Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 32 references

A data-driven quantization condition converts harmonic-trap spectra into free-space nuclear phase shifts for neutral and charged systems, including strong confinement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

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

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A data-calibrated quantization condition for harmonic traps that reproduces known phase shifts, but the central transferability claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.11072 v1 pith:PGED2O3C submitted 2025-09-14 nucl-th

Data-driven trap theory for nuclear scattering

Hantao Zhang , Dong Bai , Xilin Zhang , Zhongzhou Ren This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords trap methoddata-driven modestrongly confining trapCoulomb correctionnuclear scatteringphase shiftsharmonic oscillator trapquantization condition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 claims that a single quantization condition, built from spectral pole summation and a momentum-projection renormalization, can extract free-space scattering phase shifts from harmonic-trap spectra even when the trap is so narrow that the standard Busch-Englert-Rzazewski-Wilkens formula fails, and even when the particles are charged and hence subject to long-range Coulomb interactions. The key is a correction function U_corr that is trained once on a random ensemble of almost zero-range potentials and then applied unchanged to realistic interactions, with all interaction-specific short-range physics absorbed into a polynomial contamination term. If this separation holds, the trap method becomes a practical tool for ab initio nuclear scattering, avoiding the numerical instabilities and Coulomb limitations of earlier approaches.

Core claim

The central claim is that the quantization condition C2_l(eta) k^{2l+1} cot delta_l(E) = U_omega(E) + U_corr(E) + sum b~ E^alpha omega^{2 beta} holds universally for harmonic traps. U_omega is built from the poles of the trapped, Coulomb-distorted Green's function with a momentum cutoff; U_corr is a potential-independent correction fitted to data from almost zero-range interactions; the b~ polynomial carries the short-range interaction's contamination. With this form, the paper reports that s-wave neutron-neutron and proton-proton phase shifts from the Av18 interaction, and p-wave alpha-proton phase shifts from a Gaussian cluster-model interaction, match R-matrix reference results across tra

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified quantization condition of Eq. (1), whose right-hand side separates an analytic pole-sum contribution U_omega, a data-fitted correction U_corr, and a polynomial contamination term. The pole sum is regularized by a momentum projection operator acting on Coulomb wave functions, which defines modified residues; U_corr is obtained by low-order polynomial fitting to spectra of randomly sampled almost zero-range potentials. This separation is what claims to make the condition uniform across trap strengths and charge states.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that the correction function U_corr, fitted once to almost zero-range potentials, is independent of the short-range interaction and can be transferred unchanged to any real potential, with all interaction-specific physics isolated in the polynomial contamination term.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to take two different finite-range potentials (say a Gaussian and a Yukawa) that give the same low-energy effective range but differ at short distances, compute their trapped spectra, and check whether applying the identical U_corr (fitted to zero-range data) yields phase shifts consistent with exact R-matrix results for both. If U_corr has to be refitted for each potential or each range, the unified-validity claim collapses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For neutral systems, the method reproduces the closed-form BERW formula, validating the formalism.
  • For charged systems, the same framework yields phase shifts with smaller systematic errors than Coulomb-corrected BERW under strong confinement.
  • The method extends to higher partial waves and larger charges, as demonstrated for alpha-proton p-wave scattering.
  • The unified condition works across trap frequencies of roughly 1–16 MeV in the tested cases, including strong confinement.
  • The approach provides a foundation for ab initio studies of light-nucleus scattering and resonances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One implication left implicit is that the same U_corr trained on near-zero-range potentials may fail for interactions with strong energy dependence or nonlocal cores, so the method's predictive power for such potentials remains to be demonstrated.
  • A testable extension is to apply DDTT to square-well or Gaussian potentials of varying range and check whether U_corr remains transferable without refitting; if U_corr must depend on the range, the 'unified' claim degrades to a reparameterized effective-range fit.
  • The momentum-cutoff dependence of U_corr is not investigated; varying the cutoff while keeping the fitted form might reveal whether the correction is a cutoff artifact or a physical finite-size effect.
  • The data-driven training could also be carried out with directly computed Green's functions instead of almost zero-range potentials, as the paper notes, which might make the method applicable to exotic systems where pseudo-potentials are unavailable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a "data-driven trap theory" (DDTT) for extracting free-space scattering phase shifts from discrete spectra of two-body systems in harmonic traps. The central object is Eq. (1), a quantization condition of the form C_l^2(eta) k^{2l+1} cot delta_l(E) = U_omega(E) + U_corr(E) + sum b^S_{alpha,beta} E^alpha omega^{2 beta}. U_omega is a renormalized pole-sum term built from modified residues and a momentum cutoff; U_corr is a correction function fitted once on ensembles of almost-zero-range potentials; the polynomial contamination term is meant to carry the interaction-specific finite-range and finite-width effects. The method is first checked against the exact BERW formula for neutral s-wave scattering (claimed maximum deviation ~1e-8), then applied to neutron-neutron and proton-proton scattering with the Av18 interaction, and to alpha-proton p-wave scattering with a Gaussian alpha-nucleon interaction. The authors claim a unified treatment of arbitrary trap geometries, strong confinement, and Coulomb interactions, with systematically suppressed errors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, DDTT would be a practically useful tool: it would allow ab initio calculations of nuclear scattering from trapped few-body systems, including charged systems, without the need to resolve the short-range physics inside the trap. The neutral-case benchmark against the closed-form BERW formula in Fig. 2 is a genuine, non-circular check of the ansatz's ability to reproduce an exact result, and the reported 1e-8 deviation is impressive. The Coulomb treatment via momentum-projected modified residues is also a constructive contribution. However, the paper's broader significance depends on the transferability of U_corr from almost-zero-range training potentials to realistic finite-range interactions, and on the quantitative reliability of the final phase shifts. Neither is established by the current manuscript, so the significance is conditional rather than demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The central quantization condition is asserted rather than derived. The text states that 'the pole structure of the finite volume zeta function leads to' Eq. (1), but no derivation or reference is provided for the form C_l^2 k^{2l+1} cot delta = U_omega + U_corr + sum b^S E^alpha omega^{2 beta}. In particular, the separation into a system-independent U_corr and an interaction-dependent b^S polynomial is the load-bearing assumption of the entire paper. Without a derivation, or at least a careful statement of the conditions under which this separation holds, the reader cannot judge whether the method is a quantization condition or a fit ansatz.
  2. [Sec. 3, Figs. 3-5] The transferability of U_corr from almost-zero-range training potentials (b0/bomega ~ 0.002) to realistic finite-range interactions (Av18, where b0/bomega ~ 0.2-0.5) is never tested. The paper shows only that the ansatz reproduces the training data in the neutral case (Fig. 2) and that the final phase shifts visually agree with R-matrix results (Figs. 3-5). If U_corr absorbs any finite-range dependence from the training potentials, Eq. (1) reduces to a reparameterized effective-range fit and the unified-quantization-condition claim collapses. A direct validation is needed: for example, refit the entire procedure with U_corr excluded, or scan training potentials over a range of b0/bomega values and show that the extracted U_corr is unchanged. As written, the paper does not establish that U_corr is interaction-independent.
  3. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2, training-data selection] The text admits that training data are selected 'away from divergence points' because data too close to a divergence amplify errors. This introduces a systematic bias in U_corr exactly in the energy regions where the strong-confinement advantage is claimed. The manuscript provides no analysis of how sensitive the final phase shifts are to this exclusion, nor any criterion for what counts as 'too close.' Without such an analysis, the reported agreement in Figs. 3-5 could be an artifact of fitting only in benign regions. The authors should quantify the bias by, e.g., varying the exclusion window and showing that the extracted phase shifts remain stable.
  4. [Sec. 3, Figs. 3-5] The paper claims 'significantly suppressed systematic errors' but gives no quantitative measure of agreement between DDTT and the reference R-matrix results. Figures 3-5 show hollow and solid markers without error bars, and the text does not report any chi-square, root-mean-square deviation, or maximum discrepancy. The only quantified error is the neutral training-case deviation in Fig. 2, which does not address the realistic applications. The authors should provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., tables of phase-shift differences as a function of energy and omega) to support the claimed accuracy.
  5. [Sec. 3, pp and alpha-p cases] The treatment of charged systems is not fully specified. The paper states that for charged particle scattering the quantization condition must be computed separately for each omega due to broken scale invariance, but it does not explain whether U_corr is the same function as in the neutral case, or whether it is recomputed with Coulomb interactions included in the training data. Figure 2 is for the neutral case only. If U_corr is trained on neutral potentials and then applied to pp and alpha-p, that is a further transferability assumption; if it is retrained for charged systems, the procedure and training data are not documented. This needs to be made explicit.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'data-driven' is used repeatedly but never formally defined; the reader must infer that it means fitting to numerical data from almost-zero-range potentials. A concise definition would improve readability.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The product in C_l^2(eta) is typeset with the index range possibly ambiguous; please clarify whether the product runs from i=1 to l for all l, including l=0 where the product is empty.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5)] The notation 'R' for the real part is introduced but the integral is already a principal-value-like expression; please define the prescription (principal value, i0+ limit) explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3 caption] The figure caption says 'hollow and solid circles correspond to the reproduced BERW and results obtained by DDTT, respectively,' but the text says the reproduced BERW and original BERW are indistinguishable. It would help to state this explicitly in the caption.
  5. [Sec. 3, Fig. 5] The label '(/1)' in the y-axis of Fig. 5 appears to be a typographical artifact; please correct the phase-shift unit label.
  6. [Sec. 4, Conclusions] The conclusion claims 'various types of traps,' but all numerical tests in this paper use harmonic traps. Either add a demonstration for another trap geometry or soften the claim.
  7. [References] Ref. [6] by X. Zhang is the direct predecessor of the data-analysis method used here and is cited, but the text should make it clearer which elements of the present work are new relative to that reference, particularly the U_corr treatment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: U_corr calibration and per-system b~ fitting are distinct; benchmarks are not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Eq. (1) separates a universal pole-sum function U_ω, a calibrated counterterm U_corr, and an interaction-dependent polynomial Σ b~ E^α ω^{2β}. U_corr is fixed by fitting to {trap eigenvalue, exact free-space phase shift} pairs generated from near-zero-range potentials (Sec. 2, Fig. 2). This is calibration against a known standard, not circular: the training pairs use the same interaction in the trap and in free space, but the resulting U_corr is then transferred to different interactions (Av18, Gaussian α–N) whose exact phase shifts are not used to determine U_corr. For each target system, the b~ coefficients are fitted in the 'data-analysis' step (following the published method of ref. [6]) using the target trap spectra; the R-matrix curves in Figs. 3–5 are presented as independent benchmarks ('solid curve represents the results from R-matrix'), not as inputs to the fit. Fig. 2's reproduction of the BERW formula is a self-consistency check on the training set, not a prediction on unseen data. The main vulnerability—that U_corr's universal transferability from almost-zero-range to finite-range potentials is asserted rather than demonstrated by a range scan—is a validation gap and a correctness risk, but it is not an equivalence of prediction and input by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: ref. [6] supplies the polynomial-correction ansatz but is an independent published method, and the present paper tests the combined formula against exact results. The paper's acknowledged limitation about training data near divergence points concerns data quality, not circularity. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four things: (1) universality of the fitted U_corr, (2) representativeness of the near-zero-range training ensemble, (3) trust in the R-matrix benchmarks, and (4) standard Coulomb wave function mathematics. Four fitted/selected quantities are used (U_corr, b~ coefficients, the Lambda cutoff, and the training well depths), none of which are reported with values. No new physical entities are introduced; the new objects (projection operator P^_Lambda, modified residues R_i^C, U_corr) are mathematical constructions internal to the method.

free parameters (4)
  • U_corr(E) correction function = not reported (polynomial fit shown in Fig. 2)
    Determined by fitting trap-spectrum data from near-zero-range training potentials; its functional form and coefficients are not given. It is the core data-driven object and must be universal for the method to work.
  • b~_{alpha,beta} contamination coefficients = not reported
    Fitted per scattering system (Av18 nn/pp, Gaussian alpha-nucleon) up to 'finite truncation' to absorb interaction-specific short-range content; these are the standard ERE-type fit parameters in the trap quantization condition.
  • momentum cutoff Lambda = 4.65 fm^-1 (Fig. 2 example only)
    UV regulator in Eqs. (5)-(7). The paper fixes Lambda but never shows the extracted phase shifts are Lambda-independent, and no values are given for the nn/pp/alpha-p runs.
  • well depths of near-zero-range training potentials = not specified
    The 'stochastic ensemble' of almost zero-range V_S is sampled with unspecified depths and ranges; choices are constrained only by avoiding divergence points, an unquantified selection rule disclosed in the text.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption U_corr, once fitted to near-zero-range potentials, is interaction-independent and transfers to finite-range potentials (Av18, Gaussian alpha-nucleon); only the b~ polynomial carries V_S dependence.
    Load-bearing assumption of the data-driven step. Stated in Sec. 2 ('The second function U_corr is the correction term determined by data-driven approach') but never proved or tested by cross-validation for the U_corr/b~ separation.
  • domain assumption The near-zero-range training ensemble is representative: the finite-width correction is determined by few low-energy scattering parameters, so potentials with range ratio about 0.002 span the correction space.
    Used in Sec. 3 ('we select the smallest possible interaction range while maintaining numerical accuracy... b0/b_omega approx 0.002') to justify the training set; no argument is given that this family covers Av18's short-range structure.
  • domain assumption R-matrix calculations with Av18 and the fitted Gaussian alpha-nucleon interaction are the correct benchmark ('exact phase shift').
    Figs. 3-5 use R-matrix curves as ground truth; the paper does not assess the benchmark's own uncertainty, and the alpha-nucleon potential is itself 'fitted from the results of microscopic cluster model'.
  • standard math Standard analytic properties of Coulomb wave functions, C2_0(eta), H(eta) (Eq. 4), and digamma function manipulations.
    Used throughout Sec. 2 to build U_omega and the modified residues; standard and checkable, not the main risk.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven trap theory for nuclear scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGED2O3C

@misc{pith2026250911072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven trap theory for nuclear scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGED2O3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11072}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present a novel data-driven trap theory (abbreviated as DDTT) for nuclear scattering, which aims to overcome the limitations of the traditional trap method in dealing with narrow potential wells, while also providing a more efficient framework for handling long-range Coulomb interactions. As proof-of-concept examples, we employ this unified theory to analyze the elastic scattering of nucleon-nucleon and nucleon-{\alpha} systems. DDTT can successfully produce results consistent with those from traditional approaches, highlighting its significance for ab initio light nuclei scattering studies and potential for applications in the heavier mass region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11072 by Dong Bai, Hantao Zhang, Xilin Zhang, Zhongzhou Ren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of the data-driven trap theory with data analysis. As the frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Neutron-neutron s-wave scattering phase shift with Av18 interaction. The solid curve represents the results from R-matrix, while the hollow and solid circles correspond to the reproduced BERW and results obtained by DDTT, respectively. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Proton-proton s-wave scattering phase shift with Av18 interaction. The solid curve represents the results from R-matrix, while the hollow and solid circles correspond to the Coulomb corrected-BERW and results obtained by DDTT, respectively. data points from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: α-proton phase shift scattering of 3 2 − and 1 2 − states. α − N effective interaction of Gaussian form is fitted from the results of microscopic cluster model. The solid curve represents the results from R-matrix, while the open and solid circles correspond to the Coulomb corrected-BERW and results obtained by DDTT, respectively. Finally, for higher partial waves we take p-wave scattering using the α-prot… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, M. Wilkens, Two Cold Atoms in a Harmonic Trap, Found. Phys. 28 (1998) 549–559. doi:10.1023/a:1018705520999

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1018705520999 1998

  2. [2]

    T. Luu, M. J. Savage, A. Schwenk, J. P. Vary, Nucleon- Nucleon Scattering in a Harmonic Potential, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 034003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.034003. arXiv:1006.0427

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Stetcu, J

    I. Stetcu, J. Rotureau, B. R. Barrett, U. van Kolck, An Ef- fective field theory approach to two trapped particles, An- nals Phys. 325 (2010) 1644–1666. doi:10.1016/j.aop. 2010.02.008.arXiv:1001.5071. 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Schäfer, B

    M. Schäfer, B. Bazak, Few-nucleon scattering in pionless effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064001. arXiv:2208.10960

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Bagnarol, M

    M. Bagnarol, M. Schäfer, B. Bazak, N. Barnea, Five- body calculation of s-wave n-4He scattering at next-to- leading order pionless effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138078. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023. 138078.arXiv:2306.04036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys

    X. Zhang, Extracting free-space observables from trapped interacting clusters, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 051602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.051602. arXiv:1905.05275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navrátil, C. Gwak, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, J. D. Holt, Ab Initio Calculations of Low-Energy Nuclear Scattering Using Confining Potential Traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 112503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125. 112503.arXiv:2004.13575

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    P. Guo, B. Long, Nuclear reactions in artificial traps, J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 055104. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ ac59d5.arXiv:2101.03901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle in- teractions in artificial traps, Phys

    P. Guo, Coulomb corrections to two-particle in- teractions in artificial traps, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 064611. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.064611. arXiv:2101.11097, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 111, 069903 (2025)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    P. Guo, V . Gasparian, Charged particles interaction in both a finite volume and a uniform magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 094520. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 103.094520.arXiv:2101.01150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    P. Guo, V . Gasparian, Charged particles interaction in both a finite volume and a uniform magnetic field II: topologi- cal and analytic properties of a magnetic system, J. Phys. A 55 (2022) 265201. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac7180. arXiv:2107.10642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Wang, Z. Ren, Charged particle scattering in harmonic traps, Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138490. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138490

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Ren, Coupled-channels reactions for charged particles in harmonic traps, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 034308. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034308

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.034308 2024

  14. [14]

    Bagnarol, N

    M. Bagnarol, N. Barnea, M. Rojik, M. Schafer, Accu- rate calculation of low energy scattering phase shifts of charged particles in a harmonic oscillator trap, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139230. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024. 139230.arXiv:2410.02602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Wang, Z. Ren, Microscopic clus- ter model in harmonic oscillator traps, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 034307. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.034307

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.034307 2024

  16. [16]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Ren, Harmonic trap method for complex short-range potentials, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138861. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138861

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Lüscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl

    M. Lüscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl. Phys. B 354 (1991) 531–578. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90366-6

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90366-6 1991

  18. [18]

    Borasoy, E

    B. Borasoy, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, U.-G. Meiss- ner, Two-particle scattering on the lattice: Phase shifts, spin-orbit coupling, and mixing angles, Eur. Phys. J. A 34 (2007) 185–196. doi:10.1140/epja/i2007-10500-9. arXiv:0708.1780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Vento, Glueball-Meson Mixing, Eur

    V . Vento, Glueball-Meson Mixing, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 1. doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16001-x. arXiv:1505.05355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Rokash, M

    A. Rokash, M. Pine, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, Scattering cluster wave functions on the lat- tice using the adiabatic projection method, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 054612. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.054612. arXiv:1505.02967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    S. R. Beane, M. J. Savage, Two-Particle Elastic Scat- tering in a Finite V olume Including QED, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 074511. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.074511. arXiv:1407.4846

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Davoudi, J

    Z. Davoudi, J. Harrison, A. Jüttner, A. Portelli, M. J. Sav- age, Theoretical aspects of quantum electrodynamics in a finite volume with periodic boundary conditions, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 034510. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99. 034510.arXiv:1810.05923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Stellin, U.-G

    G. Stellin, U.-G. Meißner, P-Wave Two-Particle Bound and Scattering States in a Finite V olume including QED, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (2021) 26. doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-020-00319-1.arXiv:2008.06553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Christ, X

    N. Christ, X. Feng, J. Karpie, T. Nguyen,π-πscattering, QED, and finite-volume quantization, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 014508. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.014508. arXiv:2111.04668

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    H. Yu, S. König, D. Lee, Charged-Particle Bound States in Periodic Boxes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 212502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.212502. arXiv:2212.14379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Bubna, H.-W

    R. Bubna, H.-W. Hammer, F. Müller, J.-Y . Pang, A. Ruset- sky, J.-J. Wu, Lüscher equation with long-range forces, JHEP 05 (2024) 168. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)168. arXiv:2402.12985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Rojik, M

    M. Rojik, M. Schäfer, M. Bagnarol, N. Barnea, Charged Particle Scattering in Renormalizable Pionless Effective Field Theory at Next-to-Leading Order: Thepd,dd, and p3He Case (2025).arXiv:2507.16250. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Bubna, H.-W

    R. Bubna, H.-W. Hammer, F. Müller, J.-Y . Pang, A. Ruset- sky, J.-J. Wu, The finite-volume spectrum in the presence of a long-range force, PoS LATTICE2024 (2025) 092. doi:10.22323/1.466.0092

    work page doi:10.22323/1.466.0092 2025

  29. [29]

    Bubna, H.-W

    R. Bubna, H.-W. Hammer, B.-L. Hoid, J.-Y . Pang, A. Rusetsky, J.-J. Wu, Modified Lüscher zeta-function and the modified effective range expansion in the presence of a long-range force (2025).arXiv:2507.18399

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Ren, Quantum computing for extracting nuclear resonances, Phys. Lett. B 860 (2025) 139187. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024. 139187.arXiv:2409.06340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Ren, Iterative Harrow-Hassidim- Lloyd quantum algorithm for solving resonances with eigenvector continuation (2025).arXiv:2506.20929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Bai, Z. Ren, Studying few cluster resonances with quantum neural network driven it- erative Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd algorithm (2025). arXiv:2507.00074. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.