Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

An on-shell nuclear-state EFT fit attributes the LUNA–ab initio offset in d(p,γ)3He to one natural next-to-leading electric-dipole contact, returning S(0)=0.209±0.008 eV b.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 06:29 UTC pith:UC3P63Z2

load-bearing objection Solid first on-shell EFT for d(p,γ)³He that cleanly localizes the Marcucci–LUNA offset in one natural t_E1 and gives a usable S(0) with truncation band. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05514 v1 pith:UC3P63Z2 submitted 2026-07-06 nucl-th astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Deuterium-Proton Fusion in an Effective Field Theory Constructed from On-Shell Amplitudes

Tim M.P. Tait (University of California , Irvine) This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords Big Bang nucleosynthesisradiative captureeffective field theoryon-shell amplitudesd(p,γ)3HeS-factorasymptotic normalization coefficient
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 paper builds a nuclear-state effective field theory for proton–deuteron radiative capture by assembling the amplitude with modern on-shell methods that list every tree-level structure allowed by the symmetries, without writing a Lagrangian. A global Bayesian fit to capture data and nuclear-theory priors returns S(0)=0.209±0.008 eV b and traces the long-standing offset from the ab initio benchmark to a single natural-sized next-to-leading contact term (t_E1≈−0.15), equivalently a roughly 15% lower effective 3He asymptotic normalization. That matters for Big Bang nucleosynthesis: the choice between LUNA data and the ab initio curve splits network predictions of the primordial deuterium abundance. The same construction estimates the leading truncation errors and identifies an elastic d–p observable that would separate the contact from the asymptotic normalization. The broader claim is that amplitude methods give a systematic, complete tree-level route to EFTs for low-energy nuclear reactions.

Core claim

Within a nuclear-state EFT whose gauge-invariant multipole S-factor is built from on-shell three-point vertices plus enumerated boundary currents, a global Bayesian fit to LUNA and related capture data plus nuclear priors yields S(0)=0.209±0.008 eV b and isolates the offset from the ab initio Marcucci curve to one natural next-to-leading electric-dipole contact, t_E1≈−0.15—equivalently C_eff_S=C_S(1+t_E1)≈1.83 fm^{1/2}.

What carries the argument

On-shell nuclear-state EFT amplitude: massive spinor-helicity vertices and recursion enumerate every tree-level structure consistent with Lorentz invariance, little-group weights, and the electromagnetic Ward identity; the resulting multipole reduced matrix elements map S-factor coefficients directly onto measured moments, the 3He ANC, and a handful of short-range contacts.

Load-bearing premise

Entrance-channel d–p rescattering is treated as higher-order or absorbed into the contacts, so that a single natural electric-dipole contact fully accounts for the theory–data offset.

What would settle it

A precise low-energy p–d doublet elastic measurement of the 3He pole residue that recovers the larger ab initio ANC while ruling out C_eff_S≈1.83 fm^{1/2} would falsify the claim that the offset is a natural short-range E1 contact.

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

If this is right

  • BBN networks can recast the PRIMAT–PArthENoPE difference as a measurable question about one low-energy constant rather than a choice between curves.
  • An elastic d–p doublet analysis (or sub-Coulomb transfer) can fix the ANC independently of capture and separate it from the E1 contact.
  • The same on-shell pipeline extends to the dd transfer reactions that dominate remaining nuclear uncertainty on D/H.
  • Leading truncation is estimated at roughly 1% near the Gamow peak rising to ~5% at the top of the BBN window and is bounded by the data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If elastic data confirm the lower effective ANC, ab initio Hamiltonians may systematically over-normalize the p+d tail of 3He.
  • Success on this well-measured radiative capture suggests the method can supply the missing systematic EFT treatment for the weaker dd transfer channels.
  • Including LUNA photon angular distributions could lift M1 doublet/quartet and quadrupole degeneracies without new beam time.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a nuclear-state EFT for d(p,γ)^{3}He in which the deuteron, proton, and ^{3}He are point-like degrees of freedom and finite-size/two-body-current physics is restored by short-range contacts ordered by p_rel/p*. The capture amplitude is built with massive spinor-helicity methods: all parity-even three-point vertices, factorized poles, a Ward boundary term, and dimension-6/7 transverse contacts are enumerated without an explicit Lagrangian (Appendix A). The gauge-invariant S-factor reduces to an incoherent multipole tower (Eqs. 3–5) whose leading E1 strength is fixed by the recoil charge and the ^{3}He ANC residue. A global Bayesian fit to LUNA/Türkat data plus ANC and NDA priors returns S(0)=0.209±0.008 eV b, χ^{2}/dof=0.83, and a natural-sized contact t_E1≈−0.15 that accounts for the Marcucci–LUNA offset (equivalently C_eff_S=C_S(1+t_E1)≈1.83 fm^{-1/2}). Truncation is estimated from the deuteron-breakup scale and an elastic d–p doublet residue is identified as the observable that would separate C_S from c_E1.

Significance. If the construction and fit hold, the work supplies a data-anchored S(E) with quantified truncation for the BBN Gamow window and recasts the PRIMAT–PArthENoPE split as a single measurable LEC rather than a choice of curves. Methodologically it is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first complete on-shell amplitude construction carried through to a nuclear-astrophysics observable with Bayesian uncertainties; the multipole map, Ward cancellation, and explicit C_S–c_E1 degeneracy diagnosis are concrete deliverables. The elastic-doublet residue prediction is falsifiable and would cleanly separate the contact from the ANC. These strengths make the paper a useful bridge between modern amplitude methods and low-energy nuclear reaction theory, with direct relevance to the post-LUNA D/H budget.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. II.A and the truncation discussion of Sec. III.B.4: the tree-level omission of entrance-channel d–p rescattering is the softest load-bearing assumption. E1 is argued to be p-wave protected (rescattering absorbed into c_E1) and M1 data-anchored near threshold, with NDA truncation R(p_rel/p*)^{2} bounded by χ^{2}/dof=0.83. That justification is plausible but not demonstrated quantitatively. A short estimate (or reference to existing pionless-EFT pd results) of residual continuum distortion relative to the fitted |t_E1|≈0.15 and the R≈0.19 band would strengthen the claim that a single natural contact isolates the Marcucci offset.
  2. Sec. IV and Eq. (18): the angle-integrated S-factor constrains only the product C_eff_S=C_S(1+t_E1). The diagnosis that the offset lives in a natural t_E1 (rather than a lower ANC) therefore rests on the external Gaussian prior σ_CS=0.02 C_S. The paper correctly flags the elastic doublet residue as the separator, but the present posterior width on t_E1 (±0.021) is prior-dominated. The manuscript should state more explicitly that, without that prior, the data alone do not prefer a contact over a rescaled ANC, so the “single natural contact” language is prior-dependent.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 3 / Table II: the Türkat normalization λ=1.28(6) lies ~2.3σ high; a one-sentence remark on whether excluding Türkat shifts S(0) or t_E1 would help readers assess robustness.
  2. Eqs. (A12)–(A16): the projection of the five dimension-6 contacts onto multipoles is stated but not derived; a brief intermediate step or reference would aid reproducibility.
  3. Appendix B: the purely data-driven three-coefficient fit is valuable; stating the numerical {a0,a1,a2} (or S(0),S',S'') and their covariance matrix would make the appendix immediately usable by network codes.
  4. Notation: t_E1 is introduced as a fractional amplitude shift (Eq. 12) but sometimes discussed as if it were a rate correction; a consistent wording would avoid confusion.
  5. AI-usage note: the acknowledgement that analytic results were primarily derived with Claude Opus 4.8 is transparent; a short statement that all numerical posteriors and χ^{2} values were independently recomputed would further reassure readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard EFT matching of enumerated on-shell multipoles to data plus external ANC/NDA priors; S(0) and t_E1 are explicitly fitted, not claimed as independent predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. On-shell recursion plus the helicity-category algorithm enumerates the complete tree-level multipole tower (factorized poles + Ward boundary + dimension-6/7 contacts) from Lorentz, little-group and gauge symmetries alone (Appendix A, Eqs. A1–A29, Table III); this structure is independent of the capture data. Leading E1 and E2 strengths are fixed by measured masses, recoil charges e_eff/q_eff and the external 3He ANC residue (Sec. III B, Eqs. 11–13, 5), while M1 is data-anchored near threshold. The global Bayesian posterior (Sec. IV, Eq. 15) then fits the remaining short-range contacts (chiefly t_E1) and reports the resulting S(0) and the product C_eff_S that the angle-integrated data actually constrain; the paper states the C_S–c_E1 degeneracy explicitly and proposes an independent elastic d–p observable to break it. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and the offset diagnosis is presented as a data-driven matching result of natural NDA size rather than a first-principles forecast. Appendix B’s pure three-coefficient data-driven fit yields a consistent S(0), confirming the result is not forced by the nuclear-theory priors. This is ordinary, transparent EFT phenomenology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard on-shell amplitude technology, nuclear EFT power counting at the deuteron-breakup scale, external electromagnetic moments and ANCs, and a small set of contact LECs fitted under NDA priors. No new particles or forces are invented; the free parameters are the usual short-range Wilson coefficients of a contact EFT plus experimental normalizations.

free parameters (5)
  • t_E1 (or c_E1) = -0.146 ± 0.021
    Leading dimension-6 electric-dipole contact; fitted to capture data under wide prior; central to the offset diagnosis.
  • |U_M1|^2 (or c_M1 combination) = SM1(0)=0.107 ± 0.008 eV b
    Short-range magnetic-dipole strength; data-determined near threshold after Coulomb-enhanced E1 tail is removed.
  • c_E2, c_M2 = t_E2=0.0±0.5; c_M2 consistent with 0
    Subleading quadrupole contacts; prior-limited (NDA) because angle-integrated S-factor is insensitive.
  • λ_e (per-experiment normalizations) = 1.01(3), 0.98(2), 1.28(6)
    Floated scale factors for Casella, Mossa, Türkat data sets.
  • R (truncation coefficient) = R ≈ 0.19
    NDA shape coefficient of the (p_rel/p*)^2 truncation term; estimated ~0.19 from breakup-loop counting.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Massive spinor-helicity three-point amplitudes and BCFW-style on-shell recursion plus boundary terms enumerate all tree-level structures consistent with Lorentz invariance, little-group weights, and the Ward identity.
    Invoked throughout Sec. II.B and App. A; standard in the modern amplitude program (Arkani-Hamed-Huang-Huang, Britto et al.).
  • domain assumption The relevant breakdown scale is the deuteron-breakup momentum p*≈53 MeV; contact operators are normalized at Λ=√(4π)p*≈187 MeV and are natural-sized O(1).
    Sec. II.A; organizes the EFT expansion and NDA priors.
  • domain assumption Tree-level construction without explicit entrance-channel d-p rescattering is adequate: E1 p-wave phases are small and absorbed into c_E1; M1 is fixed from data.
    Sec. II.A; load-bearing for the truncation and contact interpretation.
  • domain assumption 3He s-wave ANC C_S=2.144(8) fm^{-1/2} (and D/S ratio) from ab initio few-body theory can be used as a Gaussian prior.
    Sec. III.B.1, Table I; external input that disentangles C_S from c_E1.
  • domain assumption Angle-integrated S-factor collapses the five dimension-6 contacts onto five multipole combinations, of which only three combinations (a0,a1,a2) are constrained by data.
    App. A.3-A.4; explains why doublet/quartet and quadrupole splits remain degenerate.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30535 in / 3780 out tokens · 25151 ms · 2026-07-11T06:29:43.321813+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the primordial deuterium abundance to a precision now limited by the nuclear reactions that burn deuterium. For the simplest of them, proton-deuteron radiative capture, d + p -> \gamma + 3He [d(p,\gamma)3He], the precise LUNA data sit below the ab initio benchmark, and BBN reaction networks split on which to adopt. We develop an effective field theory (EFT) expanding in the finite size of the nuclei, building the amplitude with modern on-shell methods that enumerate every tree-level structure consistent with symmetries without the need for an explicit Lagrangian. A global Bayesian fit to the capture data and nuclear-theory priors returns S(0) = 0.209 +/- 0.008 eV b and traces the offset from the ab initio benchmark to a single natural-sized next-to-leading contact term (t_E1 ~ -0.15, the fractional shift of the electric-dipole amplitude) -- equivalently a ~15% lower effective 3He asymptotic normalization. We estimate the leading EFT truncation errors and identify an elastic d-p observable that would separate them. Our results suggest that amplitude methods enable systematic and complete tree-level construction and matching of EFTs for low-energy nuclear reactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05514 by Irvine), Tim M.P. Tait (University of California.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representative diagram for the leading EFT contribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the best-fit S(E) and its ±1σ band. The BBN window (14–600 keV) is marked by the dashed vertical lines. [1] R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, and G. Gamow, Phys. Rev. 73, 803 (1948). [2] R. V. Wagoner, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Astrophys. J. 148, 3 (1967). [3] R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015004 (2016), arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]. [4] C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P… 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

79 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Both are related to asymptotic normalizations of the 3He ground state in thep+dchannel:C S thes-wave,C D thed-wave

    Strong Couplings:C S andC D The strongd–p– 3He couplings encode important nuclear-structure input that the EFT cannot predict. Both are related to asymptotic normalizations of the 3He ground state in thep+dchannel:C S thes-wave,C D thed-wave. They are fixed fromab initiofew-body the- ory [40, 57] and the measuredD/Sratio. CS is the dimensionfuls-wave ANC,...

  2. [2]

    The dipole carries eeff =e Zdmp −Z pmd md +m p =e mp −m d md +m p =−0.333e,(11) nonzero precisely because the deuteron and proton carry different charge-to-mass ratios

    Electric Multipoles:e eff,q eff,c E1, andc E2 The electric multipoles couple through recoil effective charges of the relatived–pcoordinate. The dipole carries eeff =e Zdmp −Z pmd md +m p =e mp −m d md +m p =−0.333e,(11) nonzero precisely because the deuteron and proton carry different charge-to-mass ratios. In the dipole reduced matrix elementU E1 =e eff ...

  3. [3]

    (5)]: the 2S1/2 doublet and a 4S3/2 quartet fed only by the proton and deuteron channels

    Magnetic Dipole:c M1 TheM1 operator connects the initiald+p s-waves to 3He through the total magnetic moments of the three legs and resolves into two incoherent channel-spin pieces [Eq. (5)]: the 2S1/2 doublet and a 4S3/2 quartet fed only by the proton and deuteron channels. Each carries its own short-range contact term. The magnetic dipole is not protect...

  4. [4]

    The masses, theQ-value, the magnetic moments, the deuteron quadrupole, and the recoil charges of Eqs

    Error Budget The form ofS(E) rests on precisely known inputs, with a single external quantity dominating the uncertainty. The masses, theQ-value, the magnetic moments, the deuteron quadrupole, and the recoil charges of Eqs. (11) and (13) are all known to far better than the target pre- cision, so they fix theformofS(E) essentially exactly. The leading ext...

    2005

  5. [5]

    Each entry multiplies the listed bracket structure, and the equations below intro- duce them in that same notation

    Three-Point Vertices The Wilson coefficients are collected in Table III, in- cluding the three-point vertex couplings which assem- ble into four-point amplitudes via factorization, and the four-point boundary terms. Each entry multiplies the listed bracket structure, and the equations below intro- duce them in that same notation. a. Strong Vertex Thed–p– ...

  6. [6]

    2S1/2 doublet.E (D) is dominantly the (L, s) = (2, 3

  7. [7]

    These are the two parity-even channels reachingJ π = 1 2 +

    channel-spin-3 2 quartet, the 4D1/2 D-state of 3He (weight 8 9; the 1 9 doublet remainder enters observ- ables only at higher order inp rel). These are the two parity-even channels reachingJ π = 1 2 + . In this basis M3 = 1 md ˜CS E(S) + ˜CD E(D) , ˜CS = 1 2( ˜C1 + ˜C2), ˜CD = 1 2( ˜C1 − ˜C2), (A3) with ˜CS thes-wave and ˜CD thed-wave vertex coupling; we ...

  8. [8]

    1(a)–(c)]: internal 3He (sdp =m 2 3, final-state radia- tion), internal proton (s pγ =m 2 p), and internal deuteron (sdγ =m 2 d)

    Factorized Four-Point Amplitude and the Ward Identity On-shell recursion reconstructs the factorizable part of the capture amplitude from its residues on the three physical poles, one per charged leg radiating the photon [Fig. 1(a)–(c)]: internal 3He (sdp =m 2 3, final-state radia- tion), internal proton (s pγ =m 2 p), and internal deuteron (sdγ =m 2 d). ...

  9. [9]

    1(d)], genuine electromag- netic two-body currents, which are free LECs

    Boundary Two-Body Currents Beyond the Ward boundary termB W , there are trans- verse contact structures [Fig. 1(d)], genuine electromag- netic two-body currents, which are free LECs. We enumerate them with the helicity-category algorithm of Ref. [50]. The minimal operator dimension is 6 (two fermions at 3 2, the deuteron at 1, the photon field strength at...

  10. [10]

    Matrix Element The full tree amplitude to leading boundary order is the sum of the factorized channels, the Ward boundary termB W , and the transverse boundary currents, M=M fact +B W + e Λ3 X a ca Ba.(A17) 14 Squaring with the initial spin average 1 6, summing over the deuteron polarizations, and integrating over the pho- ton emission angle, produces an ...

    2016

  11. [11]

    R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, and G. Gamow, Phys. Rev.73, 803 (1948)

    1948

  12. [12]

    R. V. Wagoner, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Astrophys. J.148, 3 (1967)

    1967

  13. [13]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016), arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rept.754, 1 (2018), arXiv:1801.08023 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J. 855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Pospelov and J

    M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 539 (2010), arXiv:1011.1054 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, JCAP03, 046, arXiv:2011.13874 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Mossaet al.(LUNA), Nature587, 210 (2020)

    V. Mossaet al.(LUNA), Nature587, 210 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    E. G. Adelbergeret al., Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 195 (2011), arXiv:1004.2318 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Acharyaet al., Rev

    B. Acharyaet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 035002 (2025), arXiv:2405.06470 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Casellaet al.(LUNA), Nucl

    C. Casellaet al.(LUNA), Nucl. Phys. A706, 203 (2002)

    2002

  23. [23]

    St¨ ockel, N

    K. St¨ ockel, N. Mozumdar, S. Zavatarelli, F. Ferraro, M. Aliotta, C. Ananna, L. Barbieri, F. Barile, D. Be- mmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, C. G. Bruno, A. Caciolli,et al., Phys. Rev. C110, L032801 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Tiˇ sma, M

    I. Tiˇ sma, M. Lipoglavˇ sek, M. Mihoviloviˇ c, S. Markelj, M. Vencelj, and J. Vesi´ c, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 137 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Turkatet al., Phys

    S. Turkatet al., Phys. Rev. C103, 045805 (2021), arXiv:2104.06914 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    G. J. Schmidet al., Phys. Rev. C56, 2565 (1997)

    1997

  27. [27]

    L. E. Marcucci, G. Mangano, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 102501 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 049901 (2016)], arXiv:1510.07877 [nucl- 16 th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2474 (2021), arXiv:2011.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Pisanti, G

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and P. Mazzella, JCAP04, 020, arXiv:2011.11537 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Moscoso, R

    J. Moscoso, R. S. de Souza, A. Coc, and C. Iliadis, Astro- phys. J.923, 49 (2021), arXiv:2109.00049 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Gariazzo, P

    S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, O. Pisanti, and R. Con- siglio, Comput. Phys. Commun.271, 108205 (2022), arXiv:2103.05027 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Launders, C

    T. Launders, C. Giovanetti, and H. Liu, (2026), arXiv:2604.16600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    C. A. Bertulani, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A712, 37 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0205063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B569, 159 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0304007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    Rupak, Int

    G. Rupak, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25, 1641004 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [37]

    Machleidt and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Hebborn, G

    C. Hebborn, G. Hupin, K. Kravvaris, S. Quaglioni, P. Navr´ atil, P. Gysbers, and B. D. Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042503 (2022), arXiv:2203.15914 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    M. C. Atkinson, K. Kravvaris, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Lett. B860, 139189 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Skibi´ nski, J

    R. Skibi´ nski, J. Golak, H. Wita la, W. Gl¨ ockle, A. Nogga, and E. Epelbaum, Acta Phys. Polon. B37, 2905 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0606021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B534, 329 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9802075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [43]

    van Kolck, Nucl

    U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A645, 273 (1999), arXiv:nucl- th/9808007

    arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    J.-W. Chen, G. Rupak, and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 653, 386 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9902056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    Nazari, M

    F. Nazari, M. Radin, and M. Moeini Arani, (2024), arXiv:2412.12205 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Chen and M

    J.-W. Chen and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C60, 065205 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9907042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  47. [47]

    Kong and F

    X. Kong and F. Ravndal, Phys. Rev. C64, 044002 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0004038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  48. [48]

    Sadeghi, Few Body Syst.44, 149 (2008), arXiv:0908.2091 [nucl-th]

    H. Sadeghi, Few Body Syst.44, 149 (2008), arXiv:0908.2091 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Rupak and X.-w

    G. Rupak and X.-w. Kong, Nucl. Phys. A717, 73 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0108059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    Kievsky, S

    A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, M. Viviani, C. R. Brune, H. J. Karwowski, E. J. Ludwig, and M. H. Wood, Phys. Lett. B406, 292 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9706077 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  51. [51]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 463 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  52. [52]

    Vanasse, D

    J. Vanasse, D. A. Egolf, J. Kerin, S. K¨ onig, and R. P. Springer, Phys. Rev. C89, 064003 (2014), arXiv:1402.5441 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    K¨ onig, H

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Grießhammer, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, J. Phys. G43, 055106 (2016), arXiv:1508.05085 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Vanasse, Int

    J. Vanasse, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25, 1641002 (2016), arXiv:1609.03086 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Vanasse, Phys

    J. Vanasse, Phys. Rev. C95, 024002 (2017), arXiv:1512.03805 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, JHEP 11, 070, arXiv:1709.04891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Cheung,Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Parti- cle Physics (TASI 2016), , 571 (2018), arXiv:1708.03872 [hep-ph]

    C. Cheung,Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Parti- cle Physics (TASI 2016), , 571 (2018), arXiv:1708.03872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B715, 499 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412308

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  59. [59]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 181602 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    De Angelis, JHEP08, 299, arXiv:2202.02681 [hep-th]

    S. De Angelis, JHEP08, 299, arXiv:2202.02681 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984)

    1984

  62. [62]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 025002 (2025), arXiv:2409.03787 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Pavanello, W.-C

    M. Pavanello, W.-C. Tung, and L. Adamowicz, Phys. Rev. A81, 042526 (2010)

    2010

  66. [66]

    N. L. Rodning and L. D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. C41, 898 (1990)

    1990

  67. [67]

    K. M. Nollett and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C83, 041001 (2011), arXiv:1102.1787 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [68]

    J. L. Friar, B. F. Gibson, D. R. Lehman, and G. L. Payne, Phys. Rev. C37, 2859 (1988)

    1988

  69. [69]

    Bethe and R

    H. Bethe and R. Peierls, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A148, 146 (1935)

    1935

  70. [70]

    Z. Ayer, H. J. Karwowski, B. Kozlowska, and E. J. Lud- wig, Phys. Rev. C52, 2851 (1995)

    1995

  71. [71]

    E. A. George and L. D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. C48, 688 (1993)

    1993

  72. [72]

    Carlson and R

    J. Carlson and R. Schiavilla, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 743 (1998)

    1998

  73. [73]

    S. R. Beane and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A694, 511 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0011067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  74. [74]

    L. E. Marcucci, M. Viviani, R. Schiavilla, A. Kievsky, and S. Rosati, Phys. Rev. C72, 014001 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0502048 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2005

  75. [75]

    M. J. Savage, P. E. Shanahan, B. C. Tiburzi, M. L. Wag- man, F. Winter, S. R. Beane, E. Chang, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, and K. Orginos, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 062002 (2017), arXiv:1610.04545 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  76. [76]

    Davoudi, W

    Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, P. E. Shanahan, K. Orginos, A. Parre˜ no, M. J. Savage, and M. L. Wagman, Phys. Rept.900, 1 (2021), arXiv:2008.11160 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 86 (2024), arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Giovanetti, M

    C. Giovanetti, M. Lisanti, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063531 (2025), arXiv:2408.14538 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    D’Agostini, Nucl

    G. D’Agostini, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A346, 306 (1994)

    1994