MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093329745 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.014315

<i>Ab initio</i> benchmarks of neutrinoless double-<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>β</mml:mi></mml:math> decay in light nuclei with a chiral Hamiltonian

2021· article· en· W3093329745 on OpenAlexafffund
J. M. Yao, A. Belley, R. Wirth, T. Miyagi, Charlie Payne, S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
FundersNuclear PhysicsNational Research Council CanadaOffice of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaMichigan State UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsAb initioParticle physicsIsospinNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report ab initio benchmark calculations of nuclear matrix elements (NMEs) for neutrinoless double-$\ensuremath{\beta}$ ($0\ensuremath{\nu}\ensuremath{\beta}\ensuremath{\beta}$) decays in light nuclei with mass numbers ranging from $A=6$ to $A=22$. We use the transition operator derived from light-Majorana neutrino exchange and evaluate the NME with three different methods: two variants of in-medium similarity renormalization group (IMSRG) and importance-truncated no-core shell model (IT-NCSM). The same two plus three nucleon interaction from chiral effective field theory is employed, and both isospin-conserving ($\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}T=0$) and isospin-changing ($\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}T=2$) transitions are studied. We compare our resulting ground-state energies and NMEs to those of recent ab initio no-core shell model and coupled-cluster calculations, also with the same inputs. We show that the NMEs of $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}T=0$ transitions are in good agreement among all calculations, at the level of 10%. For $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}T=2$, relative deviations are more significant in some nuclei. The comparison with the exact IT-NCSM result allows us to analyze these cases in detail, and indicates the next steps toward improving the IMSRG-based approaches. The present study clearly demonstrates the power of consistent cross checks that are made possible by ab initio methodology. This capability is crucial for providing meaningful many-body uncertainties in the NMEs for the $0\ensuremath{\nu}\ensuremath{\beta}\ensuremath{\beta}$ decays in heavier candidate nuclei, where quasiexact benchmarks are not available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207