Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Manifest Gauge Invariance for Structure Dependent Radiative Corrections to Processes Involving Atoms and Nuclei

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in the zero-recoil limit the two-photon-exchange hadronic tensor can be written as four separately gauge-invariant pieces, so approximations applied to one piece preserve Ward identities.

desk verdict Clean and genuinely new decomposition of the two-current correlator into separately gauge-invariant pieces; the one-body derivation is solid, but the Schwinger-term input (24) for many-body currents is an assumption, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05449 v2 pith:6ZN5PLTZ submitted 2025-05-08 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Ryan Plestid , Mark B. Wise This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex MSC 81V3581V1081T1881T15 PACS 11.15.-q13.40.-f25.30.Bf
keywords gaugeinvarianceWardidentitiesradiativecorrectionstwo-photonexchangedispersiveelectronscatteringheavy-targetlimitSchwingerterms
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

Radiative corrections to electron scattering off atoms and nuclei contain two-current correlation functions whose intermediate states depend on bound-state structure. In the zero-recoil limit (target mass effectively infinite), the paper claims these correlators can be rewritten so that gauge invariance is manifest: the hadronic tensor is a sum of four pieces, each satisfying the Ward identities by itself. This makes physically motivated approximations---closure, keeping only charge-density insertions, or inserting a chosen set of intermediate states---automatically gauge invariant, instead of violating current conservation at intermediate steps. The same rearrangement is applied to weak-interaction processes with one electromagnetic insertion, such as radiative muon capture, where a commutator between the weak charge-changing operator and the charge density supplies the term required for gauge invariance. A sympathetic reader cares because these dispersive corrections are often a limiting uncertainty in precision measurements, and earlier approximation schemes were gauge-dependent at the percent level.

What carries the argument

The machinery combines the continuity equation $[H,\rho(\mathbf q)]=\mathbf q\cdot\mathbf J(\mathbf q)$ with a decomposition of the current into charge density and transverse parts, $J^\mu=\rho v^\mu+J_\perp^\mu$, and defines transverse projected currents $J^{(\pm)}_\mu(q)=J_{\perp\mu}(q)\pm(\mathbf q\cdot\mathbf J)(\pm\omega+i0)^{-1}v_\mu$ that are manifestly conserved, $q^\mu J^{(\pm)}_\mu=0$. Repeated use of these identities moves the energy-denominator poles into delta functions and principal values, leaving the seagull vertex to cancel Schwinger terms through the equal-time commutator relation $\langle[J_{\perp\nu}(q_2),\rho(q_1)]\rangle=-q_1^\alpha\langle S_{\alpha\nu}(q_1,q_2)\rangle$. This identity is what makes the commutator-plus-seagull piece gauge invariant and is the load-bearing premise of the decomposition.

What would settle it

For a specific current model, evaluate both sides of Eq. (24) separately: compute the equal-time commutator $\langle[J_{\perp\nu}(\mathbf q_2),\rho(\mathbf q_1)]\rangle$ from the model's current operators and the seagull contraction $-q_1^\alpha\langle S_{\alpha\nu}(\mathbf q_1,\mathbf q_2)\rangle$ from its minimal-coupling or meson-exchange vertices. A nonzero difference for any momentum transfer would show the decomposition's pieces are not individually gauge invariant. A complementary check is to compute the elastic electron-scattering amplitude in a solvable few-body model both directly and through the Eq. (28) decomposition with the Green's function truncated, and verify that the Ward identities and the cross section agree.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the zero-recoil limit, the paper's central result is that the hadronic tensor decomposes as $$H_{\mu\nu}(q_1,q_2)=(-2\pi i)\delta(\omega_2)v_\mu v_\nu\langle\rho(q_2)\rho(q_1)\rangle+\{\cdots\}_{\mu\nu}+([\cdots]_{\mu\nu}+\langle S_{\mu\nu}\rangle)+\big[\langle $J^{{(-)}}$_\nu(q_2)(\omega_1-H)^{-1}$J^{{(+)}}$_\mu(q_1)\rangle+\langle $J^{{(-)}}$_\mu(q_1)(\omega_2-H)^{-1}$J^{{(+)}}$_\nu(q_2)\rangle\big],$$ with each bracketed group separately gauge invariant. The first term is the elastic charge-density contribution; the second and third are delta-function and principal-value pieces built from equal-time commutators and the seagull vertex; the fourth, a two-current term containing an inelastic nuclear Green's function, is gauge invariant under any approximation because the projected currents obey $q^\mu J^{(\pm)}_\mu=0$. For one-body currents the terms are ordered in powers of $1/M$: the $\rho\rho$ term at $O(1)$, the anticommutator and commutator-plus-seagull terms at $O(1/M)$, and the two-current Green's function term at $O(1/M^2)$. This ordering makes the dominant, coherent $\rho\rho$ term separately reliable and identifies which pieces can be dropped at a given accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Eq. (24), that for every current used in practice the equal-time commutator of the transverse current with the charge density equals minus the seagull contraction, $\langle[J_{\perp\nu}(q_2),\rho(q_1)]\rangle=-q_1^\alpha\langle S_{\alpha\nu}\rangle$; the paper proves this only for one-body currents and imposes it for many-body or chiral effective theory currents. If a realistic current violates this relation, the commutator piece no longer cancels the seagull contraction and the individual terms of Eq. (28) are not gauge invariant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the zero-recoil limit, closure approximations, density-only ($\rho\rho$) approximations, and elastic-state insertions can be applied term-by-term to Eq. (28) without breaking gauge invariance, because each term satisfies the Ward identities on its own.
  • The dominant, coherent $\rho\rho$ term is separately gauge invariant and requires only ground-state charge-density matrix elements, so the leading dispersive correction can be computed without an inelastic nuclear Green's function.
  • For one-body currents the decomposition is a systematic expansion in $1/M$: the $\rho\rho$ term at $O(1)$, the $\{\cdots\}$ and $[\cdots]+\langle S\rangle$ terms at $O(1/M)$, and the two-current Green's function term at $O(1/M^2)$, identifying which pieces can be neglected at a given accuracy.
  • In weak processes such as radiative muon capture, the commutator $[O_W^{(0)}(\mathbf k),\rho(\mathbf q)]=O_W^{(0)}(\mathbf k+\mathbf q)$ supplies exactly the term that makes the sum of muon-radiation and nuclear-radiation diagrams gauge invariant; analogous commutators fix the gauge dependence of beta-decay wavefunction renormalization.
  • Earlier finite-$\bar E$ closure calculations (such as the Coulomb-gauge $\rho\rho$ calculation discussed in the paper) contain a gauge-dependent part; the paper identifies that the $\bar E=0$ version is a gauge-invariant approximation and estimates residual gauge dependence as about 1% of the cross section.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Taken as a consistency condition rather than an assumption, Eq. (24) becomes a way to derive seagull (contact) vertices for chiral or many-body currents from equal-time commutators, guaranteeing that an approximate current and its contact term pair gauge invariantly.
  • The same decomposition should transfer to two-photon exchange in atomic transitions and to parity-violating electron scattering, where the same distribution-valued tensor appears with different external kinematics and the delta-function pieces carry the dominant elastic contributions.
  • One quantitative test is to apply the gauge-invariant improved closure approximation to a light nucleus such as the deuteron or A=3 system, where the full nuclear Green's function can be computed ab initio; the residual dependence on the closure energy would measure how much of the inelastic spectrum the truncated sum captures.
  • The $1/M$ hierarchy suggests that for heavy targets the practical uncertainty in dispersive corrections shifts toward ground-state charge-density matrix elements and two-body density operators rather than the inelastic Green's function, which may redirect numerical effort.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a representation of the two-photon-exchange hadronic tensor in the zero-recoil (heavy-target) limit, aiming to make the Ward identities manifest at every stage of the calculation. The central result, Eq. (28), decomposes H_mu_nu(q1,q2) into four separately gauge-invariant pieces: a charge-density term, an anticommutator term, a commutator-plus-seagull term, and a Green's-function term built from the transverse projected currents J^(+/-). The construction uses the continuity equation (8), equal-time commutators, and a relation, Eq. (24), between Schwinger terms and seagull vertices. The paper then discusses how this representation enables manifestly gauge-invariant closure and elastic approximations, and extends the method to weak-interaction processes, including radiative muon capture and beta-decay-type amplitudes. The technical core is the derivation of Eqs. (20) and (28) and the verification that each piece satisfies the Ward identity for one-body currents.

Significance. If Eq. (28) is valid for the classes of currents used in practice, it is a genuinely useful tool for dispersive radiative corrections to electron-nucleus scattering and related weak processes. It identifies the dominant coherent charge-density term, separates contributions according to powers of 1/M and coherent enhancements, and allows approximations such as closure or density-only truncation to preserve the Ward identities automatically. The derivation is self-contained and parameter-free for one-body currents; the algebraic path from Eq. (17) to Eq. (28) is explicit and checkable, and the discussion of distribution-valued quantities is sufficiently careful for a first presentation. The main residual risk is the generality of Eq. (24), which is proven only for one-body currents and imposed, rather than derived, for generic many-body or truncated EFT currents.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (24)] The claim that Eq. (28) is a sum of separately gauge-invariant pieces rests on Eq. (24), which relates the equal-time commutator of the transverse current with the charge density to the seagull vertex. This relation is verified explicitly only for one-body currents, via Eq. (23). For the 'generic current operators satisfying the continuity equation' and for chiral EFT currents invoked in the text, Eq. (24) is asserted as a requirement of gauge invariance, but no proof or verification is given. Because approximate currents and seagulls in a truncated EFT are constructed independently, current conservation alone does not imply Eq. (24). If Eq. (24) fails for the approximate currents and seagulls actually used, then q_1^mu([...]_{mu nu} + <S_{mu nu}>) does not vanish, and the individual pieces of Eq. (28) are not gauge invariant. The authors should either prove Eq. (24) for the relevant classes of currents and seagulls, or explicitly scope the main result to currents for which Eq. (24) is satisfied and explain how this condition can be checked in practical calculations.
  2. [§IV, Conclusions] The concluding statement that 'when the resulting expression is evaluated with approximate currents it will satisfy the Ward identity exactly' is too strong in view of the status of Eq. (24). The guarantee holds only if the approximate current and seagull operators satisfy Eq. (24). For many-body or truncated EFT currents this is a nontrivial consistency condition that must be enforced or verified, and the manuscript does not show how to do so. The claim should be softened, or the condition should be stated explicitly as part of the approximation scheme.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, around Eq. (5)] The definition of the angle brackets in Eq. (5) deserves a clarifying sentence: the text says the right-hand side is independent of p' for fixed p, but the numerator depends on p' through |A(p')>. Presumably this is because the infinite-target-mass limit makes the state independent of the momentum transfer; spelling this out would help the reader.
  2. [§II.C] The paragraph after Eq. (29) mentions double and triple poles arising in the JJ and (...) terms, but no example or contour prescription is given. A short appendix or a footnote illustrating the treatment of one such pole would make the distribution-valued manipulations easier to follow.
  3. [§IV, Conclusions] The comparison with Ref. [24] states that the gauge-dependent part gives an overall ~1% correction to the cross section. It would be useful to clarify whether this number is taken from Ref. [24] or is a new estimate based on the present decomposition; if the latter, a derivation or a more precise reference is needed.
  4. [Abstract and §II] There are several typographical errors, such as 'electromagentic' in the second sentence of §II and 'the' appearing in 'the electromagentic coupling'. These should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is an algebraic rewriting of the hadronic tensor using current conservation and equal-time commutators, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (28), is obtained by rewriting the hadronic tensor H_mu_nu of Eq. (7) using the continuity equation (8), the decomposition J = rho v + J_perp, and the definitions of J^(±) in Eq. (19). Equations (17), (20), (25), (26), and (28) are algebraic consequences of these inputs plus equal-time commutators; they are not assumed as the conclusion. The separate gauge invariance of each term in Eq. (28) is verified by explicit contraction with q1^mu or q2^nu: the rho-rho term vanishes by Siegert's theorem/continuity, the {..} term by Eq. (10) and H|A>=0, the [..]+S term by the Schwinger-term relation (24), and the J J term by q^mu J^(±)_mu = 0. No parameter is fitted and no external quantity is 'predicted' from a fit. Equation (24) is the only nontrivial input beyond current conservation; the paper proves it for one-body currents in Eq. (23) and imposes it for generic many-body or chiral EFT currents as a consistency condition required by gauge invariance, citing Schwinger-term literature. This is a physical constraint on the approximate currents and seagull, not a restatement of the paper's conclusion. The limitation that Eq. (24) may fail for truncated EFT currents is a generality gap in the method, not a circular step. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Refs. [3,10,11,15,16]) are contextual applications and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The paper does not rename a known empirical pattern or import an author-specific uniqueness theorem; it derives a manifestly gauge-invariant decomposition from stated assumptions. Therefore the circularity burden is not met: the derivation is self-contained up to the explicitly identified Schwinger-term consistency condition.

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

The derivation is algebraic and has no fitted constants. It rests on the zero-recoil kinematics, exact current conservation, and the equal-time commutator relation between transverse current, charge density, and seagull vertex. These are physical consistency conditions, not parameters extracted from data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Target recoil is neglected, taking the photon energy transfer omega = Q0 = 0 (Sec. II, near Eq. (1)).
    The entire representation relies on the zero-recoil limit. If recoil energy is kept, the Ward identities and the simplified decomposition would need modification.
  • domain assumption Continuity equation [H, rho(q)] = q dot J(q), with H|A> = 0 (Eq. (8)).
    This exact relation is the engine of the derivation; it is used to derive Eqs. (17)-(19) and to prove gauge invariance of the pieces.
  • domain assumption Schwinger-term relation Eq. (24): <[J_perp_nu(q2), rho(q1)]> = -q_mu_1 <S_mu_nu(q1,q2)>.
    Proven here for one-body currents (Eqs. (22)-(23)) but imposed for generic many-body or chiral currents. If violated by approximate currents, the separate gauge invariance of the pieces fails.
  • standard math Distribution identities such as delta-prime(omega) omega = -delta(omega) and standard principal-value algebra are used without proof.
    These identities are standard in distribution theory and are applied to rewrite principal-value and delta terms in Eqs. (25) and (26).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manifest Gauge Invariance for Structure Dependent Radiative Corrections to Processes Involving Atoms and Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZN5PLTZ

@misc{pith2026250505449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manifest Gauge Invariance for Structure Dependent Radiative Corrections to Processes Involving Atoms and Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZN5PLTZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05449}
}
read the original abstract

Radiative corrections to reactions involving atoms or nuclei can become sensitive to the structure of the bound state. Generically, one encounters correlation functions of multiple currents which must satisfy Ward identities. At intermediate steps, however the Ward identities are obscured, and often violated by physically motivated approximation schemes. In this paper we outline a method to construct a representation of the aforementioned correlators that manifests gauge invariance in the limit of a heavy target (i.e., when recoil energy can be neglected). This representation then enables manifestly gauge invariant approximation schemes. Furthermore, the proposed representation naturally separates the largest contributions that dominate scattering amplitudes in the limit of a heavy constituent (e.g., proton) mass. We analyze elastic electron scattering from nuclei in detail, and also discuss radiative corrections to processes mediated by the weak interaction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Chiral-EFT calculation of the two-photon-exchange hyperfine shift in deuterium agrees with electronic data (0.7σ) but not with muonic data (2.7σ).

  2. Recent Progress in Ab-Initio Nuclear Theory for Precision Physics Searches in Muonic Atoms and Superallowed $\beta$ Decays

    nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    Ab initio nuclear theory for two-photon exchange in muonic atoms and the γW box in superallowed β decays shares one hadronic tensor, with recent light-nuclei results impacting charge radii, the helium isotope shift, and Vud.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The ⟨ρρ⟩ term begins atO(1), and has no Greens function

    work page

  2. [2]

    }µν begins atO(1/M) and also has no Greens function

    The {... }µν begins atO(1/M) and also has no Greens function

    work page

  3. [3]

    ]µν+Sµν term begins atO(1/M) and depends only on⟨Sµν⟩

    The [... ]µν+Sµν term begins atO(1/M) and depends only on⟨Sµν⟩. For the one body seagull term this is just the elastic form⟨ρ⟩

    work page

  4. [4]

    dispersive cor- rection

    The term involvingJ Jbegins atO(1/M 2) and includes a nuclear Greens function. Since qµJµ(q) = 0 this term remains gauge invariant even if the Greens function is approximated. C. Connection to Compton scattering The tensorHµν(q1,q 2) contains Lorentz structures that are typically omitted in the dis- cussion of the (closely related) Compton tensor, see e.g...

    work page

  5. [5]

    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)

    2001

  6. [6]

    R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D82, 113005 (2010), arXiv:1008.4619

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Tomalak, P

    O. Tomalak, P. Machado, V. Pandey, and R. Plestid, JHEP02, 097 (2021), arXiv:2011.05960

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Rocco, Front

    N. Rocco, Front. in Phys.8, 116 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Lovato, J

    A. Lovato, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, N. Rocco, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. X10, 031068 (2020), arXiv:2003.07710

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tomalak, Q

    O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, and K. S. McFarland, Nature Commun.13, 5286 (2022), arXiv:2105.07939

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Tomalak, Q

    O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, K. S. McFarland, and C. Wret, Phys. Rev. D106, 093006 (2022), arXiv:2204.11379

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Seng and M

    C.-Y. Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C107, 035503 (2023), arXiv:2211.10214

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. A. Rusoet al., J. Phys. G52, 043001 (2025), arXiv:2203.09030

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021803 (2024), arXiv:2309.07343

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 056006 (2024), arXiv:2309.15929

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D108, 053003 (2023), arXiv:2306.03138

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D111, 053005 (2025), arXiv:2410.21404

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211801 (2024), arXiv:2405.18469

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Borah, R

    K. Borah, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 113007 (2024), arXiv:2402.13307

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vander Griend, Z

    P. Vander Griend, Z. Cao, R. Hill, and R. Plestid, (2025), arXiv:2501.17916. 14

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Afanasev et al., Eur

    A. Afanasev et al., Eur. Phys. J. A60, 91 (2024), arXiv:2306.14578

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. R. Richardson and I. C. Reis, Few Body Syst.65, 79 (2024), arXiv:2309.16385

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C.-Y. Seng, A. Glick-Magid, and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 081805 (2025), arXiv:2409.18115

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Combes, E

    E. Combes, E. Mereghetti, and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. C 110, L041001 (2024), arXiv:2407.08015

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bottino, G

    A. Bottino, G. Ciocchetti, and A. Molinari, Nuclear Physics89, 192 (1966)

    1966

  18. [26]

    H. A. Bethe and A. Molinari, Annals Phys.63, 393 (1971)

    1971

  19. [27]

    W. F. Lin, Phys. Lett. B39, 447 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    J. L. Friar and M. Rosen, Annals Phys.87, 289 (1974)

    1974

  21. [29]

    E. A. J. M. Offermann, L. S. Cardman, C. W. de Jager, H. Miska, C. de Vries, and H. de Vries, Phys. Rev. C44, 1096 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    A. V. Afanasev, S. J. Brodsky, C. E. Carlson, Y.-C. Chen, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 013008 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502013

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gorchtein, C

    M. Gorchtein, C. J. Horowitz, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C84, 015502 (2011), arXiv:1102.3910

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Arrington, P

    J. Arrington, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.66, 782 (2011), arXiv:1105.0951

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D 100, 013001 (2019), arXiv:1812.03352

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    68,75(2018),arXiv:1805.10482

    B.PasquiniandM.Vanderhaeghen,Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 68,75(2018),arXiv:1805.10482

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Guèyeet al

    P. Guèyeet al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Eur. Phys. J. A56, 126 (2020), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.A 56, 228 (2020)], arXiv:1805.12441

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kutz and A

    T. Kutz and A. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 36 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    D. H. Jakubassa-Amundsen and X. Roca-Maza, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034314 (2023), arXiv:2307.13469

    2023

  30. [38]

    D. H. Jakubassa-Amundsen, Phys. Rev. C109, L061303 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 110, 069902 (2024)]

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gennari, M

    M. Gennari, M. Drissi, M. Gorchtein, P. Navratil, and C.-Y. Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 012501 (2025), arXiv:2405.19281

    2025

  32. [40]

    A. J. F. Siegert, Phys. Rev.52, 787 (1937). 15

    1937

  33. [41]

    D. H. Jakubassa-Amundsen, Phys. Rev. C105, 054303 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Pastore, R

    S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla, and J. L. Goity, Phys. Rev. C78, 064002 (2008), arXiv:0810.1941

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C80, 034004 (2009), arXiv:0906.1800

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024001 (2011), arXiv:1106.4539

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kolling, E

    S. Kolling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C84, 054008 (2011), arXiv:1107.0602

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Baroni, G

    A. Baroni, G. B. King, and S. Pastore, Few Body Syst.62, 114 (2021), arXiv:2107.10721

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 296 (1959)

    1959

  40. [48]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev.151, 1278 (1966)

    1966

  41. [49]

    L. S. Brown, Phys. Rev.150, 1338 (1966)

    1966

  42. [50]

    Tarrach, Nuovo Cim

    R. Tarrach, Nuovo Cim. A28, 409 (1975)

    1975

  43. [51]

    M. T. Hutt, A. I. L’vov, A. I. Milstein, and M. Schumacher, Phys. Rept.323, 457 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9905026

    2000 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gorchtein, Phys

    M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C73, 035213 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512106

    2006 arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D95, 094017 (2017), arXiv:1611.09917

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Adhikari et al

    D. Adhikari et al. (CREX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042501 (2022), arXiv:2205.11593

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Adhikari et al

    D. Adhikari et al. (PREX), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021), arXiv:2102.10767

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, Front. in Phys.8, 98 (2020), arXiv:1911.11875

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Friman-Gayeret al., Phys

    U. Friman-Gayeret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 102501 (2021), arXiv:2005.07837

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP 12, 097 (2018), arXiv:1806.02780. 16

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.