Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Charge dependent nucleon-nucleon potentials in covariant chiral effective field theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that charge-dependent covariant chiral nucleon-nucleon potentials, built from pion mass splitting in one-pion exchange, the static Coulomb interaction, and four proton-proton contact terms, reproduce the np…

desk verdict A first charge-dependent covariant NN potential at NNLO with a known missing NNLO piece; the fit is in-sample, so the agreement is real but not a validation of the specific isospin-breaking mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15598 v2 pith:JBZYSWIA submitted 2025-04-22 nucl-th

Yang Xiao , Jun-Xu Lu , Chun-Yan Song , Li-Sheng Geng This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 13.75.Cs21.30.Fe12.39.Fe
keywords charge-dependentnuclearforcecovariantchiraleffectivefieldtheoryisospinbreakingpionmasssplittingCoulombinteractionnucleon-nucleonscatteringphaseshiftsNNLO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper constructs charge-dependent nucleon-nucleon interactions in covariant chiral effective field theory up to next-to-next-to-leading order. It adds isospin-breaking inputs: charged and neutral pion mass differences in one-pion exchange, the static one-photon Coulomb interaction, and four proton-proton contact terms. The authors claim the resulting np and pp phase shifts for partial waves with $J\leq 2$ agree satisfactorily with the PWA93 partial-wave analysis, with a total unweighted chi-squared of 22.82 at NNLO. This matters because it extends a manifestly relativistic chiral nuclear force to the proton-proton channel, a step needed for describing nuclei and reactions where isospin breaking is not negligible.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the charge-dependent covariant chiral NN potential: the isospin-symmetric NNLO potential of the covariant framework is supplemented by one-pion-exchange potentials with separate $M_{\pi^\pm}$ and $M_{\pi^0}$ propagators (Eqs. 2-4), a covariant static Coulomb potential (Eq. 6), and four pp contact terms (Eq. 5). Phase shifts are produced by solving the Thompson equation, a relativistic two-body scattering equation, with a non-local Gaussian regulator. For pp scattering, the Coulomb interaction is folded into the S-matrix by matching to asymptotic Coulomb wave functions at $R=12$ fm.

What would settle it

Include the isospin-violating pion-nucleon coupling corrections that the paper leaves out (Sect. II B 1) and refit the same low-energy constants to the same PWA93 phase shifts; if the total chi-squared changes significantly or any fitted constant shifts beyond its Bayesian uncertainty, the omitted terms are not negligible and the claimed validation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dominant isospin-breaking effects in the covariant chiral two-nucleon force up to NNLO are captured by treating the charged and neutral pion masses as different in one-pion exchange, adding the static Coulomb potential for pp, and introducing four charge-dependent contact terms $C^{pp}_S$, $C^{pp}_V$, $C^{pp}_{AV}$, $C^{pp}_T$. The paper reports that fitting the resulting potential to the np and pp PWA93 phase shifts at laboratory energies 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, and 200 MeV for $J\leq 2$ gives a total unweighted chi-squared of 22.82 at NNLO. The fourth pp contact term is fixed to zero because at most three pp partial waves are available for $J\leq 1$. The paper follows Reference [7] in omitting isospin-violating corrections to the pion-nucleon couplings, on the grounds that their actual size is not well known.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that omitting isospin-violating corrections to the pion-nucleon coupling does not affect the fitted phase-shift data, so the agreement can be credited to the specific charge-dependent potential rather than to flexible constants absorbing missing physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted NNLO potential reproduces both np and pp phase shifts for $J\leq 2$ with total unweighted chi-squared 22.82, so charge dependence can be included in a covariant chiral framework without going beyond NNLO.
  • The four pp contact terms remove most of the low-energy pp $^1S_0$ discrepancy at NNLO, reducing its chi-squared contribution from 17.47 at NLO to 4.06.
  • The resulting charge-dependent potential can be used as input for covariant calculations of nuclear structure and reactions involving proton-rich or neutron-deficient systems.
  • The work opens a route to studying mirror energy differences, charge-exchange processes, and the symmetry energy of isospin-asymmetric matter, all of which are sensitive to differences among pp, np, and nn forces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the four pp contact terms are fitted only to $J\leq 1$ partial waves and the tensor piece is set to zero, the paper's pp success in higher partial waves is mostly inherited from the isospin-symmetric potential plus the Coulomb term; whether the same contact pattern survives a fit to higher partial waves with other regulators remains open.
  • A natural testable extension would be to apply the same charge-dependent construction to neutron-neutron scattering once phase-shift information becomes available, checking whether the same charge-symmetry-breaking contact terms are consistent across all three charge channels.
  • The paper itself notes that its regulator is 'old-fashioned' and distorts the long-range part of the potential; switching to a semi-local regulator could change the fitted constants and the apparent convergence, so the specific numerical agreement may be somewhat regulator-dependent.
  • The omitted isospin-violating pion-nucleon coupling corrections could be estimated in a one-loop chiral calculation; if their effect on the fitted phase shifts is comparable to the reported chi-squared, the 'satisfactory agreement' would not uniquely pin down the proposed charge-dependent potential.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 constructs a charge-dependent nucleon-nucleon potential in covariant chiral effective field theory by adding pion-mass splitting in one-pion exchange, the static Coulomb interaction, and four charge-dependent pp contact terms to the isospin-symmetric covariant NNLO potential. The 19 isospin-conserving and four charge-dependent low-energy constants are fitted simultaneously to the J <= 2 np and pp phase shifts of PWA93 at seven laboratory energies. The authors report that including the charge-dependent terms reduces the total unweighted chi2 from 70.92 at NLO to 22.82 at NNLO and conclude that the resulting phase shifts are in satisfactory agreement with PWA93.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper fills a genuine gap: it provides the first covariant chiral NN potential that includes isospin breaking, with explicit operator expressions and a complete LEC table. The substantial chi2 improvement shows that the added pp contact terms are effective. However, the validation is entirely in-sample, the quoted chi2 is unweighted, and an explicitly acknowledged NNLO isospin-violating term is omitted without an estimate; these points limit the strength of the central claim as it currently stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [II B 1 and Table I] The NNLO entry 'isospin-breaking in OPE' is listed but not included, with the explanation that the size of the isospin-violating pion-nucleon couplings is poorly known. Because the 23 LECs are fitted to the same PWA93 phase shifts used as the benchmark in Figs. 1 and 2, any contribution from this omitted operator set can be absorbed into the fitted LECs. The abstract's claim of a charge-dependent covariant NN potential 'up to NNLO' is therefore not yet justified; the authors should either include or bound this contribution, or explicitly restate the claim as covering only the included mechanisms and discuss the resulting uncertainty.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The axial-vector charge-dependent contact term is written with a second bilinear gamma5 gamma5, which equals the identity and is not an axial-vector current. As printed, the equation does not define the claimed C^pp_AV operator. Please correct this to the intended gamma_mu gamma_5 form (or the form actually used in the numerical calculation) and verify that Table II and the phase-shift results correspond to the corrected expression.
  3. [IV A, Table III, Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical evidence for 'satisfactory agreement' is an in-sample fit: the PWA93 phase shifts used to determine the LECs are the same data plotted for comparison, and the chi2 in Table III is an unweighted sum of squared differences with no PWA93 uncertainties. The reduction from 70.92 to 22.82 demonstrates that the added terms improve the fit, but it does not by itself validate the specific charge-dependent operator content. The authors should report a weighted chi2 (or at least the number of data points and degrees of freedom) and, if possible, include a check on a partial wave or energy not used in the fit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II header] The header 'in units of 104 GeV-2' should read '10^4 GeV^-2' to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [IV A] The statement that C^pp_T is set to zero because only three J<=1 pp partial waves exist should be phrased as a convention; a short test of the sensitivity of the results to this choice would strengthen the paper.
  3. [Figs. 1 and 2] The figure labels in the manuscript source appear corrupted (e.g., '/s49/s83/s48'), and the published figures should include proper axis labels and a legend identifying the LO, NLO, and NNLO lines and the PWA93 points.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The term -V_ITOPE in Eq. (1) is not defined in the text; please define it explicitly or remove it, since the isospin-symmetric OPE is already written as V_OPE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the new isospin-breaking potential is derived, and the phase-shift agreement is a disclosed fit with partial predictive content.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—charge-dependent OPE with Mπ±≠Mπ0 (Eqs. 2-4), static Coulomb (Eq. 6), and the pp contact Lagrangian (Eq. 5)—is constructed from chiral Lagrangians and power counting, with masses taken from PDG and gA/fπ external; it is not defined in terms of the PWA93 phase shifts. The 19 isospin-conserving and 4 pp LECs are then fitted to the PWA93 J≤2 phase shifts simultaneously (Sect. IV A), and the same dataset is used as the benchmark in Figs. 1-2; the abstract's 'satisfactory agreement' is therefore an in-sample fit-quality statement rather than an independent prediction. This is disclosed rather than disguised, and partial predictive content remains: the pp LECs act only in J≤1, so the pp 1D2, 3P2, 3F2, and ε2 waves and the higher-energy region are not directly controlled by the four pp contact LECs. The acknowledged omission of isospin-violating πN coupling corrections to OPE at NNLO (Table I note, Sect. II B 1) is an incompleteness/consistency limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to Ref. [23] for the symmetric potential and Ref. [37] for the regulator supply previously published, independently testable input; they do not import the target result. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its fit target, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a fitted EFT potential: 23 low-energy constants are free parameters adjusted to the same PWA93 data used as the benchmark, plus a hand-picked cutoff and matching radius. The EFT Lagrangian and Thompson equation are standard, but the treatment imports several domain assumptions from Ref. [7] without independent tests. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • O1-O17 (isospin-symmetric covariant contact LECs) = NNLO values in 10^4 GeV^-2: -18.15, -8.88, -7.16, 9.72, 1.60, 3.84, -8.84, 4.51, 4.54, 4.77, 3.61, 7.28, -5.80, -9.61…
    Fitted simultaneously to np and pp PWA93 phase shifts for J <= 2; they encode unresolved short-range physics in the isospin-symmetric potential.
  • D1, D2 (subleading covariant contact LECs) = -1.94, -1.14 in 10^4 GeV^-2 at NNLO
    Same fit as the O-LECs; these two additional LECs appear at NNLO.
  • C_S^pp (pp charge-symmetry-breaking scalar contact LEC) = -70.41 in 10^4 GeV^-2 at NNLO
    Fitted to pp PWA93 phase shifts; introduced in Eq. (5).
  • C_V^pp (pp vector contact LEC) = -13.94 in 10^4 GeV^-2 at NNLO
    Fitted to pp PWA93 phase shifts; introduced in Eq. (5).
  • C_AV^pp (pp axial-vector contact LEC) = 13.94 in 10^4 GeV^-2 at NNLO
    Fitted to pp PWA93 phase shifts; introduced in Eq. (5). Note that C_V and C_AV take nearly opposite fitted values.
  • C_T^pp (pp tensor contact LEC) = 0.00, fixed rather than fitted
    Set to zero because only three J <= 1 pp partial waves are available to constrain four CSB operators, as stated in Sect. IV A.
  • Regulator cutoff Lambda = 700, 800, 900 MeV for LO, NLO, NNLO respectively
    Chosen by hand in Sect. III; the paper itself notes this 'old-fashioned' Gaussian regulator distorts the long-range part and slows convergence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The covariant chiral EFT power counting assigns the pion mass splitting in OPE to NLO and treats it as the leading strong isospin-breaking effect.
    Invoked in Sect. II B 1 and Table I, following Ref. [7]. If other isospin-breaking operators enter at the same order, the proposed potential is incomplete.
  • domain assumption Isospin-violating corrections to the pion-nucleon couplings are negligible at NNLO and are omitted.
    Explicitly stated in Sect. II B 1 and Table I footnote, following Ref. [7]; the paper does not quantify the resulting uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Nucleon mass difference corrections to the covariant amplitudes start at order v=6 and can be neglected.
    Argued in Sect. II B 1 by expanding the LO covariant contact and OPE potentials in Delta M_N; this justifies excluding Mn-Mp effects from the construction.
  • domain assumption The Thompson equation with a non-local Gaussian regulator at Lambda = 700, 800, 900 MeV is a valid framework for extracting phase shifts.
    Used in Sect. III; the paper itself notes in the same section that this regulator distorts the long-range potential and slows convergence.
  • domain assumption The static one-photon Coulomb potential, matched at R = 12 fm, adequately represents electromagnetic effects for the phase shifts studied.
    Adopted in Sect. II B 2 and the matching procedure in Sect. III; the paper notes higher-order electromagnetic corrections may matter for some observables but does not include them.
  • standard math The Stapp parameterization and Coulomb matching formulas in Eqs. (9) through (16) correctly relate the S-matrix to phase shifts.
    Standard results from Refs. [38,39] used without proof; this is not a point of contention.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charge dependent nucleon-nucleon potentials in covariant chiral effective field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBZYSWIA

@misc{pith2026250415598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charge dependent nucleon-nucleon potentials in covariant chiral effective field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBZYSWIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15598}
}
abstract

The charge-dependent nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) interaction plays a crucial role in understanding the nuclear structure and reaction problems. In this work, we explore the charge-dependent $NN$ interaction in covariant chiral effective field theory. By incorporating the isospin-breaking contributions, we derive the charge-dependent covariant chiral $NN$ potential up to next-to-next-to leading order (NNLO). The calculated $np$ and $pp$ phase shifts are in satisfactory agreement with the PWA93 partial wave analysis. Our results contribute to a deeper understanding of isospin-breaking effects in nuclear forces and provide a solid foundation for future studies of nuclear structure and reactions within the covariant framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This leads to the mass differences of the pi- ons and the nucleons

    Isospin-breaking effects from the strong interaction The isospin-breaking effects originating from the strong i n- teraction are caused by the mass differences of the up and down quarks. This leads to the mass differences of the pi- ons and the nucleons. In the chiral effective field theory, th e pion mass terms appear in processes related to the pion ex- ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    γνγ5qν u (−p, s2)] (Ep′ − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 − M 2 π0 , (2) VOPE, np, I =1(p, p′) = − g2 A 4f 2π [¯u (p, s1) γµγ5qµu (p′, s′ 1)] [¯u (−p′, s′

    work page

  3. [3]

    γν γ5qνu (−p, s2)] (3) × [ 2 (Ep′ − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 − M 2 π± − 1 (Ep′ − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 − M 2 π0 ] , VOPE, np, I =0(p, p′) = g2 A 4f 2π [¯u (p, s1) γµγ5qµu (p′, s′ 1)] [¯u (−p′, s′

    work page

  4. [4]

    In principle, the isospin- breaking effects further influence the πN couplings

    γνγ5qν u (−p, s2)] (4) × [ 2 (Ep′ − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 − M 2 π± + 1 (Ep′ − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 − M 2 π0 ] , where I refers to the total isospin. In principle, the isospin- breaking effects further influence the πN couplings. Thus, they would result in the charge-independent and symmetry- breaking corrections to the OPE at NNLO. However, as pointed out in Ref. [...

    work page

  5. [5]

    u (−p, s2)] + Cpp V [¯u (p, s1) γµu (p′, s′ 1)] [¯u (−p′, s′

    work page

  6. [6]

    γµu (−p, s2)] (5) + Cpp AV [¯u (p, s1) γµγ5u (p′, s′ 1)] [ ¯u (−p′, s′

    work page

  7. [7]

    γ5γ5u (−p, s2) ] + Cpp T [¯u (p, s1) σµν u (p′, s′ 1)] [¯u (−p′, s′

    work page

  8. [8]

    Notice that in principle the charge-dependent two-nucleon potentials contain not only np and pp interactions, but also nn interactions

    σµν u (−p, s2)] , where Cpp S,V,AV,T are the new low-energy constants related to the pp interaction. Notice that in principle the charge-dependent two-nucleon potentials contain not only np and pp interactions, but also nn interactions. However, we do not construct the nn interactions in the present work due to the lack of experimental informa- tion with ...

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Isospin-breaking from the electromagnetic interaction The electromagnetic interaction also causes isospin- breaking effects because of the different charges of up and down quarks. In the chiral effective field theory, the most si g- nificant contribution from the electromagnetic...

  2. [10]

    im- proved Coulomb force

    γµu (−p, s2)] (E′p − Ep)2 − (p′ − p)2 . (6) In addition to the Coulomb force, the electromagnetic in- teraction also contains other corrections such as the “im- proved Coulomb force” ( VC2), the magnetic moment inter- action ( VMM), and the vacuum polarization potential ( VVP)...

  3. [11]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1990

  4. [12]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 295, 114 (1992) , arXiv:hep-ph/9209257

    1992 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ordonez, L

    C. Ordonez, L. Ray, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1982 (1994)

    1994

  7. [15]

    van Kolck, Phys

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

    1994

  8. [16]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 68, 041001 (2003) , arXiv:nucl-th/0304018

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Epelbaum, W

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

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Machleidt and D

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

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122301 (2015) , arXiv:1412.4623 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, and Y . Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024004 (2017) , arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Reinert, H

    P . Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 86 (2018) , arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020) , arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Machleidt, Few Body Syst

    R. Machleidt, Few Body Syst. 64, 77 (2023) , arXiv:2307.06416 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G. A. Miller, B. M. K. Nefkens, and I. Slaus, Phys. Rept. 194, 1 (1990)

    1990

  18. [26]

    V . G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C 48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  19. [27]

    D. E. Gonzalez Trotter et al., Phys. Rev. C 73, 034001 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Chen et al., Phys

    Q. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. C 77, 054002 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Gardestig, J

    A. Gardestig, J. Phys. G 36, 053001 (2009) , arXiv:0904.2787 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    van Kolck, M

    U. van Kolck, M. C. M. Rentmeester, J. L. Friar, J. T. Gold- man, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4386 (1998) , arXiv:nucl-th/9710067

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Walzl, U

    M. Walzl, U. G. Meissner, and E. Epelbaum, Nucl. Phys. A 693, 663 (2001) , arXiv:nucl-th/0010019

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. L. Friar, U. van Kolck, G. L. Payne, and S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024003 (2003) , arXiv:nucl-th/0303058

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lu, C.-X

    J.-X. Lu, C.-X. Wang, Y . Xiao, L.-S. Geng, J. Meng, and P . Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 142002 (2022) , arXiv:2111.07766 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ren, K.-W

    X.-L. Ren, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, B.-W. Long, P . Ring, and J. Meng, Chin. Phys. C 42, 014103 (2018) , arXiv:1611.08475 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xiao, C.-X

    Y . Xiao, C.-X. Wang, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054001 (2020) , arXiv:2007.13675 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wang, J.-X

    C.-X. Wang, J.-X. Lu, Y . Xiao, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014003 (2022) , arXiv:2110.05278 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ren, C.-X

    X.-L. Ren, C.-X. Wang, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, and J. Meng, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 062101 (2021) , arXiv:1712.10083 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wang, L.-S

    C.-X. Wang, L.-S. Geng, and B. Long, Chin. Phys. C 45, 054101 (2021) , arXiv:2001.08483 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bai, C.-X

    Q.-Q. Bai, C.-X. Wang, Y . Xiao, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Lett. B, 135745 (2020), arXiv:2007.01638 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bai, C.-X

    Q.-Q. Bai, C.-X. Wang, Y . Xiao, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137347 (2022) , arXiv:2105.06113 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J.-X. Lu, Y . Xiao, Z.-W. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, (2025), arXiv:2501.17185 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zou, J.-X

    W.-J. Zou, J.-X. Lu, P .-W. Zhao, L.-S. Geng, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138732 (2024) , arXiv:2312.15672 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zheng, Z.-W

    R.-Y . Zheng, Z.-W. Liu, L.-S. Geng, J.-N. Hu, and S. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139416 (2025) , arXiv:2501.02826 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fettes, U.-G

    N. Fettes, U.-G. Meissner, and S. Steininger, Phys. Lett. B 451, 233 (1999) , arXiv:hep-ph/9811366. 7 /s49/s83/s48 /s80/s83/s40/s49 /s83/s48 /s41/s32 /s40/s68 /s101 /s103 /s46 /s41 /s51/s80/s48 /s80/s83/s40/s51 /s80/s48 /s41/s32 /s40/s68 /s101 /s103 /s46 /s41 /s49/s80/s49 /s80...

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Muller and U.-G

    G. Muller and U.-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B 556, 265 (1999) , arXiv:hep-ph/9903375

    1999 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fettes and U.-G

    N. Fettes and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C 63, 045201 (2001) , arXiv:hep-ph/0008181

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Xiao, J.-X

    Y . Xiao, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064002 (2024) , arXiv:2406.01292 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    H. P . Stapp, T. J. Ypsilantis, and N. Metropolis, Phys. Rev. 105, 302 (1957)

    1957

  41. [49]

    C. M. Vincent and S. C. Phatak, Phys. Rev. C 10, 391 (1974)

    1974

  42. [50]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Chen, D.-L

    Y .-H. Chen, D.-L. Yao, and H. Q. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 87, 054019 (2013) , arXiv:1212.1893 [hep-ph]. 8 /s80/s83/s40/s49/s83/s48/s41/s32/s40/s68/s101/s103/s46/s41 /s49/s83/s48 /s80/s83/s40/s51/s80/s48/s41/s32/s40/s68/s101/s103/s46/s41 /s51/s80/s48 /s80/s83/s40/s51/s80/s49/s41/s3...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.