzscheSHagenGHoltJDKloseALantisJet alSurprising charge-radius kink in the Sc isotopes at N = 20. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2023) 131:102501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.102501
120.
CaurierELangankeKMartínez-PinedoGNowackiFVogelP. Shell model description of isotope shifts in calcium. Phys. Lett. B (2001) 522:240–4. 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01246-1
121.
MiyagiTStrobergSRHoltJDShimizuN. Ab initio multishell valence-space Hamiltonians and the island of inversion. Phys. Rev. C (2020) 102:034320. 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.034320
122.
HagenGEkströmAForssénCJansenGRNazarewiczWPapenbrockTet alNeutron and weak-charge distributions of the 48 Ca nucleus. Nat. Phys. (2016) 12:186–90. 10.1038/nphys3529
123.
BirkhanJMiorelliMBaccaSBassauerSBertulaniCAHagenGet alElectric dipole polarizability of 48Ca and implications for the neutron skin. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 118:252501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.252501
124.
AdhikariDAlbatainehHAndroicDAniolKAArmstrongDSAverettTet alPrecision determination of the neutral weak form factor of 48Ca. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2022) 129:042501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.042501
125.
AdhikariDAlbatainehHAndroicDAniolKArmstrongDSAverettTet alAccurate determination of the neutron skin thickness of 208Pb through parity-violation in electron scat. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2021) 126:172502. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502
126.
TrzcińskaAJastrzȩbskiJLubińskiPHartmannFJSchmidtRvon EgidyTet alNeutron density distributions deduced from antiprotonic atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) 87:082501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.082501
127.
ZenihiroJSakaguchiHMurakamiTYosoiMYasudaYTerashimaSet alNeutron density distributions of 204,206,208Pb deduced via proton elastic scattering at Ep=295 MeV. Phys. Rev. C (2010) 82:044611. 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.044611
128.
TarbertCMWattsDPGlazierDIAguarPAhrensJAnnandJRMet alNeutron skin of 208Pb from coherent pion photoproduction. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2014) 112:242502. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.242502
129.
FattoyevFJPiekarewiczJHorowitzCJ. Neutron skins and neutron stars in the multimessenger era. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 120:172702. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172702
130.
HuBJiangWMiyagiTSunZEkströmAForssénCet alAuthor Correction: ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces. Nat. Phys. (2024) 20:169. 10.1038/s41567-023-02324-9
131.
Todd-RutelBGPiekarewiczJ. Neutron-rich nuclei and neutron stars: a new accurately calibrated interaction for the study of neutron-rich matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2005) 95:122501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.122501
132.
FattoyevFJHorowitzCJPiekarewiczJShenG. Relativistic effective interaction for nuclei, giant resonances, and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. C (2010) 82:055803. 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.055803
133.
FattoyevFJPiekarewiczJ. Has a thick neutron skin in 208Pb been ruled out?Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013) 111:162501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.162501
134.
ChenWCPiekarewiczJ. Building relativistic mean field models for finite nuclei and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. C (2014) 90:044305. 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.044305
135.
ChenWCPiekarewiczJ. Searching for isovector signatures in the neutron-rich oxygen and calcium isotopes. Phys. Lett. B (2015) 748:284–8. 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.020
136.
ReedBTFattoyevFJHorowitzCJPiekarewiczJ. Implications of PREX-2 on the equation of state of neutron-rich matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2021) 126:172503. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172503
137.
SkyrmeT. The effective nuclear potential. Nucl. Phys. (1958) 9:615–34. 10.1016/0029-5582(58)90345-6
138.
VautherinDBrinkDM. Hartree-Fock calculations with skyrme’s interaction. I. Spherical nuclei. Phys. Rev. C (1972) 5:626–47. 10.1103/PhysRevC.5.626
139.
BartelJQuentinPBrackMGuetCHåkanssonHB. Towards a better parametrisation of Skyrme-like effective forces: a critical study of the SkM force. Nucl. Phys. A (1982) 386:79–100. 10.1016/0375-9474(82)90403-1
140.
ChabanatEBonchePHaenselPMeyerJSchaefferR. A Skyrme parametrization from subnuclear to neutron star densities Part II. Nuclei far from stabilities. Nucl. Phys. A (1998) 635:231–56. 10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00180-8
141.
HorowitzCJPiekarewiczJ. Neutron radii of 208Pb and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. C (2001) 64:062802. 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.062802
142.
KlüpfelPReinhardPGBürvenichTJMaruhnJA. Variations on a theme by Skyrme: a systematic study of adjustments of model parameters. Phys. Rev. C (2009) 79:034310. 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034310
143.
KortelainenMMcDonnellJNazarewiczWReinhardPGSarichJSchunckNet alNuclear energy density optimization: large deformations. Phys. Rev. C (2012) 85:024304. 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024304
144.
AtkinsonMCMahzoonMHKeimMABordelonBAPruittCDCharityRJet alDispersive optical model analysis of 208Pb generating a neutron-skin prediction beyond the mean field. Phys. Rev. C (2020) 101:044303. 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044303
145.
HeinzMHoferichterMMiyagiTNoëlFSchwenkA. Ab initio calculations of overlap integrals for μ → e conversion in nuclei. arXiv:241204545 (2024). 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04545
146.
BrownBA. Mirror charge radii and the neutron equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 119:122502–5. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.122502
147.
YangJPiekarewiczJ. Difference in proton radii of mirror nuclei as a possible surrogate for the neutron skin. Phys. Rev. C (2018) 97:014314. 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.014314
148.
BrownBAMinamisonoKPiekarewiczJHergertHGarandDKloseAet alImplications of the 36Ca-36S and 38Ca-38Ar difference in mirror charge radii on the neutron matter equation of state. Phys. Rev. Res. (2020) 2:022035. 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.022035
149.
PinedaSVKönigKRossiDMBrownBAIncorvatiALantisJet alCharge radius of neutron-deficient ^{54}Ni and symmetry energy constraints using the difference in mirror pair charge radii. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2021) 127:182503. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.182503
150.
BanoPPattnaikSPCentellesMViñasXRoutrayTR. Correlations between charge radii differences of mirror nuclei and stellar observables. Phys. Rev. C (2023) 108:015802. 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.015802
151.
NovarioSJLonardoniDGandolfiSHagenG. Trends of neutron skins and radii of mirror nuclei from first principles. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2023) 130:032501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.032501
152.
HuBS. How do mirror charge radii constrain density dependence of the symmetry energy?Phys. Lett. B (2024) 857:138969. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138969
153.
YaoJMBallyBEngelJWirthRRodríguezTRHergertH. Ab initio treatment of collective correlations and the neutrinoless double beta decay of Ca 48. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2020) 124:232501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.232501
154.
FrosiniMDuguetTEbranJPBallyBHergertHRodríguezTRet alMulti-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei. Eur. Phys. J. A (2022) 58:64. 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00694-x
155.
FrosiniMDuguetTEbranJPBallyBMongelliTRodríguezTRet alMulti-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei. Eur. Phys. J. A (2022) 58:63. 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00693-y
156.
FrosiniMDuguetTEbranJPSomàV. Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei. Eur. Phys. J. A (2022) 58:62. 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00692-z
157.
HagenGNovarioSJSunZHPapenbrockTJansenGRLietzJGet alAngular-momentum projection in coupled-cluster theory: structure of 34Mg. Phys. Rev. C (2022) 105:064311. 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064311
158.
EkströmAForssénCHagenGJansenGRPapenbrockTSunZH. How chiral forces shape neutron-rich Ne and Mg nuclei. arXiv:2305 (2023) 06955. 10.48550/arXiv.2305.06955
159.
SunZHDjärvTRHagenGJansenGRPapenbrockT. Structure of odd-mass Ne, Na, and Mg nuclei. arXiv:2409 (2024) 02279. 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.044304
160.
SunZHEkströmAForssénCHagenGJansenGRPapenbrockT. Multiscale physics of atomic nuclei from first principles. arXiv:2404 (2024) 00058. 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011028
161.
HuBSunZHagenGJansenGPapenbrockT. Ab initio computations from 78Ni towards 70Ca along neutron number N = 50. Phys. Lett. B (2024) 858:139010. 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139010
162.
HuBSSunZHHagenGPapenbrockT. Ab initio computations of strongly deformed nuclei near Zr 80. Phys. Rev. C (2024) 110:L011302. 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.L011302
163.
BelleyAYaoJMBallyBPitcherJEngelJHergertHet alAb initio uncertainty quantification of neutrinoless double-beta decay in Ge 76. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024) 132:182502. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.182502
Summary
Keywords
nuclear radius, neutron skin thickness, nuclear structure, nuclear force, nuclear ab initio calculation
Citation
Miyagi T (2025) Nuclear radii from first principles. Front. Phys. 13:1581854. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2025.1581854
Received
23 February 2025
Accepted
18 April 2025
Published
09 May 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Masayuki Matsuzaki, Fukuoka University of Education, Japan
Reviewed by
Mengoni Daniele, National Institute of Nuclear Physics of Padova, Italy
Michio Kohno, Osaka University, Japan
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Miyagi.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Takayuki Miyagi, miyagi@nucl.ph.tsukuba.ac.jp
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.