pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.17081 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-17 · ⚛️ nucl-ex

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

d(e,e'p) Studies of Exclusive Deuteron Electro-Disintegration

W.U. Boeglin (1) , P. Ambrozewicz (1 , 2) , K. Aniol (3) , J.Arrington (4 , 5) , G. Batigne (6) , P. Bosted (2)
show 102 more authors
A. Camsonne (2) L. Coman (1 7) G. Chang (8) J.P. Chen (2) S.Choi (9) A. Deur (2) M. Epstein (3) J.M. Finn (10 11) S. Frullani (12 C. Furget (6) F. Garibaldi (12) O. Gayou (2) R. Gilman (13) O. Hansen (2) D. Hayes (14) D.W. Higinbotham (2) W. Hinton (14) C.E. Hyde (14) H. Ibrahim (15) C.W. de Jager (2 X. Jiang (13) M.K. Jones (2) L.J. Kaufman (16 17) H. Khanal (1 18) A. Klein (19) S. Kox (6) L. Kramer (1) G. Kumbartzki (13) J.M. Laget (2) J. LeRose (2) R. Lindgren (20) D.J. Margaziotis (3) P. Markowitz (1) K. McCormick (21) Z. Meziani (9) R. Michaels (2) B. Milbrath (2) J. Mitchell (2 22) P. Monaghan (23) M. Moteabbed (1) P. Moussiegt (6) R. Nasseripour (1) K. Paschke (20) C. Perdrisat (10) E. Piasetzky (24) V. Punjabi (25) I.A. Qattan (26) G. Qu\'em\'ener (6) R.D. Ransome (13) B. Raue (1) J.S. R\'eal (6) J. Reinhold (1) B. Reitz (2) R. Roch\'e (27) M. Roedelbronn (28) A. Saha (2 K. Slifer (29) P. Solvignon (4 V. Sulkosky (2 30) P.E. Ulmer (14 E. Voutier (6 31) L.B. Weinstein (14) B. Wojtsekhowski (2) M. Zeier (20) ((1) Florida International University (2) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (3) California State University (4) Argonne National Laboratory (5) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (6) Universit\'e Joseph Fourier (7) Science Department (8) University of Maryland (9) Temple University (10) College of William Mary (11) deceased (12) INFN (13) Rutgers (14) Old Dominion University (15) Physics Department (16) University of Massachusetts Amherst (17) Indiana University (18) Lockheed Martin (19) Los Alamos National Laboratory (20) University of Virginia (21) Kent State University (22) Renaissance Technologies LLC (23) Hampton University (24) Unviversity of Tel Aviv (25) Norfolk State University (26) Khalifa University of Science (27) Ohio University (28) University of Illinois (29) The University of New Hampshire (30) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (31) Universit\'e Paris-Saclay)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 10:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex
keywords deuteron electro-disintegrationmissing momentum distributionsfinal state interactionsCD-Bonn potentialexclusive reactionsnucleon-nucleon potentials
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deuteron breakup data at reduced final-state interactions best match CD-Bonn wave functions.

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

The experiment measured the exclusive deuteron electro-disintegration cross section at momentum transfers of 0.8, 2.1, and 3.5 (GeV/c)^2 across a range of proton kinematics. Missing momentum distributions were extracted for different neutron recoil angles up to 0.65 GeV/c. The results show that final state interactions reach a maximum near 70 degrees and decrease significantly below 45 degrees. In the kinematics with reduced final state interactions, the data are reproduced most accurately by theoretical calculations that employ wave functions from the CD-Bonn potential.

Core claim

Measurements of the d(e,e'p) cross section at Q^2 up to 3.5 (GeV/c)^2 reveal that missing momentum distributions in regions of reduced final state interactions are best described by calculations using CD-Bonn potential wave functions, while final state interactions are maximal around a neutron recoil angle of 70 degrees.

What carries the argument

Missing momentum distributions as a function of the neutron laboratory recoil angle θ_nq, which isolates contributions from final state interactions.

If this is right

  • Models of deuteron structure can be validated more reliably in low-FSI kinematics.
  • The angular dependence of FSI is confirmed by the data at higher Q^2.
  • CD-Bonn wave functions provide a superior description of the deuteron at high missing momenta compared to alternatives.
  • Exclusive electro-disintegration serves as a clean probe of nucleon-nucleon potentials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These results may guide the choice of potentials in calculations of other few-body reactions.
  • Extending measurements to higher Q^2 could further test the applicability of CD-Bonn.
  • Similar angular selections might reduce FSI in studies of heavier nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

Other reaction mechanisms such as meson-exchange currents remain negligible in the kinematics where final state interactions are reduced.

What would settle it

An observation of significant disagreement between the data and CD-Bonn calculations in the low final-state-interaction region at any of the measured Q^2 values would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17081 by (10) College of William, 11), (11) deceased, (12) INFN, (13) Rutgers, (14) Old Dominion University, (15) Physics Department, (16) University of Massachusetts Amherst, 17), (17) Indiana University, 18), (18) Lockheed Martin, (19) Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2), (20) University of Virginia, (21) Kent State University, 22), (22) Renaissance Technologies LLC, (23) Hampton University, (24) Unviversity of Tel Aviv, (25) Norfolk State University, (26) Khalifa University of Science, (27) Ohio University, (28) University of Illinois, (29) The University of New Hampshire, (2) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, 30), (30) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 31), (31) Universit\'e Paris-Saclay), (3) California State University, (4) Argonne National Laboratory, 5), (5) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, (6) Universit\'e Joseph Fourier, 7), (7) Science Department, (8) University of Maryland, (9) Temple University, A. Camsonne (2), A. Deur (2), A. Klein (19), A. Saha (2, B. Milbrath (2), B. Raue (1), B. Reitz (2), B. Wojtsekhowski (2), C.E. Hyde (14), C. Furget (6), C. Perdrisat (10), C.W. de Jager (2, D. Hayes (14), D.J. Margaziotis (3), D.W. Higinbotham (2), E. Piasetzky (24), E. Voutier (6, F. Garibaldi (12), G. Batigne (6), G. Chang (8), G. Kumbartzki (13), G. Qu\'em\'ener (6), H. Ibrahim (15), H. Khanal (1, I.A. Qattan (26), J.Arrington (4, J. LeRose (2), J.M. Finn (10, J. Mitchell (2, J.M. Laget (2), J.P. Chen (2), J. Reinhold (1), J.S. R\'eal (6), K. Aniol (3), K. McCormick (21), K. Paschke (20), K. Slifer (29), L.B. Weinstein (14), L. Coman (1, L.J. Kaufman (16, L. Kramer (1), Mary, M. Epstein (3), M.K. Jones (2), M. Moteabbed (1), M. Roedelbronn (28), M. Zeier (20) ((1) Florida International University, O. Gayou (2), O. Hansen (2), P. Ambrozewicz (1, P. Bosted (2), P.E. Ulmer (14, P. Markowitz (1), P. Monaghan (23), P. Moussiegt (6), P. Solvignon (4, R.D. Ransome (13), R. Gilman (13), R. Lindgren (20), R. Michaels (2), R. Nasseripour (1), R. Roch\'e (27), S.Choi (9), S. Frullani (12, S. Kox (6), V. Punjabi (25), V. Sulkosky (2, W. Hinton (14), W.U. Boeglin (1), X. Jiang (13), Z. Meziani (9).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) Comparison between the simulated yield using SIMC (solid line) and the experimental data (red data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) Relative variation of the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) Experimental cross sections as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) Bin correction factors ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Ratio of experimental cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Ratios of experimental to theoretical PWIA cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Ratios of experimental to theoretical PWIA cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Ratios of experimental to theoretical PWIA cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Ratio between M. Sargsian calculations with ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) The reduced cross section in fm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: For missing momenta below 0.2 GeV/c the differ￾ent calculations (including or excluding FSI) agree with the data within 10-20% but deviate increasingly with in￾creasing pm for all the remaining angles. Especially CD￾Bonn based calculations MS FSI CDB and FJO FSI CDB show large deviations for missing momenta above 0.3 GeV/c and θnq≤35◦ . This overall discrepancy between calculation and experiment over a wi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Ratios of the experimental to calculated cross sections for a momentum transfer of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (Color online) Ratios of the experimental to calculated cross sections for a momentum transfer of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (Color online) Ratios of the experimental to calculated cross sections for a momentum transfer of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (Color online) Overview of kinematic spectrometer settings together with an example of labels used for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (Color online) (a) Kinematic variables of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The d(e,e'p) cross section was measured at momentum transfers $Q^2 = $ 0.8, 2.1 and 3.5 $(GeV/c)^2$ covering a wide range of proton kinematics at each $Q^2$ setting that made it possible to study this reaction as a function of missing momentum as well as a function of the neutron laboratory recoil angle $\theta_{nq}$. Missing momentum distributions were determined for fixed values of $\theta_{nq}$ up to missing momenta of 0.65 $GeV/c$. For the two larger momentum transfer settings, the characteristics of the experimental momentum distributions confirm the theoretical prediction that final state interactions (FSI) contribute maximally around a $\theta_{nq} \sim 70^\circ$, while for $\theta_{nq} < 45^\circ$ FSI are significantly reduced. The data at reduced FSI settings were best reproduced by calculations using the CD-Bonn potential wave functions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of the d(e,e'p) cross section at Q² = 0.8, 2.1, and 3.5 (GeV/c)² over a wide range of proton kinematics. Missing-momentum distributions are extracted at fixed neutron recoil angles θ_nq up to 0.65 GeV/c. The data confirm the predicted angular dependence of final-state interactions (FSI), with maximum strength near θ_nq ≈ 70° and significant reduction for θ_nq < 45°. The reduced-FSI data are stated to be best reproduced by calculations that employ CD-Bonn potential wave functions.

Significance. If the model comparisons remain robust after inclusion of all relevant reaction mechanisms, the results supply direct experimental constraints on deuteron wave functions at intermediate momentum transfers and validate kinematic selections that suppress FSI. The work thereby strengthens the empirical basis for using CD-Bonn wave functions in the interpretation of similar exclusive reactions.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that the reduced-FSI data (θ_nq < 45°) are best reproduced by CD-Bonn wave functions rests on the assumption that meson-exchange currents and other higher-order mechanisms remain negligible at Q² = 2.1 and 3.5 (GeV/c)². The abstract provides no quantitative estimate or bound on residual MEC contributions in this region; without such an assessment the apparent preference for CD-Bonn could arise from incomplete modeling rather than from the wave function itself.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and agree that a minor revision to the abstract will strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that the reduced-FSI data (θ_nq < 45°) are best reproduced by CD-Bonn wave functions rests on the assumption that meson-exchange currents and other higher-order mechanisms remain negligible at Q² = 2.1 and 3.5 (GeV/c)². The abstract provides no quantitative estimate or bound on residual MEC contributions in this region; without such an assessment the apparent preference for CD-Bonn could arise from incomplete modeling rather than from the wave function itself.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern. The calculations compared in the manuscript are performed within a single theoretical framework that incorporates the leading meson-exchange current contributions consistently for each deuteron wave function (CD-Bonn, Argonne v18, etc.). The observed preference for CD-Bonn appears in the shape and magnitude of the missing-momentum distributions specifically at θ_nq < 45°, where FSI are suppressed and the sensitivity is dominated by the short-range part of the deuteron wave function. While the abstract does not contain a new quantitative bound on residual higher-order MEC, the full text discusses the model assumptions and shows that the data trends follow the wave-function differences rather than a uniform offset. To address the comment directly, we will revise the abstract to state that the model calculations include leading MEC contributions and that the comparison is made within the limitations of the present theoretical framework at these Q² values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely experimental measurement compared to independent external theory

full rationale

The paper reports measured d(e,e'p) cross sections at fixed Q² values and analyzes their dependence on missing momentum and neutron recoil angle θ_nq. The central claim—that data in the reduced-FSI region (θ_nq < 45°) are best reproduced by CD-Bonn wave-function calculations—is a direct comparison of experimental results to pre-existing theoretical models (CD-Bonn potential from independent literature). No parameters are extracted from the present data and then re-used as 'predictions'; no derivation chain reduces to self-defined quantities; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The theoretical inputs are external benchmarks whose validity is independent of this dataset. This is the expected outcome for an experimental nuclear-physics measurement paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard nuclear reaction theory and the validity of the CD-Bonn potential; no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities are introduced in the reported results.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The CD-Bonn potential provides a sufficiently accurate description of the deuteron ground-state wave function for the kinematics studied.
    The statement that data are best reproduced by CD-Bonn calculations presupposes this potential is the correct benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6237 in / 1251 out tokens · 59962 ms · 2026-05-15T10:14:58.117079+00:00 · methodology

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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. Sargsian’s 2H(e, e′p)ncross section calcula- tions [15, 16, 27] are using wave functions de- rived from the CD-Bonn potential [36] (referred to as MS PWIA CDB or MS FSI CDB below ) as well as wave functions calculated with the V18 po- tential [38] (referred to as MS PWIA V18 or MS FSI V18). The transition amplitude is calculated within the framework of...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Laget’s model [25], re- ferred to as JML PWIA or JML FSI, are using Paris potential [35] wave functions

    Cross sections from J-M. Laget’s model [25], re- ferred to as JML PWIA or JML FSI, are using Paris potential [35] wave functions. In this calcu- lation the transition amplitude is expressed as a series of dominant diagrams, computed in momen- tum space in the Lab frame. The propagators as well as the kinematics involved have been kept fully relativistic. ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    hp0tPuDV7BRFWUnN2/V9eHPSB0Y=

    Calculations by W. Ford, S. Jeschonnek and J.W. van Orden [41] determine cross sections us- ing a fully relativistic formalism that is based on a Bethe Salpeter equation approximation together with wave functions from the WJC2 [37] and the CD-Bonn [36] potentials. Final state interactions are included by expressing the FSI re-scattering amplitude with a F...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Overview and Labeling The experiment described in this article is the result of the combination of 65 different spectrometer settings. The numerical results presented in the supplemental material [42] provide the experimental cross sections, the correspond- ing kinematics, and the central kinematic spectrometer setting for each data point calculated as de...

    work page

  5. [5]

    dmqIhpJ57xbKdHBEbDMIXtikeEE=

    Central Spectrometer Settings The tables below list all the central spectrometer settings used. The kinematic setting used for the lowest momentum transferQ 2 = 0.8 (GeV/c)2 is shown in table I, the one forQ 2 = 2.1 (GeV/c)2 in table II and the one for the highest momentum transferQ 2 = 3.5 (GeV/c)2 is shown in table III. The column labeledLabelis the lab...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Angular Distributions The numerical data for the angular distributions are given for the missing momentum bins centered around 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.5 GeV/c. The corresponding data files are named as follows:ang dist qX pm 0.XX.datawhereqXrefers to theQ 2 label (q1,q2,q3) defined above, and0.XXrefers to the missing momentum value in GeV/c. As an example the...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Missing Momentum Distributions The numerical data for the missing momentum distributions are given for fixed recoil anglesθ nq and fixedQ 2 value. The momentum distribution result files have the naming convention pm distribution results qX XXX.00.datawhere whereqXagain refers to theQ 2 label and theXXX.00part refers to theθ nq-angle for this data set. As ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The listings below are examples ofIPythoninteractive sessions illustrating how to work with the data files

    Accessing the Numerical Data using Python If aPython[44] distribution containing the packagesnumpy[45],scipy[46] andmatplotlib[47] as well asIPython[48] is available, a convenient way to access the data files is using thePythonlibrary LabTools3 which can be installed from PyPI. The listings below are examples ofIPythoninteractive sessions illustrating how...

    work page

  9. [9]

    L. C. Alexaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1374 (1999)

    work page 1999

  10. [10]

    Gar¸ con and J

    M. Gar¸ con and J. W. Van Orden, Adv. Nucl. Phys.26, 293 (2002)

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    Gilman and F

    R. Gilman and F. Gross, J. Phys. G28, R37 (2002)

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    P. E. Bosted, R. G. Arnold, S. Rock, and Z. M. Szalata, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1380 (1982)

    work page 1982

  13. [13]

    Rocket al., Phys

    S. Rocket al., Phys. Rev. D46, 24 (1992)

    work page 1992

  14. [14]

    Arringtonet al., Phys

    J. Arringtonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2056 (1999)

    work page 2056

  15. [15]

    New measurements of high-momentum nucleons and short-range structures in nuclei

    N. Fominet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 092502 (2012), arXiv:1107.3583 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Bussiereet al., Nucl

    A. Bussiereet al., Nucl. Phys. A365, 349 (1981)

    work page 1981

  17. [17]

    Blomqvistet al., Phys

    K.I. Blomqvistet al., Phys. Lett. B424, 33 (1998)

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    Boeglinet al., Phys

    W. Boeglinet al., Phys. Rev. C78, 054001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    P.E Ulmeret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 062301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    Rvachev, F

    M. Rvachev, F. Benmokhtar, E. Penel-Nottaris,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 192302 (2005)

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Modern Studies of the Deuteron: from the Lab Frame to the Light Front

    W. Boeglin and M. Sargsian, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530003 (2015), arXiv:1501.05377 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Hard probes of short-range nucleon-nucleon correlations

    J. Arrington, D. W. Higinbotham, G. Rosner, and M. Sargsian, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 898 (2012), arXiv:1104.1196 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Frankfurt, M.M

    L.L. Frankfurt, M.M. Sargsian, and M.I. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C56, 1124 (1997)

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    M. M. Sargsian, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E10, 405 (2001)

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    M. M. Sargsianet al., J. Phys. G29, R1 (2003)

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Bianconi, S

    A. Bianconi, S. Jeschonnek, N. N. Nikolaev, and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B343, 13 (1995)

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Frankfurt, W.G

    L.L. Frankfurt, W.G. Greenberg, J.A. Miller, M.M. Sargsian, and M.I. Strikman, Z. Phys. A352, 97 (1995)

    work page 1995

  28. [28]

    Jeschonnek, Phys

    S. Jeschonnek, Phys. Rev. C63, 034609 (2001). 28

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Ciofi degli Atti and L

    C. Ciofi degli Atti and L. P. Kaptari, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 122301 (2008)

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Jeschonnek and J

    S. Jeschonnek and J. W. Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C78, 014007 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Jeschonnek and J

    S. Jeschonnek and J. W. Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C80, 054001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Ciofi degli Atti and L

    C. Ciofi degli Atti and L. P. Kaptari, Phys. Rev. C71, 024005 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Laget, Phys

    J.M. Laget, Phys. Lett. B609, 49 (2005)

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    Jeschonnek and J

    S. Jeschonnek and J. W. Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C81, 014008 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    M. M. Sargsian, Phys. Rev. C82, 014612 (2010)

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    K. S. Egiyanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 262502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    John Alcornet al., NIMA522, 294 (2004)

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    V. L. Rvachev and T. I. Sheiko, Appl. Mech. Rev.48, 151 (1995)

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    Arrington, Phys

    J. Arrington, Phys. Rev. C69, 022201(R) (2004)

    work page 2004

  40. [40]

    https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Monte Carlo, (2009)

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    R. Ent, B. W. Filippone, N. C. R. Makins, R. G. Milner, T. G. O’Neill, and D. A. Wasson, Phys. Rev. C64, 054610 (2001)

    work page 2001

  42. [42]

    http://hallaweb.jlab.org/software/mceep/mceep.html, (2006)

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    Lacombe, B

    M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, J. M. Richard, R. V. Mau, J. Cˆ ot´ e, P. Pir` es, and R. de Tourreil, Phys. Rev. C21, 861 (1980)

    work page 1980

  44. [44]

    Machleidt, Phys

    R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C63, 024001 (2001)

    work page 2001

  45. [45]

    Gross and A

    F. Gross and A. Stadler, Physics Letters B657, 176 (2007)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995)

    work page 1995

  47. [47]

    J. M. Laget, Canadian Journal of Physics62, 1046 (1984), https://doi.org/10.1139/p84-142

    work page doi:10.1139/p84-142 1984

  48. [48]

    Laget, Nuclear Physics A312, 265 (1978)

    J. Laget, Nuclear Physics A312, 265 (1978)

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    W. P. Ford, S. Jeschonnek, and J. W. Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C90, 064006 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for the file numerical results.zip containing numerical data

    work page

  51. [51]

    de Forest, Nucl

    T. de Forest, Nucl. Phys. A392, 232 (1983)

    work page 1983

  52. [52]

    Python Core Team,Python: A dynamic, open source programming language, Python Software Foundation (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Nature585, 3...

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Polat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen,...

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    Perez, B

    F. Perez, B. E. Granger, and J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering13, 13 (2011)

    work page 2011