Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Observing short-range correlations in nuclei through $\rho^0$ photo-production

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that $\rho^0$ photoproduction data from the 2021 SRC/CT Experiment can test whether short-range nucleon pairs are mostly proton-neutron and whether the Generalized Contact Formalism's hard-probe factorization holds.

desk verdict A credible, clearly written proposal for a new real-photon test of GCF probe factorization; the unquantified zero-FSI assumption is the load-bearing caveat, but it is openly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15229 v2 pith:LDEG2OYG submitted 2025-01-25 nucl-th nucl-ex

Phoebe Sharp , Axel Schmidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords short-rangecorrelationsrho0photoproductionGeneralizedContactFormalismproton-neutrondominancetensorforcenuclearcontactsSRC/CTexperimentGlueX
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

Short-range correlations (SRCs) — brief close encounters between two nucleons inside a nucleus — have been mapped almost exclusively with electron beams, which show that most SRC pairs are proton–neutron pairs and that their abundance scales with the nucleus. This paper argues that real-photon data already collected in the 2021 SRC/CT Experiment can verify those electron-scattering conclusions using a different probe, the reaction $\gamma p \to \rho^0 p$ on carbon, helium, and deuterium. The authors use Generalized Contact Formalism (GCF), a factorized model in which the hard probe–nucleon interaction separates cleanly from the nuclear pair structure, to predict two cross-section ratios: the ratio of two-proton to one-proton events in carbon, which is suppressed by the tensor force and so tests neutron–proton dominance, and the per-nucleon carbon/deuterium and helium/deuterium ratios, which track relative SRC abundances. With the statistics already collected, the projected uncertainties are small enough to distinguish a realistic nucleon–nucleon interaction from a tensor-less one, providing the first real-photon test of GCF's probe factorization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Generalized Contact Formalism factorized cross section, $d\sigma \approx \sigma_{\mathrm{probe}} \sum_\alpha C_\alpha P_\alpha(\vec{k}_{\mathrm{cm}}) |\tilde{\phi}_\alpha(\vec{k}_{\mathrm{rel}})|^2$, in which the hard probe–nucleon scattering ($\sigma_{\mathrm{probe}}$) separates from a nucleus-dependent contact $C_\alpha$ (the abundance of SRC pairs with quantum numbers $\alpha$), a pair center-of-mass momentum distribution $P_\alpha$, and a universal, nucleus-independent relative-momentum distribution $|\tilde{\phi}_\alpha(\vec{k}_{\mathrm{rel}})|^2$ obtained from zero-energy Schrödinger solutions for a given nucleon–nucleon potential. For the $\gamma p \to \rho^0 p$ reaction, $\sigma_{\mathrm{probe}}$ is taken from a parametrization fitted to earlier photoproduction data; contacts for deuterium, helium, and carbon come from variational Monte Carlo fits; the c.m. distributions are Gaussians with measured widths; and the potentials $AV_{18}$ and N2LO supply realistic $|\tilde{\phi}_\alpha|^2$, while $AV_4'$ supplies the tensor-less counterfactual. The argument then proceeds by event selection: missing momentum $p_{\mathrm{miss}} > 0.35$ GeV/c identifies the struck nucleon as an SRC member, and a recoiling proton with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{recoil}} < 0.8$ GeV/c identifies the correlated partner, so the two predicted ratios track pair type and pair abundance respectively.

What would settle it

Measure the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 pp)/^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 p)$ ratio in four bins of missing momentum from the SRC/CT data and compare with the GCF curves: the AV18 and N2LO predictions give a small, slowly rising ratio, while the tensor-less AV4' prediction is substantially larger, so a measured ratio that tracks AV4' would falsify the tensor-driven np-dominance picture, and a flat ratio with no rise would indicate that final-state interactions or background contamination are destroying the kinematic proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the SRC/CT Experiment's 2021 data, in which a tagged 6–10 GeV photon beam struck deuterium, helium, and carbon targets in a large-acceptance spectrometer, can validate two established electron-scattering results through $\rho^0$ photoproduction, and thereby test a key untested assumption of Generalized Contact Formalism. Using GCF, the authors predict that the ratio $\sigma[^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 pp)]/\sigma[^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 p)]$ is small and slowly rising with missing momentum under realistic interactions (the $AV_{18}$ or chiral N2LO potentials), because the tensor force suppresses proton–proton SRC pairs, while a tensor-less interaction ($AV_4'$) gives a much larger ratio; the projected statistical uncertainties from the collected data are small enough to separate these predictions. They further predict that the per-nucleon ratios $(2/A)\cdot\sigma[A(\gamma,\rho^0 p)]/\sigma[D(\gamma,\rho^0 p)]$ for helium and carbon carry $p_{\mathrm{miss}}$-dependent structure, in contrast to the flat plateau seen in inclusive electron scattering, offering an observable test of the factorized description of SRC abundances. A preliminary analysis of the carbon data shows an enhancement of events near $\cos(\gamma) = -1$, i.e., two nucleons initially back-to-back, indicating that the selected sample is enriched in proton–proton SRC breakup. Establishing these observables would extend the evidence for np-dominance and relative SRC abundances from electron scattering to a real-photon probe, and would test whether the hard-scattering factor in GCF is truly probe-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two nucleons leave the nucleus without rescattering, so the measured missing momentum and the recoil proton's momentum faithfully reproduce the momenta the pair had before the photon struck; if rescattering is significant, the selected events would not reflect the initial short-range pair kinematics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the predictions in Fig. 5 hold, the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 pp)/^{12}\mathrm{C}(\gamma,\rho^0 p)$ ratio measured with the already-collected SRC/CT data will separate the realistic $AV_{18}$/N2LO interactions from the tensor-less $AV_4'$ interaction, giving a photoproduction confirmation of neutron–proton dominance.
  • The per-nucleon $^{4}\mathrm{He}/D$ and $^{12}\mathrm{C}/D$ ratios carry structure as a function of missing momentum, in contrast to the flat plateau in inclusive electron scattering, so a measurement with the projected uncertainties can test whether GCF's description of relative SRC abundances survives with a real-photon probe.
  • The data's enhancement of events near $\cos(\gamma) = -1$ supports the interpretation that the selected sample is dominated by proton–proton SRC breakup, allowing the recoil-proton method to be used as an SRC tag in photoproduction.
  • Success would be the first test of the probe-factorization assumption in GCF using real photons, extending the formalism's validation beyond electron scattering and proton knockout.
  • Because both observables are ratios, they are largely insensitive to luminosity and overall detection efficiency, so their main limitation is the spectator-proton detection efficiency in the 0.3–0.8 GeV/c range rather than absolute normalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same GCF machinery applied to the other photoproduction channels in the paper's Table 2—especially $\omega$ and $\phi$ production—would map the same SRC pair abundances with different hard-probe factors; concordant ratios across channels would be a stronger probe-independence test than any single reaction.
  • Beyond the paper: the two-nucleon missing mass variable introduced as a background-rejection cut is itself a kinematic SRC tag; it could cross-check the $p_{\mathrm{miss}}$-based event selection and diagnose final-state rescattering.
  • Beyond the paper: comparing the width of the anti-parallel $\cos(\gamma)$ peak across deuterium, helium, and carbon in the same data would give an in-situ estimate of rescattering, since final-state interactions should broaden the peak with increasing nuclear size.
  • Beyond the paper: if the measured ratio's slope in missing momentum is clean, it could be inverted to extract the tensor content of the nucleon–nucleon interaction, turning the observable into a quantitative interaction probe.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a test of the factorization assumption of Generalized Contact Formalism (GCF) using rho0 photoproduction off deuterium, helium, and carbon in the JLab SRC/CT Experiment with the GlueX spectrometer. The authors construct two cross-section ratios: the two-proton to one-proton ratio on carbon, sensitive to the relative abundance of proton-proton versus neutron-proton SRC pairs, and the per-nucleon helium-to-deuterium and carbon-to-deuterium single-proton ratios, sensitive to relative SRC abundances. Using a GCF event generator with external inputs—an old SLAC parametrization of the elementary gamma-p to rho0-p cross section, variational Monte Carlo contacts, Gaussian center-of-mass momentum distributions, and universal pair wavefunctions from AV18, N2LO, and AV4' potentials—they make predictions for the pmiss-dependence of these ratios. They also perform a preliminary analysis of the existing GlueX data to estimate background subtraction and projected statistical uncertainties, concluding that the two ratios can distinguish tensor-driven np dominance from a tensor-less interaction and can test probe factorization.

Significance. If the predictions hold, this would be the first real-photon test of GCF probe factorization and would provide a new, neutron-detection-free handle on np dominance and relative SRC abundances. The paper has notable strengths: the observables are ratios, so the elementary cross section cancels under the assumed factorization; the model parameters are taken from external electron-scattering and variational Monte Carlo determinations rather than fitted to the photoproduction data; and the statistical projections are grounded in actual preliminary GlueX data, including a demonstration of the cos(gamma) back-to-back enhancement. The main significance is therefore conditional on the validity of the assumed factorization and on the absence of significant final-state interactions; these are precisely the assumptions the proposed measurement would test, but they are also the assumptions that the current paper does not yet independently justify.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 3] The central interpretation that pmiss equals the initial momentum of the struck nucleon and precoil equals the initial momentum of its correlated partner is only protected by the phrase 'In the limit of zero final-state interactions' in Sec. 4. The GCF event generator contains no FSI by construction, and the paper provides no estimate of rho0-nucleon rescattering, proton rescattering, or two-step processes in the 6-10 GeV beam energy range. Because the rho0 is strongly interacting and traverses the entire nucleus before decaying, this assumption is not automatically safe. A quantitative estimate of FSI contamination of the pmiss and cos(gamma) distributions, or a demonstration that the event selection suppresses such contamination, is needed before a discrepancy between data and GCF can be attributed to a breakdown of factorization.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3), Table 3] The elementary gamma-p to rho0-p cross section is parametrized by a fit to SLAC data at E_gamma = 4 and 6 GeV, but the generator is run at 8 GeV and the data analysis accepts photons from 6 to 10.8 GeV. Although the two main observables are ratios in which sigma_probe cancels under exact factorization, the event generator uses Eq. (3) to weight phase space and therefore to determine the signal kinematics used for background studies and for the projected statistical precision. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the predicted ratios and yield projections to the choice of the elementary cross section, or use a parametrization valid over the full GlueX energy range.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5] The projected statistical uncertainties shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are presented without a corresponding systematic uncertainty estimate. The authors correctly state in Sec. 4 that the background subtraction is 'rudimentary' and in Sec. 5 that the two-proton ratio is 'highly sensitive' to spectator-proton detection efficiency, but no numerical estimate is given for either effect. Since the paper's central claim is that the proposed measurement can distinguish the AV18/N2LO from the AV4' prediction and reveal structure in the A/D ratio, the claim is only meaningful if these systematic effects are shown to be comparable to or smaller than the quoted statistical errors. An approximate systematic budget, or at least an explicit statement of the required detector efficiency and background uncertainties, is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4] The simulation uses a pmiss threshold of 0.350 GeV/c (Sec. 3) while the data analysis uses 0.4 GeV/c (Sec. 4); the two thresholds should be reconciled or the difference explicitly discussed.
  2. [Table 3] The fit parameters A, B, C, D, E are quoted without uncertainties, chi-squared, or the valid kinematic range of the fit; adding these would help assess the extrapolation to 8 GeV.
  3. [Eq. (2) and Eq. (3)] The sum over alpha in Eq. (2) is not defined in the text, and the contact normalization (C = 16 pi^2 sum ...) should be stated alongside the equation; Eq. (3) also mixes s, t, and cos(theta_cm), which are not independent, and the justification for this particular functional form is not given.
  4. [Fig. 1] The legend and axis labels use 'A V18', 'N2LO', and 'A V4'' with inconsistent spacing; these should be standardized to AV18, N2LO, and AV4'.
  5. [Throughout] There are typographical issues such as 'T able' in the captions and inconsistent use of Unicode math symbols; a careful proofread is needed.
  6. [Sec. 5, Fig. 5] The statement that 'the statistical uncertainties are easily small enough to distinguish the tensor-less and realistic potential models' should be qualified by the fact that the figure shows only statistical uncertainties and that the plotted projections assume the preliminary background subtraction is unbiased; this belongs in the main text near the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GCF predictions are generated from external inputs and are falsifiable against the photoproduction data.

full rationale

The paper's predicted ratios are not fitted to the rho0 photoproduction data. The GCF cross section components are all specified from external information: the single-nucleon gamma-p -> rho0-p cross section is a parametrization fit to SLAC data (Eq. 3, Table 3); contacts are taken from VMC-based determinations in Ref. [2]; the pair CM momentum distribution uses Gaussian widths from prior electron-scattering measurements; and the universal pair wave functions are zero-energy Schrodinger solutions for specified NN potentials. The observables in Figs. 5 and 6 are computed from a Monte Carlo event generator built on this factorized cross section, with selection cuts applied identically to the simulated and measured events. The data are used only for background subtraction and statistical projections, not to adjust the model parameters. The central claim that these ratios can test probe factorization is therefore falsifiable: if final-state interactions or non-factorized dynamics change the pmiss dependence, the predictions will fail. The only self-citation (Ref. [2] includes co-author A. Schmidt) is not load-bearing because the contacts are independently grounded in variational Monte Carlo momentum-density calculations, and the GCF formalism itself is cited to external prior work. The zero-FSI assumption is a physical assumption and a systematic risk, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictions rest on the GCF factorization ansatz, the impulse approximation, neglect of final-state interactions, and external inputs for contacts, CM momentum widths, and the elementary cross section. No new particles or forces are introduced, and no parameter is fitted to the target GlueX observables.

free parameters (3)
  • Elementary gamma-p to rho0-p cross-section fit coefficients = A = 90057 nb, B = 5.941 GeV^-2, C = 1.097e8 nb GeV^14, D = 3.834, E = 1.795
    Fitted to SLAC gamma-p to rho0-p data at E_gamma = 4 and 6 GeV (Ref. [30]) and used in Eq. 3. These determine the overall event rate for the statistical projections; they cancel in the ratio observables.
  • Gaussian center-of-mass momentum width sigma = 100 MeV/c for He-4, 150 MeV/c for C-12
    Taken from electron-scattering measurements of SRC pair CM motion (Refs. [10,13]); assumed alpha-independent and Gaussian. It shapes the pmiss dependence of the predicted ratios.
  • Nuclear contacts C_alpha = Values from Ref. [2] for D, He-4, C-12
    Determined from fits to variational Monte Carlo two-body momentum densities in prior work; they set the relative abundances of pp and pn pairs and enter Eq. 2 linearly.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Generalized Contact Formalism factorization of the nuclear wave function (Eq. 1) and cross section (Eq. 2)
    The central ansatz of GCF: the correlated pair decouples from the remaining nucleons at short distances. This is the theory being tested, used here to generate predictions.
  • domain assumption Impulse approximation: the elementary gamma-p to rho0-p cross section is the same for bound and free nucleons
    In Section 3 the free-proton parametrization (Eq. 3) is used without medium modification. If in-medium effects alter the amplitude, the predicted yields and ratios would shift.
  • domain assumption Negligible final-state interactions: pmiss and precoil reflect initial nucleon momenta
    Section 3 defines pmiss as the initial struck-nucleon momentum; Section 4 interprets cos(gamma) assuming no FSI. FSI could redistribute momentum and contaminate the SRC sample.
  • standard math Zero-energy bound-state solutions of the NN Schrodinger equation provide the universal relative wave functions
    Used to obtain |phi_alpha(k_rel)|^2 in Fig. 1 from AV18, N2LO, and AV4' potentials. This is the standard method in GCF; the potentials are external inputs.
  • domain assumption Gaussian, alpha-independent CM momentum distribution for the pair
    Section 3: assumed with sigma from electron scattering, not derived from photoproduction data.
  • domain assumption Photon energy of 8 GeV represents the coherent peak of the tagged beam
    Section 3: simulations use a single 8 GeV beam energy; the actual beam spans 6-10 GeV. Energy dependence of the observable is smeared by the beam spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observing short-range correlations in nuclei through $\rho^0$ photo-production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDEG2OYG

@misc{pith2026250115229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observing short-range correlations in nuclei through $\rho^0$ photo-production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDEG2OYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15229}
}
abstract

Short-range correlations (SRCs) are a universal feature of nuclear structure. A wide range of measurements, primarily using electron scattering, have revealed SRC properties, such as their abundance in different nuclei, as well as the strong preference for proton-neutron pairing over proton-proton or neutron-neutron pairing. Despite the inherent complexity of many-body systems, a number of the salient features of electron scattering measurements are described by a simple, factorized theory called Generalized Contact Formalism. A key element of this theory, the factorization of the interaction with a hard probe, has yet to be tested. An experiment conducted at Jefferson Lab in 2021 collected data from scattering a tagged photon beam, with an energy up to 10 GeV, from several nuclear targets, measuring final state particles in the large-acceptance GlueX spectrometer. In this paper, we propose a test of probe factorization by measuring cross section ratios sensitive to proton-proton pair prevalence and relative SRC abundances in $^4$He and $^{12}$C. We present GCF predictions of the observables and make projections of the expected precision the experiment can achieve.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Feldmeier, W

    H. Feldmeier, W. Horiuchi, T. Neff, Y. Suzuki, Universality of short-range nucleon-nucleon correlations. Phys. Rev. C 84, 054,003 (2011). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054003. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4956 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Cruz-Torres, D

    R. Cruz-Torres, D. Lonardoni, R. Weiss, N. Barnea, D.W. Higinbotham, E. Piasetzky, A. Schmidt, L.B. Weinstein, R.B. Wiringa, O. Hen, Many- body factorization and position–momentum equivalence of nuclear short- range correlations. Nature Phys. 17(3), 306–310 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-020-01053-7. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.03658 [nucl-th] Spr...

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Yero, et al., Probing the Deuteron at Very Large Internal Momenta

    C. Yero, et al., Probing the Deuteron at Very Large Internal Momenta. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(26), 262,501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.262501. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08058 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Fomin, et al., New measurements of high-momentum nucleons and short-range structures in nuclei

    N. Fomin, et al., New measurements of high-momentum nucleons and short-range structures in nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 092,502 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.092502. https://arxiv. org/abs/1107.3583 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Hen, et al., Momentum sharing in imbalanced Fermi systems

    O. Hen, et al., Momentum sharing in imbalanced Fermi systems. Science 346, 614–617 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256785. https: //arxiv.org/abs/1412.0138 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Frankfurt, M

    L. Frankfurt, M. Sargsian, M. Strikman, Recent observation of short range nucleon correlations in nuclei and their implications for the struc- ture of nuclei and neutron stars. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2991–3055 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X08041207. https://arxiv.org/ abs/0806.4412 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Egiyan, et al., Observation of nuclear scaling in the A(e, e-prime) reaction at x(B) greater than 1

    K.S. Egiyan, et al., Observation of nuclear scaling in the A(e, e-prime) reaction at x(B) greater than 1. Phys. Rev. C 68, 014,313 (2003). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.014313. https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/ 0301008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.68.014313 2003

  8. [8]

    Schmookler, et al., Modified structure of protons and neutrons in corre- lated pairs

    B. Schmookler, et al., Modified structure of protons and neutrons in corre- lated pairs. Nature 566(7744), 354–358 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-0925-9. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12065 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Niyazov, et al., Two nucleon momentum distributions measured in He-3(e,e-prime pp)n

    R.A. Niyazov, et al., Two nucleon momentum distributions measured in He-3(e,e-prime pp)n. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 052,303 (2004). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.052303. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 92, 099903 (2004)]. https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0308013

    2004 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cohen, et al., Center of Mass Motion of Short-Range Corre- lated Nucleon Pairs studied via the A(e, e′pp) Reaction

    E.O. Cohen, et al., Center of Mass Motion of Short-Range Corre- lated Nucleon Pairs studied via the A(e, e′pp) Reaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121(9), 092,501 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121. 092501. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01981 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Subedi, et al., Probing Cold Dense Nuclear Matter

    R. Subedi, et al., Probing Cold Dense Nuclear Matter. Science 320, 1476– 1478 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156675. https://arxiv.org/ abs/0908.1514 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shneor, et al., Investigation of proton-proton short-range correlations via the C-12(e, e-prime pp) reaction

    R. Shneor, et al., Investigation of proton-proton short-range correlations via the C-12(e, e-prime pp) reaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 072,501 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.072501. https://arxiv.org/abs/ nucl-ex/0703023 Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Obser...

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Korover, et al., Probing the Repulsive Core of the Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction via the 4He(e, e′pN ) Triple-Coincidence Reaction

    I. Korover, et al., Probing the Repulsive Core of the Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction via the 4He(e, e′pN ) Triple-Coincidence Reaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113(2), 022,501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113. 022501. https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6138 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Duer, et al., Direct Observation of Proton-Neutron Short-Range Cor- relation Dominance in Heavy Nuclei

    M. Duer, et al., Direct Observation of Proton-Neutron Short-Range Cor- relation Dominance in Heavy Nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(17), 172,502 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.172502. https://arxiv. org/abs/1810.05343 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Li, et al., Revealing the short-range structure of the mirror nuclei 3H and 3He

    S. Li, et al., Revealing the short-range structure of the mirror nuclei 3H and 3He. Nature 609(7925), 41–45 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-022-05007-2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.04189 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schmidt, et al., Probing the core of the strong nuclear interac- tion

    A. Schmidt, et al., Probing the core of the strong nuclear interac- tion. Nature 578(7796), 540–544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-020-2021-6. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.11221 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Korover, et al., 12C(e,e’pN) measurements of short range correlations in the tensor-to-scalar interaction transition region

    I. Korover, et al., 12C(e,e’pN) measurements of short range correlations in the tensor-to-scalar interaction transition region. Phys. Lett. B 820, 136,523 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136523. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2004.07304 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  10. [18]

    Weiss, B

    R. Weiss, B. Bazak, N. Barnea, Generalized nuclear contacts and momen- tum distributions. Phys. Rev. C 92, 054,311 (2015). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.054311. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.92.054311

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Weiss, R

    R. Weiss, R. Cruz-Torres, N. Barnea, E. Piasetzky, O. Hen, The nuclear contacts and short range correlations in nuclei. Physics Letters B 780, 211–215 (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018. 01.061

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Weiss, I

    R. Weiss, I. Korover, E. Piasetzky, O. Hen, N. Barnea, Energy and momentum dependence of nuclear short-range correlations - spectral function, exclusive scattering experiments and the contact formalism. Physics Letters B 791, 242–248 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Pybus, I

    J.R. Pybus, I. Korover, R. Weiss, A. Schmidt, N. Barnea, D.W. Higin- botham, E. Piasetzky, M. Strikman, L.B. Weinstein, O. Hen, Generalized contact formalism analysis of the 4He(e,e’pN) reaction. Phys. Lett. B 805, 135,429 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135429...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Patsyuk, et al., Unperturbed inverse kinematics nucleon knockout measurements with a 48 GeV/c carbon beam

    M. Patsyuk, et al., Unperturbed inverse kinematics nucleon knockout measurements with a 48 GeV/c carbon beam. Nature Phys. 17, 693 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01193-4. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2102.02626 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hen, et al., Studying Short-Range Correlations with Real Photon Beams at GlueX

    O. Hen, et al., Studying Short-Range Correlations with Real Photon Beams at GlueX. Proposal to Jefferson Lab PAC 47 (2020). https: //arxiv.org/abs/2009.09617 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adhikari, et al., The GLUEX beamline and detector

    S. Adhikari, et al., The GLUEX beamline and detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 987, 164,807 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020. 164807. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14272 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pybus, et al., Search for axion-like particles through nuclear Pri- makoff production using the GlueX detector

    J.R. Pybus, et al., Search for axion-like particles through nuclear Pri- makoff production using the GlueX detector. Phys. Lett. B 855, 138,790 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138790. https://arxiv. org/abs/2308.06339 [hep-ex]

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pybus, et al., First Measurement of Near- and Sub-Threshold J/ψ Photoproduction off Nuclei (2024)

    J.R. Pybus, et al., First Measurement of Near- and Sub-Threshold J/ψ Photoproduction off Nuclei (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18463 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wiringa, V.G.J

    R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking. Phys. Rev. C 51, 38–51 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, A. Schwenk, Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations with Chiral Effective Field Theory Interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(3), 032,501 (2013). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.032501. https://arxiv.org/abs/1...

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Wiringa, S.C

    R.B. Wiringa, S.C. Pieper, Evolution of nuclear spectra with nuclear forces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 182,501 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.89.182501. https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0207050

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Anderson, D

    R.L. Anderson, D. Gustavson, D. Ritson, G.A. Weitsch, H.J. Halpern, R. Prepost, D.H. Tompkins, D.E. Wiser, Measurements of Exclusive Pho- toproduction Processes at Large Values of t and u from 4-GeV to 7.5-GeV. Phys. Rev. D 14, 679 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.14.679

    1976 doi

  23. [31]

    Wiringa, R

    R.B. Wiringa, R. Schiavilla, S.C. Pieper, J. Carlson, Nucleon and nucleon- pair momentum distributions in A ≤ 12 nuclei. Phys. Rev. C 89(2), 024,305 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024305. https:// arxiv.org/abs/1309.3794 [nucl-th] Springer Nature 2021 LATEX templa...

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Piarulli, S

    M. Piarulli, S. Pastore, R.B. Wiringa, S. Brusilow, R. Lim, Densities and momentum distributions in A ≤12 nuclei from chiral effective field theory interactions. Phys. Rev. C 107(1), 014,314 (2023). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevC.107.014314. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02421...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.