Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Charged Particle Scattering in Renormalizable Pionless Effective Field Theory at Next-to-Leading Order: The $pd$, $dd$, and $p^3\mathrm{He}$ Case

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A renormalizable pionless EFT with non-perturbative Coulomb reproduces low-energy charged few-nucleon scattering at next-to-leading order.

desk verdict Solid NLO pionless-EFT calculation of charged few-nucleon scattering, with a fixable but real operator error in the dd section. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16250 v1 pith:HCVDGYWK submitted 2025-07-22 nucl-th

Matúš Rojik , Martin Schäfer , Mirko Bagnarol , Nir Barnea This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords pionlesseffectivefieldtheoryCoulombinteractionfew-nucleonscatteringlengthrangeexpansionharmonicoscillatortrapproton-deuteronproton-helium-3
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 aims to show that pionless effective field theory—a theory built only from nucleon contact interactions, with no pions—can describe low-energy scattering of charged nuclei once the Coulomb force is treated non-perturbatively. Working at next-to-leading order, the authors extract phase shifts and effective-range parameters for proton-deuteron, deuteron-deuteron, and proton-helium-3 scattering from a harmonic-oscillator trap. Their central numerical predictions are a pd spin-quartet scattering length of $a_{pd}^{3/2}=12.76(29)\,\mathrm{fm}$, a dd spin-quintet scattering length of $a_{dd}^{2}=6.26(3)\,\mathrm{fm}$, and p-3He scattering lengths of $a_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^0=11.26(4)\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $a_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^1=9.06(4)\,\mathrm{fm}$, with effective ranges near $1.2$–$1.7\,\mathrm{fm}$. The results show mild cutoff dependence and agree with existing experimental phase-shift analyses and potential-model calculations, which would establish that this minimal EFT has predictive power for charged few-nucleon systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the local regulator-dependent contact potentials of pionless EFT. The two-body spin-singlet proton-proton channel is split off and treated as Coulomb plus its own LO and NLO contact terms; a ppn three-body contact force is added at NLO to renormalize channels containing two protons and a neutron. Scattering information is extracted by placing the clusters in a harmonic-oscillator trap and using the Coulomb-corrected trap quantization condition (Eq. 10), which relates bound-state energies in the trap to Coulomb-subtracted phase shifts through Coulomb Green's functions; the stochastic variational method with correlated Gaussians solves the many-body Schrödinger equation, and observables are extrapolated to the contact limit from cutoff dependence.

What would settle it

Extract the same EFT phase shifts with an independent Coulomb-handling scheme—for example, screening-and-renormalization of the Coulomb potential in the continuum—and check whether the effective-range parameters reproduce $12.76(29)$, $6.26(3)$, $11.26(4)$, and $9.06(4)\,\mathrm{fm}$ within their quoted errors; a systematic shift beyond those bands would falsify the point-charge trap assumption. Alternatively, a future precision measurement of the pd quartet scattering length with error below $0.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ that disagrees with $12.76(29)\,\mathrm{fm}$ would directly test the central prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a renormalizable pionless EFT with the Coulomb interaction summed to all orders, and only next-to-leading-order short-range corrections treated perturbatively, reproduces low-energy charged few-nucleon scattering. The key structural finding is that, at NLO, a new isospin-symmetry-breaking ppn three-body contact force is required to cancel logarithmic cutoff divergences in the 3He channel and in pd spin-doublet scattering; without it, binding energies and phase shifts fail to converge as the cutoff grows. With that force plus the mandatory four-body force, the extrapolated effective-range parameters for pd, dd, and p3He scattering land close to experimental values and are renormalization-group invariant, implying the theory, though simple, is predictive rather than merely descriptive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the trap quantization condition for two point charges (Eq. 10) remains valid for composite charged clusters such as the deuteron and 3He, with all finite-size Coulomb effects absorbed into the short-range contact terms; if that subtraction fails, the quoted scattering lengths and effective ranges carry a systematic error not included in their uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NLO pd spin-quartet scattering length, $a_{pd}^{3/2}=12.76(29)\,\mathrm{fm}$, moves from the LO value $9.9(1.1)\,\mathrm{fm}$ into the region of the most recent experimental extraction and potential-model predictions, so the NLO correction is the one that brings the theory into agreement.
  • The p3He spin-triplet scattering length has almost flat cutoff dependence at NLO, suggesting that this channel is already well converged at next-to-leading order.
  • No three-body force is needed in the pd spin-quartet or dd spin-quintet channels up to NLO, because all nucleon pairs couple to spin-triplet/isospin-singlet configurations; those calculations test only two-body input.
  • The failure of NLO 3He and 4He binding energies to converge when the ppn three-body force or the four-body force is omitted confirms that these forces are mandatory for renormalization, not optional refinements.
  • The same interaction can be applied to reactions of astrophysical interest, such as dd fusion, for which the elastic dd channel is already computed here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the point-charge trap assumption would be to recompute the same EFT potentials with a screened-Coulomb or finite-charge-distribution trap condition and compare the effective-range parameters; disagreement outside the quoted errors would indicate that the uncertainties omit a systematic effect.
  • The almost flat cutoff dependence of $a_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^1$ suggests that a next-to-next-to-leading-order calculation in this channel could sharpen the prediction below the current $0.04\,\mathrm{fm}$ uncertainty, a testable next step.
  • The ppn three-body force's role could be probed experimentally through spin observables or polarization-dependent pd scattering, where doublet and quartet channels contribute differently.
  • The trap-based phase-shift extraction, combined with the EFT's cutoff-based error estimates, offers a path to computing low-energy charged fusion rates without solving the full continuum scattering problem.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a pionless EFT with a non-perturbative Coulomb interaction at leading order and perturbative NLO corrections, using local regulators and two-, three-, and four-body contact interactions. The authors solve the few-body Schrödinger equation with the stochastic variational method in a harmonic-oscillator trap corrected for Coulomb long-range effects, and extract s-wave phase shifts for pd, dd, and p3He scattering. Low-energy constants are fitted to two-nucleon scattering data and the binding energies of 3H, 3He, and 4He, so the reported scattering parameters are genuine predictions. The headline NLO results are a_pd^{3/2}=12.76(29) fm, r_pd^{3/2}=1.17(7) fm; a_dd^{2}=6.26(3) fm, r_dd^{2}=1.41(7) fm; and a_p3He^0=11.26(4) fm, r_p3He^0=1.65(26) fm, a_p3He^1=9.06(4) fm, r_p3He^1=1.36(25) fm. These are compared with experimental phase-shift analyses and potential-model calculations and are found to agree well, supporting the predictive power of the framework.

Significance. If the stated results hold, this is a significant methodological advance: it extends potential-formulation pionless EFT with non-perturbative Coulomb interactions to four-nucleon charged scattering, provides a concrete demonstration that the NLO ppn three-body force is necessary for renormalization, and delivers scattering-length predictions that do not enter the LEC fits. The cutoff-dependence analysis with explicit 1/Λ and 1/Λ^2 extrapolations, the careful specification of fitting targets, and the comparison with experimental phase-shift analyses are notable strengths. The paper is generally careful about error estimation and clearly identifies where calculations without mandated counterterms fail to converge. However, the internal inconsistency in the dd channel specification prevents acceptance in the present form, and the applicability of the point-charge trap quantization condition to composite clusters needs a quantitative justification.

major comments (2)
  1. [III C, Eq. (3), Eq. (5)] The text states that for dd S=2 scattering only the C1^(0), C1^(1), and C4^(1) LECs contribute, because all nucleon pairs couple to S=1. This is internally inconsistent with the definitions in Eqs. (3) and (5): C1^(1) multiplies the spin-singlet isovector projector P^(0,1), and C4^(1) multiplies the pp spin-singlet projector P^(0,1;pp). Both projectors vanish when every pair is in a triplet state. The NLO spin-triplet operators in Eq. (3) are the C2^(1) and C3^(1) terms, which are not named in Section III C. If the quoted sentence reflects the actual computation, the dd NLO results a_dd^2=6.262(42) fm and r_dd^2=1.41(7) fm are invalid; if it is only a typographical error, the manuscript still gives an unreproducible account of the calculation. Because dd S=2 is one of the three headline predictions and has no direct experimental scattering-length anchor, the authors must correct this specification and confirm the quoted dd numbers with the corrected set of contributing LECs.
  2. [II C, Eq. (10)] The phase-shift extraction uses Eq. (10), a Coulomb-corrected harmonic-oscillator quantization condition derived for two point charges, and applies it to composite clusters such as d and 3He. In the A-body calculation the Coulomb interaction acts between individual protons, so the asymptotic cluster-cluster potential contains finite-size, multipole, and polarization contributions beyond the point-charge q1 q2 e^2/r term. Equation (10) subtracts only the point-Coulomb Green's functions; if these additional long-range tails are not negligible at the quoted precision, particularly for the dd scattering length quoted to 0.03 fm, the extracted ERE parameters carry a systematic error not included in the reported uncertainties. The authors should justify that these contributions are beyond NLO in their power counting and provide a numerical estimate of their effect, or otherwise demonstrate that the point-charge subtraction is exact for their cluster wavefunctions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and III B] The pd spin-quartet values differ between the abstract and the main text: the abstract gives a_pd^{3/2}=12.76(29) fm and r_pd^{3/2}=1.17(7) fm, while Section III B gives a_pd^{3/2}=12.76(26) fm and r_pd^{3/2}=1.16(8) fm; the final values and uncertainties should be harmonized.
  2. [References] References [21] and [52] appear to be the same paper (Marcucci et al., Frontiers in Physics 8, 69 (2020)) and should be consolidated or differentiated.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The modified effective range expansion for the spin-doublet channel is written with a sign in the denominator that is only described in words; stating the sign convention explicitly before Eq. (14) would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Table IV] The four-body LEC E0^(1) shows strongly non-monotonic cutoff dependence, including a sign change around Λ=6 fm^-1; a brief comment on this running behavior would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pd/dd/p3He scattering parameters are genuine outputs of LECs fit to two-nucleon data and 3H/3He/4He binding energies; only non-load-bearing self-citations are present.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: every LEC is fitted to inputs that do not include the reported scattering observables. C0^(0), C1^(0), C2^(0) and the NLO two-body constants are fixed to nn/pp scattering lengths and effective ranges and to the deuteron; D0^(0)/D1^(0) are fixed to B(3H); D1^(1) to B(3He); E0^(1) to B(4He). The pd, dd, and p3He scattering lengths, effective ranges, and phase shifts are outputs of the SVM trap calculation, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The trap quantization condition, Eq. (10), is taken from Guo [26] and the SVM implementation from the authors' earlier work [13,14]; those citations are methodological and do not themselves enforce the target results. One non-circular caveat: Sec. III C states that the S=2 dd channel receives C1^(1) and C4^(1), but Eqs. (3) and (5) define those as spin-singlet isovector/pp projectors; if taken literally this makes the dd NLO result irreproducible as written, but it is an internal consistency/reproducibility problem rather than circularity, since a_dd^2 is not a fit input. The low score reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation to [14].

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central scattering predictions depend on 13 low-energy constants fitted to two-nucleon scattering data and few-nucleon bound states; these are standard EFT inputs and are tabulated. The pp and ppn contact terms introduced to handle non-perturbative Coulomb have direct experimental handles (pp scattering length/effective range, B(3He)), so there is independent evidence for them. The main unproven background inputs are the EFT power counting, the Coulomb-corrected trap extraction formula, and the 1/Λ^n extrapolation forms; these are domain assumptions, not free parameters. No truly ad hoc entities are introduced without observable consequences.

free parameters (13)
  • C0^0 (NN 1S0 LO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. II (e.g. -4.324E+02 MeV at Λ=4 fm^-1)
    Fitted to nn scattering length a_nn=-18.95 fm (Sec. II B).
  • C1^0 (np 3S1 LO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. II
    Fitted to deuteron binding energy B(2H)=2.2246 MeV (Sec. II B).
  • C2^0 (pp 1S0 LO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. II
    Fitted to pp scattering length a_pp=-7.8063 fm via Coulomb-modified ERE (Sec. II B).
  • C0^1 (NN 1S0 NLO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted to nn effective range r_nn=2.75 fm while keeping a_nn fixed (Sec. II B).
  • C1^1 (NN 1S0 NLO derivative contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted together with C0^1 to reproduce r_nn=2.75 fm (Sec. II B).
  • C2^1 (np 3S1 NLO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted to np triplet effective range r_pn=1.764 fm while keeping B(2H) fixed (Sec. II B).
  • C3^1 (np 3S1 NLO derivative contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted together with C2^1 to reproduce r_pn=1.764 fm (Sec. II B).
  • C4^1 (pp 1S0 NLO contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted to pp effective range r_pp=2.794 fm while keeping a_pp fixed (Sec. II B).
  • C5^1 (pp 1S0 NLO derivative contact) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. III
    Fitted together with C4^1 to reproduce r_pp=2.794 fm (Sec. II B).
  • D0^0 (3N LO force) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. II
    Fitted to triton binding energy B(3H)=8.482 MeV (Sec. II B).
  • D0^1 (pnn NLO 3N force) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. IV
    Fitted to keep B(3H) intact at NLO (Sec. II B).
  • D1^1 (ppn NLO 3N force) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. IV
    Fitted to B(3He)=7.718 MeV; required to renormalize the ppn channel with non-perturbative Coulomb (Sec. II B).
  • E0^1 (4N NLO force) = Λ-dependent, see Tab. IV
    Fitted to B(4He)=28.296 MeV; renormalizes the spatially-symmetric four-body channel (Sec. II B).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LO contact interactions are iterated to all orders; NLO contributions are treated in first-order perturbation theory.
    Section II A, Eqs. (1)-(3); standard /πEFT power counting.
  • domain assumption Coulomb interaction must be treated non-perturbatively at LO for charged channels; it is added to the pp potential and renormalized by separate pp LECs.
    Section II A, Eq. (4); following Kong-Ravndal and Vanasse et al.
  • domain assumption A new ppn three-body force is required at NLO to cancel logarithmic divergences from Coulomb in the (S,I)=(1/2,1/2) ppn channel.
    Section II A, Eq. (6); motivated by Ref [9], verified numerically in Sec. III A/III B.
  • domain assumption The HO trap quantization condition with Coulomb Green's functions (Eq. 10) yields the Coulomb-subtracted phase shift for composite charged clusters.
    Section II C, Eq. (10); from Guo [26], assumes point-Coulomb cluster charges.
  • domain assumption Residual cutoff dependence follows 1/Λ at LO and 1/Λ^2 at NLO for Λ ≥ 4 fm^-1, enabling extrapolation to the contact limit.
    Section III, Eqs. (12)-(13); standard EFT error assessment.
  • domain assumption Proton and neutron masses are taken equal; isospin breaking enters only through Coulomb and the fitted pp LECs.
    Section II B; standard approximation at this order.
invented entities (3)
  • NLO ppn three-body contact force (D1^1 term) independent evidence
    purpose: Renormalize the S=1/2, T=1/2 ppn channel in the presence of non-perturbative Coulomb; without it the 3He binding energy and pd doublet phase shifts do not converge with cutoff.
    Fitted to B(3He)=7.718 MeV; its necessity shown by the divergent calculations that replace it with the pnn force (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
  • NLO four-body contact force (E0^1 term) independent evidence
    purpose: Renormalize the spatially-symmetric four-body channel; required for the 4He system at NLO.
    Fitted to B(4He)=28.296 MeV; already present in non-Coulomb /πEFT [13,29].
  • Coulomb-separated pp s-wave contact interactions (C2^0, C4^1, C5^1 terms) independent evidence
    purpose: Renormalize the pp 1S0 channel with non-perturbative Coulomb, splitting it from the nn/np channels in the isospin-triplet two-body sector.
    Fitted to experimental pp scattering length and effective range; the non-perturbative Coulomb modification introduces new counterterms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charged Particle Scattering in Renormalizable Pionless Effective Field Theory at Next-to-Leading Order: The $pd$, $dd$, and $p^3\mathrm{He}$ Case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCVDGYWK

@misc{pith2026250716250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charged Particle Scattering in Renormalizable Pionless Effective Field Theory at Next-to-Leading Order: The $pd$, $dd$, and $p^3\mathrmHe$ Case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCVDGYWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16250}
}
abstract

We formulate a renormalizable pionless effective field theory (Pionless EFT) with a non-perturbative treatment of the Coulomb interaction up to next-to-leading order (NLO) for few-nucleon systems. We extract scattering observables for charged clusters by employing two-, three-, and four-body contact interactions and using the stochastic variational method with a Coulomb-corrected harmonic oscillator trap. Our NLO results yield a $pd$ spin-quartet scattering length and effective range of $a_{pd}^{3/2} = 12.76(29)\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $r_{pd}^{3/2} = 1.17(7)\,\mathrm{fm}$; for $dd$ scattering in the spin-quintet channel, we find $a_{dd}^{2} = 6.26(3)\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $r_{dd}^{2} = 1.41(7)\,\mathrm{fm}$; and for $p^3\mathrm{He}$ scattering, the spin-singlet and spin-triplet channels are characterized by $a_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^0 = 11.26(4)\,\mathrm{fm}$, $r_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^0 = 1.65(26)\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $a_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^1 = 9.06(4)\,\mathrm{fm}$, $r_{p^3\mathrm{He}}^1 = 1.36(25)\,\mathrm{fm}$, respectively. Our predictions exhibit mild cutoff dependence and agree well with existing experimental phase shift analyses and potential model calculations. This demonstrates the predictive power of (Pionless EFT) for charged few-nucleon systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The calculated LO and NLO scattering length, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The calculated LO and NLO spin-singlet ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.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. Data-driven trap theory for nuclear scattering

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A data-calibrated quantization condition is proposed to extract nuclear scattering phase shifts from harmonic-trap spectra for neutral and charged particles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: Status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians, Physics Letters B 251, 288 (1990)

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians, Physics Letters B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Effective chiral lagrangians for nucleon-pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nuclear Physics B 363, 3 (1991)

    S. Weinberg, Effective chiral lagrangians for nucleon-pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nuclear Physics B 363, 3 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Machleidt and F

    R. Machleidt and F. Sammarruca, Recent advances in chiral eft based nuclear forces and their applications, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics , 104117 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    van Kolck, Effective field theory of short-range forces, Nuclear Physics A 645, 273 (1999)

    U. van Kolck, Effective field theory of short-range forces, Nuclear Physics A 645, 273 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    J.-W. Chen, G. Rupak, and M. J. Savage, Nucleon- nucleon effective field theory without pions, Nuclear Physics A 653, 386 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Kong and F

    X. Kong and F. Ravndal, Coulomb effects in low energy proton–proton scattering, Nuclear Physics A 665, 137 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Rupak and X.-w

    G. Rupak and X.-w. Kong, Quartet s-wave p–d scattering in eft, Nuclear Physics A 717, 73 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Vanasse, D

    J. Vanasse, D. A. Egolf, J. Kerin, S. K¨ onig, and R. P. Springer, He 3 and pd scattering to next-to-leading order in pionless effective field theory, Physical Review C 89, 064003 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    K¨ onig, H

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Grießhammer, and H. Hammer, The proton–deuteron system in pionless eft revisited, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 42, 045101 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    K¨ onig, H

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Grießhammer, H. Hammer, and U. Van Kolck, Effective theory of 3h and 3he, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 055106 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Kirscher and D

    J. Kirscher and D. Gazit, The coulomb interaction in helium-3: Interplay of strong short-range and weak long- range potentials, Physics Letters B 755, 253 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Sch¨ afer and B

    M. Sch¨ afer and B. Bazak, Few-nucleon scattering in pion- less effective field theory, Physical Review C 107, 064001 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bagnarol, M

    M. Bagnarol, M. Sch¨ afer, B. Bazak, and N. Barnea, Five- body calculation of s-wave n-4he scattering at next-to- leading order pionless effective field theory, Physics Let- ters B 844, 138078 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kong and F

    X. Kong and F. Ravndal, Proton–proton scattering lengths from effective field theory, Physics Letters B450, 320 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    K¨ onig and H.-W

    S. K¨ onig and H.-W. Hammer, Low-energy p-d scattering and he 3 in pionless effective field theory, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 83, 064001 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    K¨ onig and H.-W

    S. K¨ onig and H.-W. Hammer, Precision calculation of the quartet-channel p − d scattering length, Phys. Rev. C 90, 034005 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Quaglioni and P

    S. Quaglioni and P. Navr´ atil, Ab initio many-body cal- culations of n−3H, n−4He, p−3,4He, and n−10Be scat- tering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 092501 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Navr´ atil, S

    P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero-Redondo, and A. Calci, Unified ab initio approaches to nuclear structure and reactions, Physica Scripta 91, 053002 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Lazauskas and J

    R. Lazauskas and J. Carbonell, Description of four- and five-nucleon systems by solving faddeev-yakubovsky equations in configuration space, Frontiers in Physics 7, 251 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    Kirscher, Zero-energy neutron–triton and proton– helium-3 scattering with eft ( /pi), Physics Letters B 721, 335 (2013)

    J. Kirscher, Zero-energy neutron–triton and proton– helium-3 scattering with eft ( /pi), Physics Letters B 721, 335 (2013)

    2013

  14. [23]

    Lensky, M

    V. Lensky, M. C. Birse, and N. R. Walet, Description of light nuclei in pionless effective field theory using the stochastic variational method, Physical Review C 94, 034003 (2016)

    2016

  15. [24]

    Schiavilla, L

    R. Schiavilla, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, L. E. Marcucci, M. Piarulli, and M. Viviani, Two- and three-nucleon contact interactions and ground-state energies of light- and medium-mass nuclei, Physical Re- view C

  16. [25]

    Suzuki and K

    Y. Suzuki and K. Varga, Stochastic Variational Ap- proach to Quantum-Mechanical Few-Body Problems, Lec- ture Notes in Physics Monographs (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2003)

    2003

  17. [26]

    Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle interactions in artificial traps, Physical Review C 103, 064611 (2021)

    P. Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle interactions in artificial traps, Physical Review C 103, 064611 (2021)

    2021

  18. [27]

    Bedaque, H.-W

    P. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Effective theory of the triton, Nuclear Physics A 676, 357 (2000)

    2000

  19. [28]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Renor- malization of the three-body system with short-range in- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 463 (1999)

    1999

  20. [29]

    Bazak, J

    B. Bazak, J. Kirscher, S. K¨ onig, M. P. Valderrama, N. Barnea, and U. van Kolck, Four-body scale in uni- versal few-boson systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 143001 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    E. P. Wigner, Lower limit for the energy derivative of the scattering phase shift, Phys. Rev. 98, 145 (1955)

    1955

  22. [31]

    Gonzalez Trotter, F

    D. Gonzalez Trotter, F. S. Meneses, W. Tornow, C. Howell, Q. Chen, A. Crowell, C. Roper, R. Walter, D. Schmidt, H. Wita la,et al., Neutron-deuteron breakup experiment at en = 13 mev: Determination of the 1 s 0 neutron-neutron scattering length a nn, Physical Review C—Nuclear P...

    2006

  23. [32]

    Q. Chen, C. Howell, T. Carman, W. Gibbs, B. F. Gib- son, A. Hussein, M. Kiser, G. Mertens, C. Moore, C. Mor- ris, et al., Measurement of the neutron-neutron scattering length using the π-d capture reaction, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 77, 054002 (2008)

    2008

  24. [33]

    Bethe, Theory of the effective range in nuclear scat- tering, Physical Review 76, 38 (1949)

    H. Bethe, Theory of the effective range in nuclear scat- tering, Physical Review 76, 38 (1949)

    1949

  25. [34]

    Van Der Leun and C

    C. Van Der Leun and C. Alderliesten, The deuteron bind- ing energy, Nuclear Physics A 380, 261 (1982)

    1982

  26. [35]

    J. R. Bergervoet, P. C. van Campen, W. A. van der Sanden, and J. J. de Swart, Phase shift analysis of 0– 30 mev pp scattering data, Phys. Rev. C 38, 15 (1988)

    1988

  27. [36]

    ˇSlaus, Y

    I. ˇSlaus, Y. Akaishi, and H. Tanaka, Neutron-neutron effective range parameters, Physics Reports 173, 257 (1989)

    1989

  28. [37]

    Purcell, J

    J. Purcell, J. Kelley, E. Kwan, C. Sheu, and H. Weller, Energy levels of light nuclei a= 3, Nuclear Physics A848, 1 (2010)

    2010

  29. [38]

    Tilley, H

    D. Tilley, H. Weller, and G. M. Hale, Energy levels of light nuclei a= 4, Nuclear Physics A 541, 1 (1992). 14

    1992

  30. [39]

    Ouerdane, M

    H. Ouerdane, M. Jamieson, D. Vrinceanu, and M. Cav- agnero, The variable phase method used to calculate and correct scattering lengths, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 36, 4055 (2003)

    2003

  31. [40]

    Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    R. Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  32. [41]

    Varga, Y

    K. Varga, Y. Suzuki, and J. Usukura, Global-vector rep- resentation of the angular motion of few-particle systems, Few-Body Systems 24, 81 (1998)

    1998

  33. [42]

    Suzuki, W

    Y. Suzuki, W. Horiuchi, M. Orabi, and K. Arai, Global- vector representation of the angular motion of few- particle systems ii, Few-Body Systems 42, 33 (2008)

    2008

  34. [43]

    H. W. Grießhammer, A consistency test of eft power countings from residual cutoff dependence, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A 56, 118 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    T. C. Black, H. Karwowski, E. Ludwig, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, and M. Viviani, Determination of proton- deuteron scattering lengths, Physics Letters B 471, 103 (1999)

    1999

  36. [45]

    Huttel, W

    E. Huttel, W. Arnold, H. Baumgart, H. Berg, and G. Clausnitzer, Phase-shift analysis of pd elastic scat- tering below break-up threshold, Nuclear Physics A 406, 443 (1983)

    1983

  37. [46]

    Arvieux, Phase-shift analysis of elastic proton- deuteron scattering cross sections and 3he excited states, Nuclear Physics A 221, 253 (1974)

    J. Arvieux, Phase-shift analysis of elastic proton- deuteron scattering cross sections and 3he excited states, Nuclear Physics A 221, 253 (1974)

    1974

  38. [47]

    M. H. Wood, C. R. Brune, B. M. Fisher, H. J. Karwowski, D. S. Leonard, E. J. Ludwig, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, and M. Viviani, Low-energy p − d scattering: High-precision data, comparisons with theory, and phase-shift analyses, Phys. Rev. C 65, 034002 (2002)

    2002

  39. [48]

    Kievsky, S

    A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, M. Viviani, L. E. Marcucci, and L. Girlanda, A high-precision variational approach to three-and four-nucleon bound and zero-energy scatter- ing states, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 35, 063101 (2008)

    2008

  40. [49]

    C. R. Chen, G. L. Payne, J. L. Friar, and B. F. Gibson, Nd zero-energy scattering, Phys. Rev. C 44, 50 (1991)

    1991

  41. [50]

    D. Eyre, A. Phillips, and F. Roig, Proton-deuteron scat- tering near threshold, Nuclear Physics A 275, 13 (1977)

    1977

  42. [51]

    C. Chen, G. Payne, J. L. Friar, and B. F. Gibson, Low- energy nucleon-deuteron scattering, Physical Review C 39, 1261 (1989)

    1989

  43. [52]

    L. E. Marcucci, J. Dohet-Eraly, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, The hyperspherical harmon- ics method: a tool for testing and improving nuclear in- teraction models, Frontiers in Physics 8, 69 (2020)

    2020

  44. [53]

    Marlinghaus, H

    E. Marlinghaus, H. Genz, G. Pospiech, A. Richter, and G. Schrieder, Elastic scattering 2h(d, d)2h below 360 kev: (i). experiment, Nuclear Physics A 255, 13 (1975)

    1975

  45. [54]

    Meier and W

    W. Meier and W. Gl¨ ockle, Elastic scattering 2h(d, d)2h below 360 kev: (ii). theory, Nuclear Physics A 255, 21 (1975)

    1975

  46. [55]

    J. F. Carew, Deuteron-deuteron elastic and three- and four-body breakup scattering using the faddeev- yakubovskii equations, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014002 (2021)

    2021

  47. [56]

    Filikhin and S

    I. Filikhin and S. Yakovlev, Microscopic calculation of low-energy deuteron-deuteron scattering on the basis of the cluster-reduction method, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 63, 216 (2000)

    2000

  48. [57]

    Malfliet and J

    R. Malfliet and J. Tjon, Solution of the faddeev equa- tions for the triton problem using local two-particle in- teractions, Nuclear Physics A 127, 161 (1969)

    1969

  49. [58]

    T. V. Daniels, C. Arnold, J. Cesaratto, T. Clegg, A. Cou- ture, H. Karwowski, and T. Katabuchi, Spin-correlation coefficients and phase-shift analysis for p+ he 3 elas- tic scattering, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 82, 034002 (2010)

    2010

  50. [59]

    Viviani, L

    M. Viviani, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, and L. Marcucci, n+ h 3, p+ he 3, p+ h 3, and n+ he 3 scattering with the hyperspherical harmonic method, Physical Review C 102, 034007 (2020)

    2020

  51. [60]

    Viviani, A

    M. Viviani, A. Deltuva, R. Lazauskas, J. Carbonell, A. Fonseca, A. Kievsky, L. E. Marcucci, and S. Rosati, Benchmark calculation of n-3 h and p-3 he scattering, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 84, 054010 (2011)

    2011

  52. [61]

    Deltuva and A

    A. Deltuva and A. Fonseca, Four-body calculation of proton-he 3 scattering, Physical review letters98, 162502 (2007)

    2007

  53. [62]

    Deltuva and A

    A. Deltuva and A. Fonseca, Calculation of proton-3 he elastic scattering between 7 and 35 mev, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 87, 054002 (2013)

    2013

  54. [63]

    Viviani, L

    M. Viviani, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, and L. E. Marcucci, Effect of three-nucleon interactions in p-he 3 elastic scat- tering, Physical Review Letters 111, 172302 (2013)

    2013

  55. [64]

    Viviani, S

    M. Viviani, S. Rosati, and A. Kievsky, Neutron-h 3 and proton-h 3 e zero energy scattering, Physical review let- ters 81, 1580 (1998)

    1998

  56. [65]

    Carbonell, The continuum spectrum of the 4n sys- tem: Results and challenges, Nuclear Physics A 684, 218 (2001), few-Body Problems in Physics

    J. Carbonell, The continuum spectrum of the 4n sys- tem: Results and challenges, Nuclear Physics A 684, 218 (2001), few-Body Problems in Physics

    2001

  57. [66]

    Tegn´ er and C

    P. Tegn´ er and C. Bargholtz, The rate of the he-3 (p, e+ nu)-he-4 reaction, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 272, Sept. 1, 1983, p. 311-316. Research supported by the Naturvetenskapliga Forskningsradet. 272, 311 (1983)

    1983

  58. [67]

    Alley and L

    M. Alley and L. Knutson, Effective range parametriza- tion of phase shifts for p- 3 he elastic scattering between 0 and 12 mev, Physical Review C 48, 1901 (1993)

    1993

  59. [68]

    George and L

    E. George and L. Knutson, Scattering lengths for p- 3 he elastic scattering from an effective-range phase shift analysis, Physical Review C 67, 027001 (2003)

    2003

  60. [69]

    Czerski, Deuteron-deuteron nuclear reactions at ex- tremely low energies, Phys

    K. Czerski, Deuteron-deuteron nuclear reactions at ex- tremely low energies, Phys. Rev. C 106, L011601 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.