Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Nuclear and neutron matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory with next-to-leading order covariant chiral nuclear force

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that next-to-leading-order covariant chiral nuclear forces, fitted with a naturalness constraint, reproduce the empirical saturation of symmetric nuclear matter without three-nucleon forces.

desk verdict A credible NLO extension of RBHF with covariant chiral forces, whose saturation agreement rests on a naturalness prior that deserves sensitivity checks before being sold as a no-3NF result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18519 v1 pith:HVGBRZD5 submitted 2025-06-23 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Wei-Jiang Zou , Yi-Long Yang , Jun-Xu Lu , Peng-Wei Zhao , Li-Sheng Geng , Jie Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex
keywords relativisticBrueckner-Hartree-Fockcovariantchiraleffectivefieldtheorynuclearmatterequationofstatesaturationlow-energyconstantsnaturalnessneutronnext-to-leadingorder
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 tries to establish that a next-to-leading-order relativistic chiral nucleon-nucleon force can, by itself, reproduce the saturation of nuclear matter, without adding three-nucleon forces. The authors solve symmetric nuclear matter and pure neutron matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (RBHF) theory, first fitting the 17 low-energy constants of the force to neutron-proton phase shifts under a naturalness constraint. At momentum cutoff $\Lambda=590$ MeV, the equation of state saturates at $E/A=-16.05$ MeV and $\rho_0=0.167$ fm$^{-3}$, with incompressibility $K=270$ MeV, all inside the empirical region. The NLO equation of state is also softer above saturation and less sensitive to the cutoff than the earlier leading-order results. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward a two-nucleon-only, systematically improvable description of nuclear saturation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the NLO covariant chiral potential, written as the sum of LO and NLO contact terms (4 plus 17 low-energy constants), one-pion exchange, leading two-pion exchange, and the subtracted iterated one-pion exchange, solved inside the RBHF G-matrix via the Thompson equation. The new element is the three-step fitting scheme: fit the four LO constants, then five selected NLO constants, then all 17 constants with the $\chi^2_{\rm prior}$ penalty of Eq.(17), which uses the decomposition of Eq.(16) to pull the eight remaining constants toward the non-relativistic natural scale $1/f_\pi^2$. This prior is what makes the many-body equation converge and keeps the constants within roughly an order of magnitude of the natural scale.

What would settle it

Repeat the RBHF calculation at $\Lambda=590$ MeV with all 17 constants fit without the naturalness prior, or with a prior derived from covariant power counting instead of the non-relativistic scale $1/f_\pi^2$; if the saturation point leaves the empirical band or the fit no longer converges, the naturalness prior is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with the low-energy constants fixed by a naturalness-preserving fit to the np phase shifts, the RBHF theory using the NLO covariant chiral nuclear force yields the empirical saturation point of symmetric nuclear matter: $E/A=-16.05$ MeV at $\rho_0=0.167$ fm$^{-3}$, together with $K=270$ MeV at that density. The same force gives pure neutron matter an equation of state that is softer than the leading-order one above roughly $0.2$ fm$^{-3}$, and the cutoff uncertainty in the equation of state is roughly halved from leading order to next-to-leading order. The paper also reports that fitting all 17 constants without the naturalness prior produces unnaturally large constants and makes the RBHF calculation fail to converge, so the constrained fitting scheme is an essential part of the claim, not a side detail.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on treating the non-relativistic scale $1/f_\pi^2$ as the natural size for the 17 covariant low-energy constants, a step the paper admits is not justified by covariant power counting; if that prior is wrong, the saturation agreement could be an artifact of the constraint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\Lambda=590$ MeV, symmetric nuclear matter saturates at the empirical values using only two-nucleon forces, so explicit three-nucleon forces are not required at this order.
  • The reduced cutoff sensitivity from LO to NLO supports the expectation of order-by-order convergence for covariant chiral forces in the relativistic many-body framework.
  • The softer NLO equation of state above saturation density changes the predicted pressure of neutron-rich matter compared with LO results.
  • The saturation points obtained across cutoffs overlap the empirical region, which motivates extending the same force to finite-nucleus RBHF calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not report the symmetry energy or its slope; computing them from this equation of state would give an independent check against neutron-skin and astrophysical constraints.
  • Varying the strength of the naturalness prior by a factor of two and observing whether the saturation point stays in the empirical band would show how much of the agreement is carried by the constraint.
  • If relativity in the many-body treatment is what removes the need for three-nucleon forces, then inserting the same covariant potential into a non-relativistic Brueckner calculation should fail to saturate; that comparison would isolate the mechanism.
  • The particular choice of the nine seed constants is one of several possible choices; a symmetric test would repeat the fit with a different nine-constant seed set and check that the saturated equation of state is unchanged.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (RBHF) calculations of symmetric nuclear matter and pure neutron matter using covariant chiral nucleon-nucleon interactions up to next-to-leading order (NLO). The low-energy constants (LECs) are refitted to PW A93 np scattering phase shifts with the same Thompson equation that is later used in the many-body calculation. Because an unconstrained 17-LEC fit (LEC-I) produces unnaturally large LECs and fails to converge in RBHF, the authors introduce a naturalness penalty (Eq. (17), LEC-II) based on the non-relativistic scale 1/f_pi^2. With cutoff Lambda=590 MeV, the symmetric nuclear matter saturation point is reported as E/A=-16.05 MeV, rho0=0.167 fm^-3, and K=270 MeV, stated to be consistent with empirical values. The NLO equation of state is softer above saturation than the LO one, and the cutoff band for Lambda=450-600 MeV is narrower at NLO than at LO. The paper concludes that NLO covariant chiral NN forces can describe nuclear saturation without explicit three-nucleon forces.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant: it suggests that a chiral-EFT NN interaction fitted only to free-space scattering can describe the nuclear matter saturation point in a relativistic many-body framework, in contrast to the non-relativistic BHF results at NLO without three-nucleon forces. The paper has clear strengths: the scattering equation used for the phase-shift fits is the same Thompson equation used in RBHF; the phase-shift comparisons are shown over the full cutoff range; the LEC values at Lambda=590 MeV are tabulated; and the authors are transparent about the necessity of the naturalness constraint and about the failure of the unconstrained fit. These features make the calculation reproducible in principle. The main weakness is that the headline saturation agreement is obtained only after imposing a prior whose covariant-scale justification is acknowledged to be non-trivial, and the quoted result is selected at a single cutoff. The quantitative significance of the paper is therefore conditional on additional sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A and Sec. III A, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The naturalness prior is load-bearing: the unconstrained LEC-I fit does not converge in RBHF, so every nuclear-matter result is obtained only after imposing Eq. (17) with zeta=1/f_pi^2. Yet Sec. II A states that covariant LECs contain mixtures of several orders under the non-relativistic counting and that estimating their natural size is non-trivial, and the paper gives no argument that zeta=1/f_pi^2 is the correct covariant scale. Consequently, the saturation point could be strongly shaped by the prior rather than by the NLO covariant force itself. Please add sensitivity studies: vary zeta by factors of, say, two to three; repeat the fit with different choices of the nine operators selected in Eq. (16); and report the phase-shift chi^2 of Eq. (15) as a function of prior strength together with the resulting EoS changes. Without such tests the central claim remains conditional.
  2. [Sec. III B, Figs. 4 and 5] The headline saturation values are quoted for a single cutoff Lambda=590 MeV, but the same figures show a residual cutoff uncertainty of about 16 MeV in E/A at saturation over Lambda=450-600 MeV, which is much larger than the empirical +/-1 MeV band used for comparison. No criterion is given for selecting Lambda=590 MeV rather than another cutoff in the band, so the 'excellent agreement' at that point is partly a selection effect. Please report the saturation energy, density, and K as a band over the full cutoff range, state the selection criterion, and quantify how much of the agreement survives when the cutoff variation is propagated.
  3. [Sec. III B, incompressibility] The incompressibility K=270 MeV is quoted as agreeing fairly with the empirical 240+/-20 MeV, but it lies 1.5 standard deviations above the empirical central value, and no uncertainty is attached to 270 MeV. The paper also does not propagate the phase-shift fit uncertainty: the fitted chi^2 of Eq. (15) is not reported for LEC-II, and the LEC covariance matrix is not given. Please provide an uncertainty budget for K and for the saturation point, including at least the cutoff variation and, if feasible, the prior-strength and phase-shift-fit contributions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B, Figs. 4 and 7] The meaning of the shaded bands should be stated explicitly: is each band simply the envelope over Lambda=450-600 MeV, or is it a confidence interval? The claim that the NLO uncertainty is 'reduced by half' should also specify the measure being halved.
  2. [Sec. III A, Table III] LECs are tabulated only for Lambda=590 MeV; since Fig. 2 shows the cutoff dependence and the EoS bands are computed from multiple cutoffs, please provide the LEC sets for the other cutoffs in a table or as supplementary material.
  3. [Sec. III A, Eq. (16)] The index sets i={1,2,3,4,6,10,13,14,16} and j={5,7,8,9,11,12,15,17} are described in the text, but they should be written explicitly at the point where Eq. (16) is introduced to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. III A] There are several typographical and grammatical slips, e.g., 'inculded' in the bullet list and 'the minima is found' after Eq. (15); these should be corrected in a revision.
  5. [Sec. III A] The text says the chosen five NLO LECs yield the lowest chi^2 among different choices; please specify how many alternative sets were examined and quote the corresponding chi^2 values so that the reader can assess the selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: saturation properties are genuine predictions from phase-shift-fitted LECs; the naturalness prior and cutoff choice are stated assumptions, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: covariant chiral NLO potential (Eq. 1) with LECs determined from PWA93 np phase shifts (J <= 2, Elab = 1-200 MeV) via the chi^2-like function of Eq. (15); the naturalness-restricted variant LEC-II adds the prior Eq. (17) with zeta = 1/f_pi^2; the in-medium Thompson G-matrix equation (Eq. 5) is then solved self-consistently with the Dirac equation (Eq. 7), and E/A is computed from Eqs. (13)-(14). The reported saturation values (-16.05 MeV, 0.167 fm^-3, K_inf = 270 MeV) appear nowhere in the fitting functional; no term in Eq. (15) or Eq. (17) involves nuclear-matter saturation or any nuclear-matter datum. The naturalness prior is an external order-of-magnitude constraint, whose covariant-power-counting justification the authors explicitly flag as non-trivial: "Consequently, the estimation of their natural size is non-trivial. Nevertheless, we simply follow the estimation of non-relativistic chiral nuclear force in this work." That is an assumption about LEC sizes, not a target-derived fit, so it affects robustness rather than creating a circular reduction. Quoting Lambda = 590 MeV is a presentational choice within the fully shown Lambda = 450-600 MeV band; the paper also displays the cutoff band and the Coester-like curve, so the agreement is not selected by a fit to saturation. Self-citations [30, 31, 33] supply the potential structure and the LO comparison, but the LECs are re-fitted here and the RBHF solutions are computed independently. I find no step where a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 18 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central nuclear-matter result rests on 17 LECs fitted to phase shifts plus a hand-selected cutoff, with the naturalness prior and the no-sea and momentum-independence approximations as the main additional inputs. No new particles or forces are introduced, and no code or external data files are shipped.

free parameters (18)
  • LEC C1 (LO contact) = -369.58 GeV^-2
    Fitted to PWA93 np phase shifts (J<=2, Elab=1-200 MeV) under LEC-II naturalness prior; enters the contact potential and affects the nuclear matter EoS.
  • LEC C2 (LO contact) = 270.97 GeV^-2
    Fitted to np phase shifts with naturalness prior; contributes to central interaction strength.
  • LEC C3 (LO contact) = -124.07 GeV^-2
    Fitted to np phase shifts; part of the LO contact interaction.
  • LEC C4 (LO contact) = -54.67 GeV^-2
    Fitted to np phase shifts; part of the LO contact interaction.
  • LEC C5 (NLO contact) = -247.07 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness prior; contributes to NLO contact terms.
  • LEC C6 (NLO contact, selected 9) = 180.07 GeV^-2
    One of the 9 LECs selected to recover non-relativistic counterparts; fitted in LEC-II.
  • LEC C7 (NLO contact) = -22.09 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C8 (NLO contact) = 13.51 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C9 (NLO contact) = -303.42 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C10 (NLO contact, selected 9) = -282.77 GeV^-2
    One of the 9 LECs selected to recover non-relativistic counterparts; fitted in LEC-II.
  • LEC C11 (NLO contact) = 38.84 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C12 (NLO contact) = -278.53 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C13 (NLO contact, selected 9) = -23.30 GeV^-2
    One of the 9 LECs selected to recover non-relativistic counterparts; fitted in LEC-II.
  • LEC C14 (NLO contact, selected 9) = 130.56 GeV^-2
    One of the 9 LECs selected to recover non-relativistic counterparts; fitted in LEC-II.
  • LEC C15 (NLO contact) = -37.92 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • LEC C16 (NLO contact, selected 9) = -229.02 GeV^-2
    One of the 9 LECs selected to recover non-relativistic counterparts; fitted in LEC-II.
  • LEC C17 (NLO contact) = -0.18 GeV^-2
    Fitted in LEC-II with naturalness constraint.
  • Momentum cutoff Lambda = 590 MeV for central result
    Regulator scale in the Gaussian form factor (Eq.4); varied over 450-600 MeV. The central saturation values are quoted at 590 MeV, a hand-selected point that best matches empirical saturation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The covariant chiral NN potential up to NLO (Eq.1), with the 17 contact operators in Table I, is the complete interaction at this chiral order.
    The paper takes the operator basis and power counting from Refs.[30,33] without an independent re-derivation; completeness is load-bearing for both the phase-shift fit and the nuclear-matter result.
  • domain assumption Three-nucleon forces first appear at N2LO and can be neglected at NLO in the RBHF calculation.
    Only NN interactions are used; the non-relativistic comparison in Fig.6 and Ref.[47] shows 3NF is essential for saturation at N2LO, so the NLO saturation claim depends on the formal power counting being reliable in the many-body system.
  • domain assumption The in-medium single-particle potential is momentum independent, U = US + gamma0 U0, with US and U0 fixed from the self-energy at p1=0.5kF and p2=0.7kF.
    Section II.B Eqs.(8),(11),(12); this approximation is inherited from Bonn-potential RBHF studies and is not validated for the covariant chiral potential in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The natural size of the covariant LECs can be estimated with the non-relativistic heavy-baryon power counting scale 1/f_pi^2, and the chi2_prior of Eq.(17) correctly separates natural from unnatural directions.
    Section III.A states the estimation is non-trivial under covariant power counting, yet the paper follows the non-relativistic estimate; without this prior (LEC-I) the RBHF calculation does not converge.
  • domain assumption The no-sea approximation is valid: only positive-energy states below the Fermi momentum contribute in Eq.(11).
    Section II.B, Ref.[39]; this truncation is standard in RBHF but is an assumption about the many-body vacuum and the Dirac sea.
  • standard math The Thompson equation is an adequate three-dimensional reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for in-medium scattering.
    Section II.B Eq.(5), Ref.[36]; this is a standard relativistic scattering equation used in RBHF, but it is a model reduction of the full four-dimensional equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear and neutron matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory with next-to-leading order covariant chiral nuclear force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVGBRZD5

@misc{pith2026250618519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear and neutron matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory with next-to-leading order covariant chiral nuclear force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVGBRZD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18519}
}
abstract

The symmetric nuclear matter and pure neutron matter are investigated by the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (RBHF) theory with the covariant chiral nuclear forces up to the next-to-leading order~(NLO). A fitting scheme to ensure the naturalness of the low-energy constants is proposed, which plays a crucial role in the proper description of nuclear matter. With a momentum cutoff $\Lambda=590$ MeV, the empirical saturation energy and density, as well as the incompressibility coefficient at the saturation density are reproduced well. The EoSs show less dependence on the momentum cutoff and become softer at densities above saturation density, in comparison with the previous leading order results. Given the good description for the saturation properties of nuclear matter, the present work encourages future studies of the finite nuclei in the framework of the RBHF theory with the NLO covariant chiral nuclear forces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The relative magnitude of LECs with re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) The relative magnitude of LECs with re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Neutron-proton phase shifts for part [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Energy per nucleon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Energy per nucleon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Energy per nucleon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Energy per nucleon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. From bare two-nucleon interaction to nuclear matter and finite nuclei in a relativistic framework

    nucl-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A leading-order relativistic chiral two-nucleon force, with four constants fit to scattering data, describes nuclear matter saturation and medium-mass nuclei binding energies and radii without three-nucleon forces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure, In ternational Review of Nuclear Physics, V ol

    J. Meng, ed., Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure, In ternational Review of Nuclear Physics, V ol. 10 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Roca-Maza and N

    X. Roca-Maza and N. Paar, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 96 (2018), arXiv:1804.06256 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and P . Ring, Prog. Pa rt. Nucl. Phys. 109, 103713 (2019), arXiv:1904.04977 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Tong, P .-W

    H. Tong, P .-W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 101, 035802 (2020), arXiv:1903.05938 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Coester, S

    F. Coester, S. Cohen, B. Day, and C. M. Vincent, Phys. Rev. C 1, 769 (1970)

    work page 1970

  6. [6]

    The nuclear matter equation of state with consistent two- and three-body perturbative chiral interactions

    L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Machleidt, L. E. Marc ucci, and F. Sammarruca, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044321 (2014), arXiv:1402.0965 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Sammarruca, L

    F. Sammarruca, L. Coraggio, J. W. Holt, N. Itaco, R. Machl eidt, and L. E. Marcucci, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054311 (2015), arXiv:1411.0136 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Lonardoni, I

    D. Lonardoni, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and J. Carlson, Phys. R ev. Res. 2, 022033 (2020), arXiv:1912.09411 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Hebeler, Phys

    K. Hebeler, Phys. Rept. 890, 1 (2021), arXiv:2002.09548 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Let t. 122, 042501 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Sammarruca and R

    F. Sammarruca and R. Millerson, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034313 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    H ¨ uther, K

    T. H ¨ uther, K. V obig, K. Hebeler, R. Machleidt, and R. Roth, Phys. L ett. B 808, 135651 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hoppe, C

    J. Hoppe, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and J. Si monis, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024318 (2019), arXiv:1904.12611 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H¨ uther, K

    T. H¨ uther, K. V obig, K. Hebeler, R. Machleidt, and R. Ro th, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135651 (2020), arXiv:1911.04955 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Machleidt, Few Body Syst

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

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Coester line

    in which the ground-state energies and radii of oxygen i sotopes are simultaneously included in the fitting to obtain an NN+3N interaction at the next-to-next-to-leading order (N 2LO). An alternative approach is to employ relativistic ab initio methods. In Refs.[18, 19], with t...

  9. [17]

    Ekstr¨ om, G

    A. Ekstr¨ om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papen brock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forss´ en, M. Hjorth-Jensen, P . Navr´ atil, and W. Nazarew icz, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015), arXiv:1502.04682 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Let t. 122, 042501 (2019), arXiv:1710.08220 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Brockmann and R

    R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1965 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    S. Wang, Q. Zhao, P . Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054319 (2021), 20 arXiv:2103.12960 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Machleidt, Adv

    R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    Y ang and P .-W

    Y .-L. Y ang and P .-W. Zhao, Chinese Phys. Lett.42, 051201 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    P . Ring, S. Wang, H. Tong, Q. Zhao, C. Wang, and J. Meng, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2453, 012031 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    P . Qin, S. Wang, H. Tong, Q. Zhao, C. Wang, Z. P . Li, and P . Ring, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064603 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y ang and P

    Y . Y ang and P . Zhao, Phys. Lett. B835, 137587 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, J. Meng, P . Ring, and S. Zhang, Phys. Re v. C 97, 054312 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Shen, J.-N

    S.-H. Shen, J.-N. Hu, H.-Z. Liang, J. Meng, P . Ring, and S .-Q. Zhang, Chinese Physics Letters 33, 102103 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Machleidt and D

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

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Zheng, Z.-W

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

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    Xiao, L.-S

    Y . Xiao, L.-S. Geng, and X.-L. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 99, 024004 (2019), arXiv:1812.03005 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 53 (2015), arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. H. Thompson, Phys. Rev. D 1, 110 (1970)

    1970

  30. [38]

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 84, 1232 (1951)

    1951

  31. [39]

    Tong, X.-L

    H. Tong, X.-L. Ren, P . Ring, S.-H. Shen, S.-B. Wang, and J . Meng, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054302 (2018), arXiv:1808.09138 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6, 515 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9701058

    1997 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. R. Anastasio, L. S. Celenza, W. S. Pong, and C. M. Shaki n, Phys. Rep. 100, 327 (1983)

    1983

  34. [42]

    V . G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, 21 Phys. Rev. C 48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  35. [43]

    Ordonez, L

    C. Ordonez, L. Ray, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 53, 2086 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511380

    1996 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gloeckle, A. Kruger, and U.-G. Meissner , Nucl. Phys. A 645, 413 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809084

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle, and U.-G. Meißner, Nuclear Ph ysics A 747, 362 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Epelbaum, W

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

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. A. Bethe, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 21, 93 (1971)

    1971

  40. [48]

    Sammarruca and R

    F. Sammarruca and R. Millerson, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064312 (2021), arXiv:2109.01985 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Garg and G

    U. Garg and G. Col` o, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 55 (2018), arXiv:1801.03672 [nucl-ex]. 22

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.