Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 78 references

Chiral $3\pi$-exchange potential using the method of unitary transformation

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The leading chiral three-pion-exchange nucleon-nucleon potential is scheme dependent at static order, with unitary-transformation results differing from S-matrix results for classes VI, VIII and IX.

desk verdict Careful, reproducible MUT derivation of the 3π-exchange NN potential showing static-order scheme dependence for classes VI, VIII, and IX, plus a useful sign correction; the imported unitary-phase conventions are the only real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02034 v1 pith:TB64FF54 submitted 2025-05-04 nucl-th

Victor Springer , Hermann Krebs , Evgeny Epelbaum This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords three-pionexchangechiraleffectivefieldtheorynucleon-nucleonpotentialmethodofunitarytransformationschemedependencespectralfunctionsheavy-baryonperturbationtwo-loopdiagrams
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

This paper asks whether the leading chiral three-pion-exchange force between two nucleons, a parameter-free prediction of chiral effective field theory, is uniquely defined. It shows that it is not: already at static (infinite-nucleon-mass) order, the potential depends on the scheme used to separate genuine two-body forces from iterations of the two-body scattering equation. The authors re-derive the three-pion-exchange potential with two methods, S-matrix matching and the method of unitary transformation, and find that for the reducible-like diagram classes VI, VIII and IX the results differ, with differences comparable in size to the potentials themselves. They provide analytical expressions for the unitary-transformation version, spectral functions and coordinate-space forms, which are the ones consistent with the nuclear forces and currents derived in the same framework, and they correct a sign error in the class-V isovector tensor spectral function of the earlier derivation. If the results are correct, precision nucleon-nucleon potentials that explicitly include three-pion exchange must specify and respect this off-shell convention, and the spread between schemes becomes part of the theoretical uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The method of unitary transformation applied to the pion-nucleon Hamiltonian: a minimal unitary decoupling of the pion-nucleon Hilbert space produces energy-independent, Hermitian two-nucleon potentials whose off-shell content is fixed by residual unitary phase parameters $\alpha_i$. The paper computes the two-loop energy denominators diagram by diagram from the MUT Hamiltonian, compares them with the S-matrix-matching denominators, and isolates the extra terms that appear for reducible-like diagrams, such as $1/(\omega_1^2\omega_2^2\omega_3^2)$. Those extra terms, together with the phase constraints inherited from renormalizability of the three-nucleon force, determine all differences between the two schemes. Spectral functions are obtained through cutting rules and dispersion integrals, or, where that representation is singular, by rotating the loop momenta to imaginary values and integrating directly in coordinate space.

What would settle it

Compute the reducible-like class-VIII or class-IX diagrams with an alternative allowed unitary transformation, one still satisfying the quoted phase constraints, and check whether the coordinate-space potentials change; if the MUT and S-matrix results coincide under a different valid scheme, the claimed scheme dependence is not robust. A complementary check is to include both versions of the three-pion-exchange potential in a peripheral partial-wave analysis at low cutoffs and see whether the two forms are distinguishable by data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the static three-pion-exchange nucleon-nucleon potential is scheme dependent: the method-of-unitary-transformation results for classes VI, VIII and IX differ from the earlier S-matrix-matching results, while classes IV, XI and XIII agree. The MUT version develops non-vanishing potentials in channels that vanish in the S-matrix version, for example the isovector central channel of class VIII and the isoscalar spin-spin and tensor channels of class VI, and its spectral functions differ by analytically calculable amounts traced to extra terms, proportional to $1/(\omega_1^2\omega_2^2\omega_3^2)$, in the energy denominators of reducible-like diagrams. All earlier S-matrix expressions were rederived and verified, with one sign error corrected, and the paper therefore supplies the three-pion-exchange potential that is off-shell consistent with the rest of the interactions built by the method of unitary transformation.

Load-bearing premise

The result inherits the earlier choice of unitary-phase parameters $\alpha_3=-\alpha_5$, $\alpha_4=1/2+2\alpha_5$, $\alpha_1=-2\alpha_2=-1/2$, $\alpha_{10}=-\alpha_{11}=-\frac14(1-2\alpha_9)$, which were selected to make the three-nucleon force renormalizable; the paper cites rather than re-derives those constraints, so a wrong phase choice would change the MUT three-pion-exchange potentials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier S-matrix-matched three-pion-exchange expressions are not the off-shell-consistent choice for the interactions and currents built by the method of unitary transformation; the MUT expressions from this paper are.
  • Explicitly including the MUT three-pion-exchange potential in high-precision nucleon-nucleon potentials is now possible and only requires the regularization already used for the two-pion-exchange contributions.
  • The size of the MUT-versus-S-matrix differences gives a concrete estimate of the scheme uncertainty of the leading three-pion-exchange force, comparable to the force itself.
  • The corrected class-V isovector tensor spectral function alters that channel's long-range contribution, so any previous use of the erroneous sign should be re-examined.
  • Since the N4LO classes XI and XIII agree between the two schemes, the scheme ambiguity does not extend to the subleading three-pion-exchange order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unitary-transformation convention is the one adopted by the precision potentials in this framework, adding the explicit three-pion exchange could shift intermediate-distance phase shifts by amounts comparable to the current truncation uncertainty; a fit comparison with and without this term would test that.
  • Because the MUT-versus-S-matrix difference has a fixed finite-range tail, falling like $e^{-3M_\pi r}$, the ambiguity cannot be fully absorbed into short-range contact terms, making peripheral scattering a promising discriminator.
  • The same phase constraints could be used to derive three-pion-exchange contributions to three-nucleon forces and to electroweak currents, extending off-shell consistency across sectors; the paper does not carry that out.
  • The appearance of nonzero isovector central and isoscalar spin-dependent potentials in the MUT where the S-matrix version has none is a qualitative difference: observables sensitive to those channels at intermediate range could distinguish the two conventions in principle.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper derives the leading (N3LO) and subleading (N4LO) chiral 3π-exchange nucleon-nucleon potential using the method of unitary transformation (MUT), with the goal of obtaining potentials that are off-shell consistent with the Bochum group's chiral EFT framework. Using Cutkosky cutting rules and a Wick-rotation technique for coordinate-space potentials, the authors reproduce most of Kaiser's S-matrix method (SMM) results, correct a sign error in the class-V isovector tensor spectral function, and find that the static N3LO potential is scheme-dependent for the reducible-like topologies: classes VI, VIII, and IX differ between MUT and SMM, including genuinely new nonvanishing isoscalar structures in the MUT, while classes IV, XI, and XIII agree. The paper provides unusually detailed intermediate steps, including energy denominators, spectral functions before and after angular integration, and appendices for the principal-value integrals.

Significance. If correct, this work establishes that static-order 3π-exchange NN potentials are scheme-dependent, a fact that matters for any future attempt to include explicit 3π exchange in high-precision chiral potentials. The paper's central comparison is between two independent derivations with no data fitting and no free parameters, and the claimed MUT results are parameter-free predictions of the Bochum framework. Additional strengths are the detailed documentation of the derivations, the verification of essentially all of Kaiser's results, the explicit correction of the class-V isovector tensor spectral function, and the clear presentation of the coordinate-space differences between schemes. The work is a useful reference for practitioners and should make the calculations reproducible.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. II A, after Eq. (2.10)] The sentence referring to "the phases α_i specified in Eqs. (2.8), (2.10)" is imprecise: Eq. (2.10) defines the generators S1 and S2, not the phases; the phase values are given in Eqs. (2.8) and (2.12). Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Eq. (2.12)] The chain notation α1 = −2α2 = −1/2 forces the reader to solve for α2; please state explicitly α1 = −1/2 and α2 = 1/4, especially because footnote 4 mentions a past misprint for α2.
  3. [Sec. II C, below Eq. (2.27)] There is a typo: "the first soltion" should read "the first solution".
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption begins with "Tie class-VI scalar potentials..."; this should be "The class-VI scalar potentials...".
  5. [Eq. (3.1) and throughout] The notation F3π is used for what appears to be Fπ^3 without being defined; please define it at first occurrence to avoid ambiguity with a three-pion state or a three-pion coupling.
  6. [Eq. (3.48)] The correction of Kaiser's class-V isovector tensor spectral function is attributed to a private communication [72]; since this is a published-result correction, please provide an explicit verification or a brief derivation in the text or an appendix.
  7. [Sec. II A and Sec. III F] The assertion that the 3π-exchange potential is independent of the unconstrained phase α5 is made before the results are shown; please add a sentence or a short appendix demonstrating this independence explicitly, and similarly state the fate of the unconstrained phase α9 for the N4LO results in Sec. IV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the MUT/SMM comparison is an independent calculation; the only self-citation caveat is the unitary-phase convention imported from earlier three-nucleon-force renormalizability work.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained as a calculation. The paper starts from explicitly stated MUT Fock-space operators (Eqs. 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, 4.1), specifies the relevant matrix elements and energy denominators, and develops the spectral-function and Wick-rotation machinery used to obtain the potentials. The claimed scheme differences for classes VI, VIII and IX come from explicit energy-denominator terms, e.g. the +1/(2 ω1^2 ω2^2 ω3^2) term in Eq. (3.50), the +1/(ω1^2 ω2^2 ω3^4) term in Eq. (3.67), and the -1/(2 ω1^2 ω2^2 ω3^4) terms in Eq. (3.100). These are computed within the stated scheme, not fitted. The comparison against Kaiser is likewise an independent rederivation using the S-matrix method, and the paper verifies the earlier expressions and corrects one sign in the class-V isovector tensor spectral function. The unitary-phase constraints in Eqs. (2.8), (2.12) and (4.2) are taken from the authors' previous renormalizability analyses of the three-nucleon force (Refs. [20,25]) rather than rederived in this paper. This is a genuine self-citation and the phase values are load-bearing for the quoted MUT expressions; if those constraints were not the correct Bochum convention, the class-VI/VIII/IX results would change. However, the constraints come from a different sector, the three-nucleon force, and are not defined in terms of the 3π-exchange potential being computed. No term of the reported derivation is equivalent by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The residual concern is correctness or completeness of the cited renormalizability analysis, not circularity in the present derivation.

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

The central results rest on standard chiral EFT and dispersion techniques plus the specific unitary-phase conventions inherited from the authors' earlier three-nucleon force work. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Okubo minimal unitary transformation decouples the purely nucleonic subspace and defines the nuclear potential via the decoupling equation (Eq. 2.2).
    Used in Sec. II A to construct V_MUT; it is the standard MUT framework from the authors' prior work, not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The unitary phases are fixed by renormalizability of the N3LO three-nucleon force: α3=−α5, α4=1/2+2α5 (Eq. 2.8), α1=−2α2=−1/2 (Eq. 2.12), and α10=−α11=−1/4(1−2α9) (Eq. 4.2).
    Taken from Refs. [20] and [25] (self-citations); the MUT 3π-exchange results for classes VI, VIII and IX depend on these constraints, which are not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The 1/m (static) expansion separates reducible iterative contributions from the irreducible potential, so the genuine static 3π-exchange potential is the O(1) term after subtracting iterations.
    Invoked in Sec. I, Eq. (1.2) and throughout Sec. III to define the potential within the S-matrix method.
  • standard math The non-polynomial part of the potential is fully determined by its spectral function across the left-hand cut; subtraction terms can be absorbed into contact interactions (Eqs. 2.14).
    Used in Sec. II B to reconstruct momentum-space potentials from imaginary parts; standard dispersion-relation input.
  • standard math Cutkosky cutting rules and the on-shell N Nbar to 3π phase-space integral give the imaginary part of the amplitude for time-like momentum transfer (Eqs. 2.18-2.38).
    Used in Sec. II C for all spectral-function calculations.
  • domain assumption The Wick-rotated loop integrals with principal-value heavy-baryon propagators correctly represent the coordinate-space potential for classes where the spectral function is singular.
    Used in Sec. II E and for classes VIII and IX, following the approach of Ref. [13].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral $3\pi$-exchange potential using the method of unitary transformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TB64FF54

@misc{pith2026250502034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral $3\pi$-exchange potential using the method of unitary transformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TB64FF54}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02034}
}
abstract

Nuclear potentials are known to exhibit a considerable degree of scheme dependence. For one- and two-pion exchange nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials, unitary ambiguities start showing up at the level of the leading relativistic corrections to the dominant static contributions. However, for the three-pion exchange potential, scheme-dependent contributions are expected to appear already at the static level. Here, we analyze the leading and subleading chiral $3\pi$-exchange NN potentials using the method of unitary transformation. In line with the expectations, our results for selected classes of contributions differ from those obtained by Kaiser using S-matrix matching. We present analytical expressions for the $3\pi$-exchange potential, which are off-shell consistent with the interactions used by the Bochum group, and discuss the numerical importance of the observed differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrams contributing to the leading 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrams contributing to the subleading 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic picture of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Class-VI 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Class-VIII 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Class-IX 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773-1825 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD

    However, in this approach, the energy denominators for the reducible-like diagram (1) come out identically to those of the irreducible graph (2) [12], EDVIII, SMM (1) = EDVIII (2) , (3.68) while in the MUT, the results differ by the last term in Eq. (3.67). This suggests that both methods lead to different potentials for this class of contributions. The e...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1-75 (2011), [arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288-292 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 3-18 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Epelbaum, H

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

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Ordonez, L

    C. Ordonez, L. Ray and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 53, 2086-2105 (1996), [arXiv:hep-ph/9511380 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Kaiser, R

    N. Kaiser, R. Brockmann and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 625, 758-788 (1997), [arXiv:nucl-th/9706045 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Kaiser, S

    N. Kaiser, S. Gerstendorfer and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 637, 395-420 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9802071 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle and U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A 637, 107-134 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9801064 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle and U. G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A 671, 295-331 (2000) [arXiv:nucl-th/9910064 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 61, 014003 (2000), [arXiv:nucl-th/9910044 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 62, 024001 (2000), [arXiv:nucl-th/9912054 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 63, 044010 (2001), [arXiv:nucl-th/0101052 [nucl-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 64, 057001 (2001) [arXiv:nucl-th/0107064 [nucl-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 65, 017001 (2002) [arXiv:nucl-th/0109071 [nucl-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. R. Entem, N. Kaiser, R. Machleidt and Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C 91, no.1, 014002 (2015) [arXiv:1411.5335 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    van Kolck, Phys

    U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932-2941 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    Epelbaum, A

    E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gl¨ ockle, H. Kamada, U.-G. Meißner and H. Witala, Phys. Rev. C 66, 064001 (2002) [arXiv:nucl-th/0208023 [nucl-th]]. 42

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Epelbaum, Phys

    E. Epelbaum, Phys. Lett. B 639, 456-461 (2006), [arXiv:nucl-th/0511025 [nucl-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Epelbaum, Eur

    E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 34, 197-214 (2007), [arXiv:0710.4250 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ishikawa and M

    S. Ishikawa and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014006 (2007), [arXiv:0704.0711 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bernard, E

    V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064004 (2008), [arXiv:0712.1967 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bernard, E

    V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054001 (2011) [arXiv:1108.3816 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Girlanda, A

    L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 84, no.1, 014001 (2011) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 102, no.1, 019903 (2020)], [arXiv:1102.4799 [nucl-th]]

    2011

  18. [26]

    Krebs, A

    H. Krebs, A. Gasparyan and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. C 85, 054006 (2012), [arXiv:1203.0067 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Krebs, A

    H. Krebs, A. Gasparyan and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. C 87, no.5, 054007 (2013) [arXiv:1302.2872 [nucl-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    van Kolck, M

    U. van Kolck, M. C. M. Rentmeester, J. L. Friar, J. T. Goldman and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4386-4389 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9710067 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. L. Friar and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 60, 034006 (1999) [arXiv:nucl-th/9906048 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. L. Friar, U. van Kolck, G. L. Payne and S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024003 (2003) [arXiv:nucl-th/0303058 [nucl-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. L. Friar, U. van Kolck, M. C. M. Rentmeester and R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. C 70, 044001 (2004) [arXiv:nucl- th/0406026 [nucl-th]]

    2004

  24. [32]

    Epelbaum, U.-G

    E. Epelbaum, U.-G. Meißner and J. E. Palomar, Phys. Rev. C 71, 024001 (2005) [arXiv:nucl-th/0407037 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. L. Friar, G. L. Payne and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 71, 024003 (2005) [arXiv:nucl-th/0408033 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034337 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0312060 [nucl-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 73, 064003 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-th/0605040 [nucl-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kaiser, Phys

    N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 74, 067001 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-th/0610089 [nucl-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.9, 092501 (2021), [arXiv:2006.15360 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    T. S. Park, D. P. Min and M. Rho, Phys. Rept. 233, 341-395 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9301295 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T. S. Park, D. P. Min and M. Rho, Nucl. Phys. A 596, 515-552 (1996) [arXiv:nucl-th/9505017 [nucl-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K¨ olling, E

    S. K¨ olling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C 80, 045502 (2009) [arXiv:0907.3437 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    K¨ olling, E

    S. K¨ olling, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054008 (2011) [arXiv:1107.0602 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Krebs, E

    H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, Annals Phys. 378, 317-395 (2017), [arXiv:1610.03569 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Krebs, E

    H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, Few Body Syst. 60, no.2, 31 (2019) [arXiv:1902.06839 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Krebs, E

    H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.9, 240 (2020) [arXiv:2005.07433 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Pastore, R

    S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla and J. L. Goity, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064002 (2008) [arXiv:0810.1941 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 80, 034004 (2009) [arXiv:0906.1800 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pastore, L

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

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Baroni, L

    A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 93, no.1, 015501 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 93, no.4, 049902 (2016); erratum: Phys. Rev. C 95, no.5, 059901 (2017)] [arXiv:1509.07039 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Krebs, Eur

    H. Krebs, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.9, 234 (2020) [arXiv:2008.00974 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    de Vries, E

    J. de Vries, E. Epelbaum, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, E. Mereghetti and M. Viviani, Front. in Phys. 8, 218 (2020) [arXiv:2001.09050 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rept. 625, 1-88 (2016) [arXiv:1510.06039 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.19, 192301 (2015) [arXiv:1507.07552 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Siemens, J

    D. Siemens, J. Ruiz de Elvira, E. Epelbaum, M. Hoferichter, H. Krebs, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 770, 27-34 (2017) [arXiv:1610.08978 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, no.5, 53 (2015), [arXiv:1412.0142 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, no.5, 86 (2018), [arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and P. Reinert, doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1 54-1 [arXiv:2206.07072 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Reinert, Precision studies in the two-nucleon system using chiral effective field theory, PhD thesis, Bochum, 2022

    P. Reinert, Precision studies in the two-nucleon system using chiral effective field theory, PhD thesis, Bochum, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt and Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C 96, no.2, 024004 (2017) [arXiv:1703.05454 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.12, 122301 (2015), [arXiv:1412.4623 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Epelbaum, Few Body Syst

    E. Epelbaum, Few Body Syst. 65, no.2, 39 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Y. Yang, E. Epelbaum, J. Meng, L. Meng and P. Zhao, [arXiv:2502.09961 [nucl-th]]

  54. [62]

    J. C. Pupin and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014003 (1999) [arXiv:nucl-th/9903028 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Epelbaum, S

    E. Epelbaum, S. Heihoff, U.-G. Meißner and A. Tscherwon, [arXiv:2504.08631 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. L. Friar and S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. C 49, 1272-1280 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    J. L. Friar, Phys. Rev. C 60, 034002 (1999), [arXiv:nucl-th/9901082 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Okubo, Prog

    S. Okubo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 12, 603 (1954)

    1954

  59. [67]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 295, 114-121 (1992), [arXiv:hep-ph/9209257 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 19, 125-137 (2004), [arXiv:nucl-th/0304037 [nucl-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 19, 401-412 (2004), [arXiv:nucl-th/0308010 [nucl-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle and U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A 747, 362-424 (2005) [arXiv:nucl-th/0405048 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  63. [71]

    R. E. Cutkosky, J. Math. Phys. 1, 429-433 (1960)

    1960

  64. [72]

    S. L. Zhu, C. M. Maekawa, B. R. Holstein, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A 748, 435-498 (2005), [arXiv:nucl-th/0407087 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Norbert Kaiser, private communication, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Epelbaum, U.-G

    E. Epelbaum, U.-G. Meißner and W. Gl¨ ockle, Nucl. Phys. A 714, 535-574 (2003) [arXiv:nucl-th/0207089 [nucl-th]]. 43

    2003 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Epelbaum and U.-G

    E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C 72, 044001 (2005) [arXiv:nucl-th/0502052 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Krebs and E

    H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 044003 (2024) [arXiv:2311.10893 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Krebs and E

    H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 044004 (2024) [arXiv:2312.13932 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    D. R. Entem, N. Kaiser, R. Machleidt and Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C 92, no.6, 064001 (2015) [arXiv:1505.03562 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.