SearcharxivSearch

subject

nucl-th

nucl-th: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: arxiv. Collection updated 2026-09-16. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Inclusive electron-nucleus cross section models from domain adaptation

We apply transfer learning (TL) to construct data-driven models of inclusive electron-nucleus cross sections. Starting from an ensemble of deep neural networks pretrained on \(^{12}\)C data, we fine-tune the models separately for \(^{3}\)He, \(^{6}\)Li, \(^{16}\)O, \(^{27}\)Al, \(^{40}\)Ca, and \(^{56}\)Fe. The resulting models improve for all targets, marginally so for oxygen, where the carbon baseline is already adequate, although their predictive robustness depends on the amount, coverage, and precision of the available target data. We systematically study how model performance depends on the number of fine-tuned layers, on the fraction and selection of the training data, and on the overlap between the source and target kinematic domains. The layer-wise analysis shows that oxygen requires only shallow adaptation, whereas helium, calcium, and iron require substantially deeper fine-tuning. Lithium represents the least robust case because of its limited dataset, while aluminum demonstrates a strong sensitivity to a small subset of highly constraining measurements. For selected kinematic configurations outside the coverage of the carbon training data, the adapted models remain consistent with the measurements within their estimated uncertainties. Finally, we compare the resulting predictions with those of the phenomenological F1F2 model.

hep-ph

Bridging Ab Initio Symmetries and Global Nuclear Masses with Interpretable Neural Networks

Ab initio theory establishes Wigner's SU(4) and Elliott's SU(3) as dominant symmetries of the nuclear force in light and intermediate-mass nuclei. Previous work shows the relevance of the former symmetry for nuclear binding, whether the latter organizes binding remains elusive. We probe whether both these symmetries organize nuclear masses, aiming at physical insights through interpretable models and predictive capability. From the SU(3) and SU(4) Casimirs we build 3 neural-network models. Two are conventional, a feature-informed NN (FINN) and a Gaussian variant (GINN) with predictive spread, while Wigner-informed network (WINN) is a new design constraining the mass formula to be linear in the operators, learning their (N,Z)-dependent couplings, so that the model is intrinsically explainable. All are trained on AME2016 subtracted by the liquid drop model at 4 data fractions and validated on nuclei new to AME2020, with extrapolation benchmarked against HFB-26 and r-process. The Casimir features carry binding information far beyond the bulk, and SHAP analysis suggests the quadratic SU(4) Casimir as the leading contributor to the residual binding. The WINN yields the best performance, reaching a 0.412 MeV validation error and competitive with state-of-the-art models, and importantly, when trained on the sparsest dataset it outperforms the other NNs trained on the densest. Off the known chart its masses track HFB-26 as closely as WS3 and reproduce the solar abundance peaks of a neutron-star-merger simulation. The WINN's coupling fields reveal an enhanced even-SU(4) contribution toward the neutron dripline, hinting at restoration of Wigner's symmetry. The SU(4) and SU(3) structures reach beyond individual nuclei to organize binding, and embedding symmetry-preserving operators directly in a domain-informed interpretable architecture yields a physically transparent model less hungry for data.

nucl-th
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.