Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Improved nuclear-structure corrections to the hyperfine splitting of electronic and muonic deuterium

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chiral effective field theory calculations of the two-photon-exchange correction to deuterium hyperfine splitting cut nuclear-theory uncertainty by an order of magnitude, bringing electronic deuterium into 0.7σ agreement with experiment whi

desk verdict A careful chiEFT calculation of the deuterium TPE that delivers a genuine improvement for the polarizability term, but the experimental comparisons rest on the single-neutron input, not on the new nuclear calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18776 v1 pith:S65JMCTP submitted 2025-08-26 nucl-th physics.atom-ph

Jose Bonilla , Thomas R. Richardson , Sonia Bacca , Chen Ji , Lucas Platter This is my paper
classification nucl-thphysics.atom-ph
keywords hyperfinesplittingdeuteriummuonictwo-photonexchangechiraleffectivefieldtheorynuclearpolarizabilityZemachradiusnuclear-structurecorrections
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 calculates the nuclear two-photon-exchange correction to the hyperfine splitting of ordinary and muonic deuterium using interactions from chiral effective field theory, replacing the cruder pionless-EFT treatment and reducing the nuclear-theory uncertainty by about an order of magnitude. The central payoff is a sharp comparison: the predicted TPE contribution in electronic deuterium agrees with the value extracted from experiment-minus-QED within 0.7 standard deviations, whereas muonic deuterium disagrees by 2.7. If the calculation is right, atomic hyperfine spectroscopy becomes a sensitive probe of nuclear magnetic structure, and the muonic discrepancy points elsewhere—most likely to the single-neutron TPE input or to missing higher-order effects. The paper also documents convergence of the chiral expansion and agreement with pionless EFT, indicating the deuteron result is not an artifact of one parametrization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-photon-exchange (TPE) correction decomposed into an elastic part built from deuteron charge and magnetic form factors and an inelastic polarizability part built from two nuclear response functions, S(0)(ω,q) and S(1)(ω,q), encoding charge-current and current-current correlations. These response functions are computed by solving the deuteron bound and continuum states with chiral EFT nucleon-nucleon interactions at NLO, NNLO, and NNNLO, with one-body charge and current operators. The truncation error is estimated with a Q-expansion, Q = mπ/Λb ≈ 1/4, using the largest natural-size coefficient; this is the mechanism that shrinks the nuclear-theory uncertainty compa

What would settle it

Compute the single-neutron TPE at the muon scale with a different method, such as chiral perturbation theory directly, and compare the resulting effective neutron Zemach radius with the dispersion-relation value; or remeasure the 2S muonic deuterium hyperfine splitting with smaller error bars. If the neutron input moves by more than its quoted uncertainty, or the experimental value shifts, the 2.7σ discrepancy will either disappear or harden.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using chiral EFT nucleon-nucleon interactions up to NNNLO with one-body electromagnetic currents, the authors compute the elastic and polarizability two-photon-exchange contributions to the 1S and 2S hyperfine splittings in electronic and muonic deuterium. Their final TPE values are 44.5(1.1) kHz for electronic deuterium (1S) and 0.1243(72) meV for muonic deuterium (2S). The former matches the experimental-minus-QED value of 45.2 kHz within 0.7σ; the latter misses the value 0.0966(73) meV by 2.7σ. Relative to pionless EFT, all components agree within combined uncertainties, but the chiral-EFT error is one order of magnitude smaller, so the remaining error budget is dominated by the single-ne

Load-bearing premise

The calculation relies on external dispersion-relation values for how the neutron's internal structure shifts the hyperfine splitting—effective neutron Zemach radii of 0.347(38) fm for electrons and 0.102(39) fm for muons—and assumes they are correct within their quoted errors; the paper itself notes a possible underestimation of that uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nuclear-theory uncertainty in the deuterium hyperfine TPE drops by roughly an order of magnitude relative to pionless EFT, making the comparison to spectroscopy a sharper test of nuclear structure.
  • The electronic deuterium TPE prediction matches the experimental-minus-QED value within 0.7σ, closing the earlier theory gap in e2H hyperfine splitting.
  • The 2.7σ muonic deuterium mismatch is not explained by the nuclear two-body TPE; the remaining suspects are the single-neutron TPE input, missing three-photon exchange, or higher-order QED and nuclear effects.
  • The same response-function machinery with chiral interactions can be extended to heavier few-nucleon atoms, such as helium isotopes, where pion-exchange dynamics matter more and where chiral and pionless EFT predictions should diverge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: include two-body electromagnetic currents beyond the order at which they cancel for the deuteron; in A≥3 systems the cancellation need not hold, so the order-of-magnitude error reduction may not transfer automatically.
  • The muonic discrepancy is likely governed by the neutron input rather than the deuteron interaction; extracting the effective neutron Zemach radius at the muon scale from an independent observable would discriminate directly.
  • The paper's truncation-error estimate uses the largest Q-expansion coefficient; cross-checking with a Bayesian error model on the same chiral orders would test whether the claimed tenfold error reduction persists under a different statistical treatment.
  • The chiral and pionless EFT agreement is expected from the deuteron's shallow binding, suggesting that for weakly bound nuclei pionless EFT remains adequate and the chiral calculation's practical payoff will appear mainly in heavier or more tightly bound systems.
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 manuscript calculates the two-photon exchange (TPE) correction to the hyperfine splitting in electronic and muonic deuterium using chiral effective field theory (χEFT). The nuclear polarizability is evaluated at NLO, NNLO, and NNNLO with different NN potentials, the elastic contribution uses χEFT deuteron form factors fitted to a dipole, and the single-nucleon TPE is included via effective proton and neutron Zemach radii. The authors report order-by-order convergence, estimate uncertainties from NN truncation, two-body currents, and 3PE, and compare with pionless EFT, earlier calculations, and the spectroscopy-QED deviations. The main results are a 0.7σ agreement in e2H and a 2.7σ discrepancy in μ2H, with the total TPE uncertainty dominated by the single-neutron TPE and 3PE terms.

Significance. If correct, this work is a valuable independent confirmation of the pionless-EFT result and reduces the nuclear-polarizability uncertainty by roughly an order of magnitude, making deuterium HFS a sharper probe of nuclear structure. The explicit order-by-order convergence study and the Q-expansion-based uncertainty estimates are strengths, and the detailed decomposition in Tables II and III aids reproducibility. However, the headline comparisons rest on an external single-neutron TPE input whose uncertainty the authors themselves suspect may be underestimated, and the order-of-magnitude improvement does not apply to the total TPE uncertainty. These issues need to be addressed before the central claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (34); Table III; Sec. IV] The single-neutron TPE contribution E1n, evaluated with effective neutron Zemach radii from dispersion relations (Eq. (34)), carries the largest uncertainty in the total TPE budget: 0.93 of 1.1 kHz in e2H(1S) and 0.0037 of 0.0072 meV in μ2H(2S) in Table III. The authors themselves state in Sec. IV that a persistent order-of-magnitude discrepancy between χPT and dispersion analysis 'suggests a potential underestimation of the uncertainty in the single-neutron TPE effect.' Since both headline comparisons—the 0.7σ agreement and the 2.7σ discrepancy—are computed with this input, the conclusions are not robust to an enlarged neutron-TPE uncertainty. For example, if the uncertainty in r̃_n were a factor of two larger, the μ2H deviation would drop to about 2.3σ when combined in quadrature with the experimental error; if the central value also shifted, the effect could go either way. I recommend
  2. [Abstract; Table III] The abstract states: 'Thanks to the order-of-magnitude reduction in uncertainty achieved with chiral effective field theory, the two-photon exchange contribution in electronic deuterium agrees with experimental extractions within 0.7σ.' The order-of-magnitude reduction applies to the nuclear-polarizability uncertainty (Epol: 0.38 kHz versus 4.5 kHz for e2H(1S)), not to the total TPE uncertainty. In Table III the total EHFS_TPE uncertainty is 1.1 kHz for e2H(1S) versus 2.6 kHz for pionless EFT (a factor of about 2.4), and 0.0072 meV versus 0.009 meV for μ2H(2S) (a factor of about 1.3). The wording should be qualified to avoid overstating the improvement, particularly because the remaining total uncertainty is dominated by external single-nucleon TPE and 3PE inputs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (35); Table III] Equation (35) estimates the missing 3PE uncertainty for e2H(1S) as ±|αem ETPE| = ±0.49 kHz. With the quoted EHFS_TPE = 44.5 kHz, αem EHFS_TPE is approximately 0.32 kHz, not 0.49 kHz. Please clarify whether a different energy scale is intended or correct the numerical value, since this uncertainty enters the totals in Table III.
  2. [Table I; Eqs. (28)-(30)] The coefficients c2, c3, c4 are listed as positive, but the defining ratios in Eqs. (28)-(30) give negative values (e.g., c2 ≈ -0.99 and c3 ≈ -0.08 for e2H). If only absolute values are meant to be tabulated, this should be stated.
  3. [Sec. III] The comparison 'within 0.7σ' for e2H uses only the theory uncertainty of EHFS_TPE; no uncertainty is quoted for the extraction νexp - νQED = 45.2 kHz. Please state the assumed uncertainty of this extraction, or at least note that the comparison is theory-uncertainty-only.
  4. [General] There are several typos and minor wording issues: 'intemediate' after Eq. (22), 'toal' in Sec. IV, and the notation 'π/EFT' is nonstandard and should be typeset consistently (e.g., as 'πEFT' or 'pionless EFT').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central χEFT calculation is independent, is benchmarked against external NN potentials, form factors, and earlier πEFT results, and the dominant external single-neutron TPE input is explicitly flagged as a limitation rather than treated as a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for its central new result. The nuclear polarizability contributions E_pol are computed from deuteron response functions S^(0,1) obtained by solving Lippmann-Schwinger equations with published χEFT NN interactions (RS450 and Idaho at NLO, NNLO, NNNLO) and one-body electromagnetic currents. The elastic contributions E_el use deuteron form factors from an independent χEFT calculation (Ref. [47]) with a fitted dipole parameterization, where the fit is only a numerical convenience and the final integrals are insensitive to its details. The single-nucleon TPE terms E_1p and E_1n are taken from external inputs: proton values constrained by hydrogen HFS spectroscopy and neutron values from dispersion relations. These are external inputs, not quantities derived within the paper, and the paper explicitly warns that the neutron TPE uncertainty may be underestimated. That is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. The comparison to experiment uses ν_exp − ν_QED from Refs. [10,15], which is independent of the present calculation. The self-citations to Ref. [18] (same authors on formalism and πEFT benchmark) and Ref. [31] (thesis) are methodological and not load-bearing: the formalism is rederived in Sec. II, and the benchmark against the πEFT results is a consistency check, not the source of the central claim. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no definitional equivalence between input and output, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The order-by-order truncation error estimate uses coefficients derived from the authors' own calculated orders, but this is a standard EFT uncertainty quantification, not a prediction forced by construction. Overall, the central χEFT calculation has independent content and the paper's headline conclusions rest on external inputs that are clearly identified, so no circularity is present.

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

No new particles, forces, mediators, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. All inputs are existing NN potentials (RS450, Idaho), one-body currents, form factors, and Zemach radii from the literature. The numbers the result depends on that are fitted or chosen ad hoc are the dipole form-factor parameter, the effective nucleon Zemach radii (inputs from prior fits), and the estimated e2H 3PE uncertainty.

free parameters (4)
  • Dipole fit parameter a for deuteron electric and magnetic form factors = a = 0.002952(11) MeV^-1
    Fitted to the χEFT deuteron charge and magnetic form factors of Ref. [47] (Eq. 33, Fig. 3) and used in the elastic integrals Eqs. (23)-(24); a single parameter represents both form factors.
  • Effective neutron Zemach radii (tilde r_n^e, tilde r_n^mu) = 0.347(38) fm (e), 0.102(39) fm (mu)
    Single-neutron TPE input from dispersion analysis (Refs. [32,33], Eq. 34). The E1n error bars dominate the total TPE error in Table III; the authors note the uncertainty may be underestimated (Sec. IV).
  • Effective proton Zemach radii (tilde r_p^e, tilde r_p^mu) = 0.883(2) fm (e), 0.906(2) fm (mu)
    Single-proton TPE input 'determined using constraints from HFS spectroscopy measurements' (Refs. [34,49], Eq. 34); calibrated to hydrogen HFS data, so it is an input rather than a prediction.
  • Estimated 3PE uncertainty for e2H = +/-0.49 kHz (1S), +/-0.061 kHz (2S)
    Ad hoc estimate Delta_3gamma = +/-|alpha_em E_TPE| (Eq. 35), stated to fill a missing literature value; contributes a sizable fraction of the 1.1 kHz total error behind the 0.7 sigma claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Ref. [18] two-photon-exchange formalism, decomposing TPE into E^(0,1) with kernels h^(0), h^(1) (Eqs. 10-19), correctly implements the energy-dependent TPE weight and Ward identities
    The entire calculation is built on this shared-author framework; the closure approximation it replaces fails Ward identities [17], so the formalism itself carries the load.
  • domain assumption Only NN intermediate states contribute to the nuclear polarizability response
    Stated after Eq. (12): 'which we only consider to be only of NN nature'; no Delta isobar or three-body channels in S^(0), S^(1).
  • domain assumption Two-body electromagnetic currents cancel or are omitted in the deuteron polarizability, with the omitted part estimated by Eq. (32)
    Sec. III: the NLO isovector two-body current is forbidden by spin/isospin selection rules for the deuteron; NNNLO two-body charge/current operators are omitted and their O(Q^4) error is added.
  • domain assumption Seagull TPE diagrams are suppressed or cancel
    Sec. II: charge-current seagull is 1/M_N^2 suppressed; current-current seagull cancels by crossing symmetry (citing Refs. [13,14]).
  • domain assumption EFT truncation error is captured by Q^n times max{1,|c2|,|c3|,|c4|} (Eqs. 31-32) with Q = m_pi/Lambda_b and Lambda_b approximately 600 MeV
    Assumes natural-size coefficients beyond NNNLO and a Bayesian-style estimator; c4 = 2.30 (Table I) is not natural, so the max-capping absorbs it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved nuclear-structure corrections to the hyperfine splitting of electronic and muonic deuterium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S65JMCTP

@misc{pith2026250818776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved nuclear-structure corrections to the hyperfine splitting of electronic and muonic deuterium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S65JMCTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18776}
}
abstract

We calculate the nuclear-structure correction to the hyperfine splitting in both electronic and muonic deuterium using interactions from chiral effective field theory. We explore the sensitivity to different parameterizations of the nucleon-nucleon force, study the convergence pattern in the order-by-order chiral expansion, and estimate remaining uncertainties. Our results are consistent with earlier calculations from pionless effective field theory, offering new insights for a robust uncertainty quantification. Thanks to the order-of-magnitude reduction in uncertainty achieved with chiral effective field theory, the two-photon exchange contribution in electronic deuterium agrees with experimental extractions within $0.7\sigma$, in contrast to the $2.7\sigma$ discrepancy observed in muonic deuterium. This study lays the groundwork for extending TPE calculations to HFS in heavier atomic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The lepton-nucleus two-photon-exchange box, cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Response functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The red (green) band shows the charge (magnetic) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Zemach radii and nuclear structure effects in hyperfine splitting of Lithium

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Nuclear polarizability, enhanced in odd-odd nuclei by spin-isospin symmetry, explains the Zemach radius discrepancy between effective and elastic values in 6Li, 7Li, 2H, and 3He.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    C. Ji, X. Zhang, and L. Platter, Nuclear Structure Ef- fects on Hyperfine Splittings in Ordinary and Muonic Deuterium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 042502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Hellwig, R

    H. Hellwig, R. F. C. Vessot, M. W. Levine, P. W. Zitze- witz, D. W. Allan, and D. J. Glaze, Measurement of the Unperturbed Hydrogen Hyperfine Transition Frequency, 9 IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 19, 200 (1970)

    work page 1970

  3. [2]

    D. J. Wineland and N. F. Ramsey, Atomic Deuterium Maser, Phys. Rev. A 5, 821 (1972)

    work page 1972

  4. [3]

    S. D. Rosner and F. M. Pipkin, Hyperfine structure of the 23s1 state of He 3, Phys. Rev. A 1, 571 (1970)

    work page 1970

  5. [4]

    H. Guan, S. Chen, X.-Q. Qi, S. Liang, W. Sun, P. Zhou, Y. Huang, P.-P. Zhang, Z.-X. Zhong, Z.-C. Yan, G. W. F. Drake, T.-Y. Shi, and K. Gao, Probing atomic and nu- clear properties with precision spectroscopy of fine and hyperfine structures in the 7Li+ ion, Phys. Rev. A 102, 030801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Schneider et al., Direct measurement of the3He+ mag- netic moments, Nature 606, 878 (2022)

    A. Schneider et al., Direct measurement of the3He+ mag- netic moments, Nature 606, 878 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Dickopf, B

    S. Dickopf, B. Sikora, A. Kaiser, M. M¨ uller, S. Ulmer, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, A. Mooser, and K. Blaum, Precision spectroscopy on 9be overcomes limitations from nuclear structure, Nature 632, 757–761 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Antognini, F

    A. Antognini, F. Nez, K. Schuhmann, F. D. Amaro, F. Biraben, J. M. R. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, S. Dhawan, M. Diepold, L. M. P. Fernandes, A. Giesen, A. L. Gouvea, T. Graf, T. W. H¨ ansch, P. Indelicato, L. Julien, C.-Y. Kao, P. Knowles, F. Kottmann, E.- O. Le Bigot, Y.-W. Liu, J. A. M. Lopes, L. Ludhova, C. M. B. Monteiro, F. Mulhauser, T. Nebel, P....

    work page 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    R. Pohl, F. Nez, L. M. P. Fernandes, F. D. Amaro, F. Biraben, J. M. R. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, S. Dhawan, M. Diepold, A. Giesen, A. L. Gouvea, T. Graf, T. W. H¨ ansch, P. Indelicato, L. Julien, P. Knowles, F. Kottmann, E.-O. Le Bigot, Y.-W. Liu, J. A. M. Lopes, L. Ludho...

    2016

  2. [9]

    Schuhmann, L

    K. Schuhmann, L. M. P. Fernandes, F. Nez, M. A. Ahmed, F. D. Amaro, P. Amaro, F. Biraben, T.-L. Chen, D. S. Covita, A. J. Dax, M. Diepold, B. Franke, S. Galtier, A. L. Gouvea, J. G¨ otzfried, T. Graf, T. W. H¨ ansch, M. Hildebrandt, P. Indelicato, L. Julien, K. Kirch, A. Knech...

    2025

  3. [10]

    M. I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V. A. Shelyuto, Theory of light hydrogenlike atoms, Phys. Rep. 342, 63 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    A. C. Zemach, Proton Structure and the Hyperfine Shift in Hydrogen, Phys. Rev. 104, 1771 (1956)

    1956

  5. [12]

    J. L. Friar and I. Sick, Zemach moments for hydrogen and deuterium, Phys. Lett. B 579, 285 (2004)

    2004

  6. [13]

    J. L. Friar and G. L. Payne, Nuclear Corrections to Hy- perfine Structure in Light Hydrogenic Atoms, Phys. Rev. C 72, 014002 (2005)

    2005

  7. [14]

    J. L. Friar and G. L. Payne, The Nuclear Physics of Hy- perfine Structure in Hydrogenic Atoms, Phys. Lett. B 618, 68 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    J. J. Krauth, M. Diepold, B. Franke, A. Antognini, F. Kottmann, and R. Pohl, Theory of the n=2 levels in muonic deuterium, Annals Phys. 366, 168 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Kalinowski, K

    M. Kalinowski, K. Pachucki, and V. A. Yerokhin, Nuclear-structure corrections to the hyperfine splitting in muonic deuterium, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062513 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Plestid and M

    R. Plestid and M. B. Wise, Manifest Gauge Invariance for Structure Dependent Radiative Corrections to Processes Involving Atoms and Nuclei (2025), arXiv:2505.05449 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    2020

  12. [20]

    Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  14. [22]

    Epelbaum and U.-G

    E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meissner, Chiral dynamics of few- and many-nucleon systems, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 159 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field the- ory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Bacca and S

    S. Bacca and S. Pastore, Electromagnetic reactions on light nuclei, J. Phys. G 41, 123002 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front

    H. Hergert, A Guided Tour of ab initio Nuclear Many- Body Theory, Front. in Phys. 8, 379 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Improved chiral nucleon-nucleon potential up to next-to-next-to- next-to-leading order, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 53 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Quantifying truncation errors in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024005 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Ekstr¨ om and L

    A. Ekstr¨ om and L. Platter, Quantifying the breakdown scale of pionless effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139207 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Schwartz, Theory of hyperfine structure, Phys

    C. Schwartz, Theory of hyperfine structure, Phys. Rev. 97, 380 (1955)

    1955

  22. [30]

    G. K. Woodgate, Elementary Atomic Structure, 2nd ed., Oxford science publications (Oxford University Press, London, England, 1983)

    1983

  23. [31]

    Bonilla, Phd thesis, university of tennessee, knoxville (2024), https://trace.tennessee.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11742&context=utk_ graddiss

    J. Bonilla, Phd thesis, university of tennessee, knoxville (2024), https://trace.tennessee.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11742&context=utk_ graddiss

    2024

  24. [32]

    Tomalak, Two-photon exchange correction to the lamb shift and hyperfine splitting of s levels, Eur

    O. Tomalak, Two-photon exchange correction to the lamb shift and hyperfine splitting of s levels, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 64 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Tomalak, Two-photon exchange on the neutron and the hyperfine splitting, Phys

    O. Tomalak, Two-photon exchange on the neutron and the hyperfine splitting, Phys. Rev. D 99, 056018 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Antognini, F

    A. Antognini, F. Hagelstein, and V. Pascalutsa, The pro- ton structure in and out of muonic hydrogen, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 72, 389 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hagelstein and V

    F. Hagelstein and V. Pascalutsa, Proton structure in the hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen, PoS CD15, 077 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Hagelstein, ∆(1232)-Resonance in the Hydrogen Spec- trum, Few Body Syst

    F. Hagelstein, ∆(1232)-Resonance in the Hydrogen Spec- trum, Few Body Syst. 59, 93 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two-nucleon poten- 10 tials up to fifth order, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 86 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Accurate charge- dependent nucleon-nucleon potential at fourth order of chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C 68, 041001 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.-G. Meißner, Roy–Steiner-equation analysis of pion–nucleon scattering, Phys. Rept. 625, 1 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Siemens, J

    D. Siemens, J. Ruiz de Elvira, E. Epelbaum, M. Hoferichter, H. Krebs, B. Kubis, and U. G. Meißner, Reconciling threshold and subthreshold expansions for pion–nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B 770, 27 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Krebs, Nuclear Currents in Chiral Effective Field The- ory, Eur

    H. Krebs, Nuclear Currents in Chiral Effective Field The- ory, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 234 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Acharya, V

    B. Acharya, V. Lensky, S. Bacca, M. Gorchtein, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Dispersive evaluation of the Lamb shift in muonic deuterium from chiral effective field the- ory, Phys. Rev. C 103, 024001 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, High- precision determination of the electric and magnetic ra- dius of the proton, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136254 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 255 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, New in- sights into the nucleon’s electromagnetic structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 052002 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Acharya and S

    B. Acharya and S. Bacca, Gaussian process error model- ing for chiral effective-field-theory calculations of np↔dγ at low energies, Phys. Lett. B 827, 137011 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, L. E. Marcucci, S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Electromagnetic structure of A = 2 and 3 nuclei in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014006 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Nevo Dinur, O

    N. Nevo Dinur, O. J. Hernandez, S. Bacca, N. Barnea, C. Ji, S. Pastore, M. Piarulli, and R. B. Wiringa, Zemach moments and radii of 2,3H and 3,4He, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034004 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Antognini, Y.-H

    A. Antognini, Y.-H. Lin, and U.-G. Meißner, Precision calculation of the recoil–finite-size correction for the hy- perfine splitting in muonic and electronic hydrogen, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137575 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Khriplovich, A

    I. Khriplovich, A. Milstein, and S. Petrosyan, Nuclear structure corrections to deuterium hyperfine splitting, Phys. Lett. B 366, 13 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    I. B. Khriplovich and A. Milstein, Corrections to deu- terium hyperfine structure due to deuteron excitations, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 98, 181 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    R. N. Faustov, A. P. Martynenko, G. A. Martynenko, and V. V. Sorokin, Hyperfine structure of s states in muonic deuterium, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012520 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Antognini, Psi proposal (2016), https: //indico.psi.ch/event/4353/contributions/8707/ attachments/8093/10315/antognini.pdf

    A. Antognini, Psi proposal (2016), https: //indico.psi.ch/event/4353/contributions/8707/ attachments/8093/10315/antognini.pdf

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.