Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational form factors of the deuteron

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The deuteron's gravitational form factors, computed for the first time in chiral effective field theory, show a finite $D_3$ at zero momentum transfer and a $D_2$ that differs in shape from model calculations.

desk verdict First chiral EFT calculation of deuteron gravitational form factors, with plausible but unproven cancellation at its core; an honest exploratory paper that deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19909 v2 pith:3TJWLAEG submitted 2024-11-29 nucl-th hep-ph

J. Yu. Panteleeva , E. Epelbaum , A. M. Gasparyan , J. Gegelia This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords deuterongravitationalformfactorschiraleffectivefieldtheoryenergy-momentumtensorLSZreductionnon-relativisticspin-onesystemsnuclearstructure
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

This paper sets out to compute the gravitational form factors of the deuteron from non-relativistic chiral effective field theory, which would be the first EFT-based prediction of these quantities. The authors derive a non-relativistic expansion of the energy-momentum tensor matrix element for spin-one systems and extract the six form factors $E_0$, $E_2$, $J$, $D_0$, $D_2$, $D_3$ from the three-point function using the LSZ reduction formula. For $E_0$, $E_2$, $J$ and $D_0$ their curves resemble the model results of Ref. [23], but $D_2$ takes a different shape and $D_3$ is finite at $q=0$ instead of singular. A sympathetic reader would care because this calculation gives a systematic low-energy QCD handle on how a nucleus responds to a gravitational probe, and it exposes a qualitative discrepancy with existing model calculations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the non-relativistic (heavy-baryon) reduction of the energy-momentum tensor matrix element for spin-1 states, Eq. (3), combined with the LSZ reduction formula applied to the three-point function of the EMT and deuteron interpolating fields. The deuteron bound state enters through integral equations for the momentum-space structure functions $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$, solved numerically with the leading-order chiral nucleon-nucleon potential. In the $\mathcal{T}_{ij}$ channel, the calculation relies on a cancellation of one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible diagrams in which the EMT couples to a single nucleon line against $1/m_N$ corrections to the one-pion-exchange potential; this cancellation is asserted by analogy to the three-nucleon force rather than derived here.

What would settle it

Compute the omitted one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible diagrams with a single-nucleon EMT insertion at zeroth order alongside the $1/m_N$ corrections to the potential, and check numerically in the $\mathcal{T}_{ij}$ channel that their sum vanishes at that order; any nonvanishing residual would shift $D_0$, $D_2$, $D_3$ and $J$ by that amount. A complementary check would rerun the extraction with a symmetry-preserving regulator to confirm that the mild EMT-conservation violation seen in $E_0(0)$ remains negligible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that leading-order chiral EFT yields deuteron gravitational form factors whose $D_2$ and $D_3$ differ from the model of Ref. [23]: $D_2$ has a different shape, and $D_3$ is finite at the origin, whereas the model's $D_3$ becomes singular when recast in the same parametrization. The paper also finds that the chiral series converges rapidly and that cutoff sensitivity is mild for $\Lambda$ between 400 and 600 MeV. The value of the subleading pion-nucleon coupling $c_8$ fixed by matching $D_0(0)$ to the model is of natural size, and $E_0$ stays within about one percent of its $q=0$ value, indicating small regulator-induced violation of energy-momentum conservation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the claim that one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible diagrams in which the energy-momentum tensor attaches to a single nucleon line are exactly canceled by $1/m_N$ corrections to the one-pion-exchange potential, a cancellation asserted without derivation in Section IV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The deuteron's gravitational form factors become computable in chiral EFT with controlled accuracy, with the chiral expansion converging rapidly for all $q$ except the small-$q$ region of $D_3$.
  • The finiteness of $D_3(0)$ and the distinct shape of $D_2$ provide a qualitative, parameterization-independent distinction between the EFT prediction and the He-Zahed model.
  • The natural value of $c_8$ obtained by matching $D_0(0)$ suggests that deuteron GFFs can be used to constrain the subleading pion-nucleon couplings in the curved-space Lagrangian.
  • The mild cutoff dependence across $\Lambda=400$ to 600 MeV indicates that regulator artifacts are smaller than the highest-order contributions retained.
  • If the asserted cancellation holds, the extracted $D_0$, $D_2$, $D_3$ and $J$ are the first EFT predictions for the internal gravitational structure of a nucleus.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same LSZ-plus-non-relativistic-EMT pipeline could be carried over to heavier light nuclei, where the deuteron serves as the cleanest test case.
  • The claimed cancellation of single-nucleon EMT insertions in the $\mathcal{T}_{ij}$ channel, if verified explicitly, would likely generalize to other two-nucleon irreducible topologies and to the $T_{00}$ channel at higher orders.
  • A lattice QCD computation of the deuteron GFFs at unphysical pion masses, extrapolated to the physical point, could settle whether the disagreement in $D_2$ and $D_3$ is a genuine dynamical effect or a consequence of the model potential.
  • Because $D_3(0)$ is directly tied to the $c_8$ term in this calculation, a future measurement of deuteron gravitational structure would offer a clean nuclear observable for this low-energy constant.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the gravitational form factors of the deuteron in non-relativistic chiral EFT. After reducing the spin-1 EMT matrix element to non-relativistic form, the authors use LSZ reduction to express the GFFs through the three-point function of the EMT and deuteron interpolating fields, and solve integral equations with the leading-order NN potential. The low-energy constants are fixed by the deuteron binding energy and, for c8, by matching D0(0) to the model result of He and Zahed. The numerical results for E0, E2, J, D0, D2, D3 are compared with Ref. [23]; D2 and D3 differ, and D3 is finite at q=0 while the recalculated model result is singular.

Significance. Provided the unproven diagram cancellation and the regulator caveats are settled, this would be the first EFT-based extraction of deuteron GFFs and a useful benchmark. The paper is transparent about its approximations: LO potential, static limit, symmetry-breaking regulator, c9=0, and it checks cutoff dependence. The genuinely predictive statements are the q-dependence of D0 and the D2 and D3 curves, since D0(0) is fitted and D3(0) is not protected by the D0 fit alone. The natural size of c8 and the apparent convergence of the included orders are supporting but not decisive evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, after Eq. (24)] The cancellation of the one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible diagrams in which the EMT couples to a single nucleon line is a load-bearing assumption for all ij-channel form factors, but it is only asserted via an analogy to the three-nucleon force [41] and no derivation is given. These diagrams are not higher order than the connected diagrams in Fig. 2 under the counting described in Section IV, and they feed directly into D0, D2, D3 and J. Because the regulator of Eq. (16) violates EMT conservation, the cancellation must be demonstrated for the regulated diagrams actually used in the numerics, including the 1/mN corrections to the one-pion-exchange potential; otherwise the D3 finite-at-origin claim is not protected. Please either prove the cancellation, include the diagrams, or quantify the omitted contribution.
  2. [Section IV, text after Eq. (21)] The value c8 = -2.77 GeV^{-1} is fixed so that D0(0) equals the He-Zahed result, so the agreement of D0 at q=0 is imposed rather than predicted. The paper should state this explicitly in the comparison and should also show the sensitivity of D2 and D3 to the fitted value of c8 and to the fitting condition, since D2 and D3 receive c8-dependent contributions at leading order.
  3. [Section IV, text after Eq. (21)] Setting c9=0 without an estimate leaves E0, E2 and J without a controlled systematic uncertainty. Since c9 enters T00 and T0i, the claimed similarity of J with Ref. [23] cannot be evaluated. The authors should provide a natural-range estimate for c9, propagate it, or restrict the J/E conclusions to the c9=0 case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sections I and IV] There are typos in 'atmothphere' (Introduction) and 'nucelon field' (Section IV, first paragraph) that should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (19)] The ordering of indices in T^{cd,γδ;ab,αβ}_{μν} and the argument list is hard to parse; a sentence explaining which indices correspond to the two nucleons entering and leaving the vertex would improve readability.
  3. [Figs. 3 and 4] The captions state that EFT orders are defined in the text; a one-line definition of LO/NLO/NNLO for each form factor in the captions would make the figures self-contained.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The use of E for both the sixth form factor and the E0/E2 combinations could confuse with energy; consider renaming the sixth form factor, e.g., to \mathcal{E}, or explicitly noting the distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: c8 is fitted to D0(0) openly, and the central D2/D3 claims are not forced by that one-point fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard chiral-EFT calculation: the deuteron amplitude is obtained from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation with an LO potential, and the EMT matrix element is built from the diagrams in Fig. 2 and matched to the non-relativistic parameterization of Eq. (3). The only fitted quantities are CS (fixed to the deuteron binding energy) and c8 (fixed so that D0(0) matches the He-Zahed value); both fittings are explicitly stated in Section IV. Matching D0(0) makes that single point an input rather than a prediction, but the paper does not present D0(0) as a prediction, and the q-dependence of D0 plus the D2/D3 curves—especially the finite D3(0) result—are not determined by the one fitted point. The self-citations to Refs. [4,20,27] provide the non-relativistic EMT reduction and the deuteron integral equations; these are previous derivations with stated assumptions that do not already contain the deuteron GFF result, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The assertion after Eq. (24) that omitted one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible EMT diagrams cancel against 1/mN potential corrections is an unproven and load-bearing consistency assumption, and therefore a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: no output is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no circularity steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The only new objects are standard low-energy constants (c8, c9) and the regulator cutoff, which are parameters rather than entities. The calculation leans on four modeling assumptions (Weinberg power counting for the EMT, static non-relativistic truncation, smallness of regulator-induced EMT violation, exact cancellation of OPE irreducible diagrams) plus standard LSZ machinery. One parameter (c8) is fitted to the model's D0(0), one (CS) is fitted to the binding energy, one (c9) is set to zero without estimate, and the cutoff is chosen by hand.

free parameters (4)
  • c8 = -2.77 GeV^{-1}
    Subleading pion-nucleon EMT coupling; fitted so that the calculated D0(0) matches the model value of Ref [23] (Section IV). This sets the LO terms of D0, D2, D3.
  • CS = not given (tuned to reproduce deuteron binding energy)
    S-wave NN contact LEC; fixed by requiring the bound-state pole at the physical deuteron binding energy (Section IV).
  • c9 = 0 (unknown)
    Subleading EMT LEC with no available estimate; set to zero in all numerics, a source of unquantified uncertainty (Section IV, Eq. (21)).
  • Lambda (regulator cutoff) = 500 MeV central; varied 400-600 MeV
    Smooth cutoff used to regularize UV divergences; central value chosen near the EFT breakdown scale and varied to test sensitivity (Section III).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Weinberg power counting for the few-body sector of chiral EFT applies to the EMT matrix elements and determines which diagrams contribute at each chiral order.
    Invoked in Section IV to truncate the integral equation for the deuteron matrix element at zeroth order in the relevant components; if the counting fails for the EMT, omitted diagrams could change the form factors.
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic reduction of the EMT matrix element truncated at zeroth order in 1/m with P^i=0 is sufficient for the extracted form factors; relativistic corrections and higher-order NN potential terms are dropped.
    Stated in Section IV ('we stick to the leading-order NN potential and drop the relativistic corrections...'); the authors argue these are unnecessary for an exploratory study, but no numerical estimate of the omitted terms is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The smooth cutoff regularization does not introduce significant EMT non-conservation artifacts, despite the regulator violating conservation and the induced positive-power-of-Lambda terms not being absorbable by allowed counterterms.
    Section III: 'our regularization procedure violates EMT conservation... such effects appear to be rather small', supported only by the small deviation of E0(0) from 1; this is an empirical check, not a proof.
  • domain assumption The one-pion-exchange two-nucleon irreducible diagrams with the EMT on a single nucleon line are exactly canceled by 1/mN corrections to the one-pion-exchange NN potential.
    Section IV: asserted by analogy to the three-nucleon force cancellation, but no derivation is given in this work; the Tij channel depends on this.
  • standard math LSZ reduction with a composite deuteron interpolating field and the residue Z extracts the physical EMT matrix element; observable results are independent of the choice of interpolating field.
    Standard quantum field theory, used in Refs [14,20]; the paper states 'observable quantities do not depend on a particular form of interpolating fields' in Section II.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational form factors of the deuteron." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TJWLAEG

@misc{pith2026241119909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational form factors of the deuteron},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TJWLAEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19909}
}
read the original abstract

The gravitational form factors of the deuteron are calculated in the framework of non-relativistic chiral effective field theory. Non-relativistic reduction of the matrix element of the energy-momentum tensor operator for spin-one systems is worked out, and the gravitational form factors of the deuteron are extracted from the three-point function of the energy-momentum tensor using the LSZ reduction formula. The obtained form factors are compared to results of model calculations available in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Three-point function of the EMT operator and two interpolating fields of the deuteron. Ellipses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Tree-level diagrams contributing to the vertex function of the EMT operator. Diagrams where the graviton couples to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Numerical results for the gravitational form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Numerical results for the gravitational form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum stress and torsion distributions in the deuteron

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First complete non-relativistic impulse-approximation calculation of all eleven deuteron EMT form factors, including non-conserved c-bar and s-bar form factors that map to force and torsion distributions inside the nucleons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    A. A. Filin, D. M¨ oller, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and P. Reinert, Phys. Rev. C 103, no.2, 024313 (2021), [arXiv:2009.08911 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [41]

    Krebs, Eur

    H. Krebs, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.9, 234 (2020), [arXiv:2008.00974 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    H. C. Kim, [arXiv:2411.13292 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [2]

    Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD

    + σ2 · ˜k ˜k2 + M 2π (−2δij σ1 · ˜k + ˜kiσj 1 + ˜kjσi 1) # Λ2 − M 2 π ˜k2 + Λ2 , 7 LO+NLO LO He and Zahed 0 200 400 600 800 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 q, MeV 0 LO+NLO LO He and Zahed 0 200 400 600 800 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 q, MeV 2 LO+NLO LO He and Zahed 0 100 200 300 400 500 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q, MeV 3 FIG. 4: Numerical results for the gr...

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555, 57-62 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210165 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [4]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.26, 1830025 (2018) [arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [5]

    Alharazin, D

    H. Alharazin, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.7, 076023 (2020) [arXiv:2006.05890 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Gegelia and M

    J. Gegelia and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136572 (2021) [arXiv:2104.13954 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, U.-G. Meißner and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 016018 (2022) [arXiv:2109.10826 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, N. Lange, U.-G. Meißner and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.1, 012001 (2022) [arXiv:2201.02565 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  4. [10]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  5. [11]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009), [arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), [arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, no.2, 025004 (2020), [arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and P. Reinert, Front. in Phys. 8, 98 (2020), [arXiv:1911.11875 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [15]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. C 59, 617 (1999), [nucl-th/9804032]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [16]

    D. R. Phillips and T. D. Cohen, Nucl. Phys. A 668, 45 (2000), [nucl-th/9906091]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Walzl and U.-G

    M. Walzl and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 513, 37 (2001), [nucl-th/0103020]

    2001 arXiv

  12. [18]

    D. R. Phillips, Phys. Lett. B 567, 12 (2003), [nucl-th/0304046]

    2003 arXiv

  13. [19]

    D. R. Phillips, J. Phys. G 34, 365 (2007), [nucl-th/0608036]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [20]

    K¨ olling, E

    S. K¨ olling, E. Epelbaum and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C 86, 047001 (2012), [arXiv:1209.0837 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Epelbaum, A

    E. Epelbaum, A. M. Gasparyan, J. Gegelia and M. R. Schindler, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 51 (2014), [arXiv:1311.7164 [nucl-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    A. A. Filin, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. M¨ oller and P. Reinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.8, 082501 (2020), [arXiv:1911.04877 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    He and I

    F. He and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.1, 014312 (2024), [arXiv:2401.09318 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    He and I

    F. He and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 109, no.4, 045209 (2024), [arXiv:2310.12315 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Freese and W

    A. Freese and W. Cosyn, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.11, 114013 [arXiv:2207.10787 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    M. V. Polyakov and B. D. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.3, 036003, [arXiv:1903.02738 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. Y. Panteleeva, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia and U.-G. Meißner, JHEP 07, 237 (2023), [arXiv:2305.01491 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Fachruddin, C

    I. Fachruddin, C. Elster and W. Gl¨ ockle, Phys. Rev. C63, 054003 (2001), [nucl-th/0101009]

    2001 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, no.5, 86 (2018), [arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A. M. Gasparyan, M. F. M. Lutz and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 115 (2013), [arXiv:1212.3057 [nucl-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Glockle and U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A 747, 362-424 (2005), [arXiv:nucl-th/0405048 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Djukanovic, M

    D. Djukanovic, M. R. Schindler, J. Gegelia and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D 72, 045002 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0407170 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Djukanovic, J

    D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Few Body Syst. 41, 141-155 (2007), [arXiv:nucl-th/0609055 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Krebs and E

    H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 044004 (2024), [arXiv:2312.13932 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, no.5, 53 (2015), [arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C 92, no.2, 024005 (2015), [arXiv:1506.01343 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, P. Reinert, R. Skibi´ nski and K. Topolnicki, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.3, 92 (2020), [arXiv:1907.03608 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Epelbaum, PoS CD2018, 006 (2019) doi:10.22323/1.317.0006

    E. Epelbaum, PoS CD2018, 006 (2019) doi:10.22323/1.317.0006

    2019 doi

  33. [40]

    Epelbaum, Eur

    E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 34, 197-214 (2007), [arXiv:0710.4250 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    van Kolck, Phys

    U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932-2941 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.