Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A renormalizable theory for not-so-light nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 By adding finite artificial ranges at leading order and removing them at next order, Pionless EFT becomes renormalizable for helium-4, lithium-6, carbon-12, and oxygen-16, whose ground-state energies converge and match experiment within…

desk verdict A genuine but conditional advance in Pionless EFT for medium-mass nuclei; the abstract overstates the compensation of the artificial three-body range, which is removed only at N2LO. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09299 v1 pith:JM5E76CE submitted 2025-05-14 nucl-th

L. Contessi , M. Schäfer , A. Gnech , A. Lovato , U. van Kolck This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords Pionlesseffectivefieldtheoryrenormalizationnuclearbindingenergiesimprovedleadingorderartificialinteractionrangecutoffindependencemany-bodystructureneural-networkquantumstates
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

Pionless Effective Field Theory treats nuclei as collections of nucleons interacting through contact forces, and it has been renormalizable and successful for systems with up to five nucleons. The obstacle addressed here is that at leading order the same theory gives unstable, cutoff-dependent ground states for $^{6}$Li, $^{12}$C, and $^{16}$O. The authors claim that this obstacle disappears if the leading-order action is given finite interaction ranges—an “improved” LO—and those artificial ranges are then subtracted by next-to-leading-order perturbative corrections. With that improvement, the ground-state energies of $^{4}$He, $^{6}$Li, $^{12}$C, and $^{16}$O converge as the cutoff grows and agree with experiment within the estimated truncation uncertainties. If true, this is the first systematically renormalizable nuclear EFT that reaches beyond the lightest nuclei, and the improvement mechanism could be exported to other EFTs in the strong-coupling regime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the improved leading-order Hamiltonian, where the contact delta functions $\delta_\Lambda$ are replaced at LO by finite-width smeared deltas with widths $xR_s$, $xR_t$, and $xR_3$ tied to a single parameter $x$. These artificial ranges stabilize the many-body ground states that the zero-range theory loses, and they are kept small enough ($0.9\lesssim x\lesssim1.0$) that the NLO potential—which contains effective-range and $r_{ij}^2$ corrections, plus the three- and four-body counterterms—can cancel them perturbatively. The supporting machinery consists of the stochastic variational method for $A\le6$, neural-network quantum states for $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O, and the extrapolation formula $E_A^{(1)}(\Lambda)=E_A^{(1)}(1+q_A^{(1)}/\Lambda)$, which converts the residual $\Lambda^{-1}$ dependence into a central value and a truncation-error estimate.

What would settle it

Compute the N2LO correction to $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O in the same improved theory. The central claim fails if that correction is not suppressed by roughly $\xi^2\approx0.16$ relative to the NLO result, or if including it generates cutoff dependence or moves the energies outside the NLO truncation band. A simpler check is to repeat the NLO calculation at $x=0.8$ and require the same convergence and agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At leading order the paper replaces the zero-range contact interactions of Eqs. (2)–(3) with smeared, finite-width interactions parameterized by a single number $x$: the two-body widths are fractions $xR_s$ and $xR_t$ of the effective ranges ($R_s=0.8970$ fm, $R_t=0.7719$ fm), and the three-body width is $xR_3$ with $R_3=0.4149$ fm chosen so that the improved-LO $^{4}$He energy at $x=1$ is close to the physical value. This improved LO is cutoff independent by construction and, unlike the unimproved theory, binds $^{6}$Li, $^{12}$C, and $^{16}$O. Treating the NLO action in first-order perturbation theory then cancels the fake ranges and leaves only a weak residual cutoff dependence of the form $\propto \Lambda^{-1}$, which is removed by extrapolating $E_A^{(1)}(\Lambda)=E_A^{(1)}(1+q_A^{(1)}/\Lambda)$. The extrapolated energies are $E(^{6}\mathrm{Li})=-(31.57\pm0.02\pm0.3)$ MeV versus $-31.994$ MeV experimentally, $E(^{12}\mathrm{C})=-(97.3\pm0.1\pm5)$ MeV versus $-92.162$ MeV, and $E(^{16}\mathrm{O})=-(155.6\pm0.3\pm20)$ MeV versus $-127.619$ MeV, so all lie within the quoted uncertainties; $^{4}$He is reproduced exactly at NLO by construction. The paper presents this as the first demonstration of systematic renormalizability of a nuclear EFT beyond the lightest nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the artificial interaction widths inserted at leading order (with $x$ between $0.9$ and $1.0$) are small enough that first-order next-to-leading corrections fully undo their effect; if that compensation fails, the stable, cutoff-independent ground-state energies are an artifact of the improved action, not a prediction of Pionless EFT.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pionless EFT becomes a viable systematic expansion for medium-mass nuclei, so higher orders (N2LO and beyond) can be applied to the same systems instead of switching to a phenomenological model.
  • The $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O numbers are genuine predictions from a theory fit only to few-body inputs; agreement with experiment within errors suggests the same approach can be extended to neighboring isotopes.
  • Demonstrated cutoff stability licenses ab initio calculations of other observables—radii, transitions, spectra—for $A>4$ within a renormalizable theory.
  • The improved-action mechanism is proposed as a transferable tool for other strong-coupling EFTs, for example Chiral EFT.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test not performed here is an N2LO calculation: if the next correction is not suppressed by roughly $\xi^2\sim0.16$ relative to NLO, the apparent convergence would be an accident of the improvement rather than a property of Pionless EFT.
  • The authors test only $0.9\lesssim x\lesssim1.0$; repeating the NLO calculation at smaller $x$ (say $0.8$) and verifying $x$-independent answers would confirm that the fake ranges are truly being removed perturbatively.
  • Because the improved LO is close in form to established finite-range potentials, those potentials' predictions for radii and excitation energies could serve as immediate cross-checks of the EFT before higher orders are available.
  • If the inferred expansion parameter $\xi\sim0.4$ is correct, the domain of Pionless EFT may extend considerably deeper into the nuclear chart than its pion-mass breakdown scale suggests, which would shift where model dependence enters ab initio nuclear structure.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an improved leading-order (LO) action for Pionless Effective Field Theory (EFT) in which finite artificial interaction ranges, parametrized by a single variable x, are introduced in the two- and three-body forces. The authors claim that these fake ranges are compensated by higher-order perturbative corrections, making the improved LO equivalent to the original contact theory while curing the instability that afflicts LO calculations for A>=6. Using the Stochastic Variational Method for A=4,6 and a neural-network variational Monte Carlo method for A=12,16, they compute ground-state energies at LO and NLO for 4He, 6Li, 12C, and 16O as functions of the cutoff Lambda up to 8 fm^-1. They report cutoff-stable NLO results for the three heavier nuclei, quote central values with numerical and truncation uncertainties, and conclude that the results agree with experiment within those uncertainties. The paper frames this as the first renormalizable nuclear EFT calculation beyond the lightest nuclei.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this would be a genuinely important step: a systematically improvable, cutoff-independent EFT description of nuclei up to 16O, with a minimal set of parameters, would open the door to model-independent many-body calculations across the nuclear chart. The numerical work is substantial: the VMC-NQS results are benchmarked against SVM in A<=6, and the cutoff stability is exhibited explicitly over a wide range of Lambda. The paper is also candid about several limitations, including the heuristic nature of the truncation error and the absence of N2LO calculations for A>4. The significance hinges on whether the artificial three-body range introduced at LO is genuinely absent at NLO, which the present manuscript does not demonstrate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (7)-(8) and the paragraph following Eq. (8)] The abstract states that the finite interaction range introduced at LO is 'compensated for in perturbation theory at next-to-leading order,' but the NLO potentials in Eqs. (4)-(6) contain no three-body range operator: the NLO three-body term is local (D^(1)) and the four-body term is local (E^(1)). The text itself says the three-body improvement is related to the range of the three-body force at N2LO, not at NLO. Consequently the artificial three-body range R3, which is chosen to reproduce E^(0)(4He) at x=1, remains in the theory at NLO and is not removed until N2LO. The sensitivity check reported on p.3 concerns only the doublet neutron-deuteron scattering length a_{1/2}(nd), not the A=6,12,16 ground states, and the x-scan is restricted to 0.9<=x<=1.0 with 6Li numerically unusable at x=0.9. The paper therefore does not demonstrate that the improvement is removable at the order at which the central results are quoted; the A>=6 NLO results are predictions of a mixed-order theory containing an arbitrary R3. To support the renormalizability claim, the authors should either compute the N2LO correction that is supposed to compensate R3 or explicitly reframe the result as stability within a one-parameter family of improved actions rather than renormalizability of the original contact theory.
  2. [Fig. 3 and p.4, 16O results] The central value E^(1)(16O) = -(155.6 +/- 0.3 +/- 20) MeV differs from the experimental value E(16O) = -127.619 MeV by 28 MeV, which is larger than the quoted truncation error of 20 MeV. The statement that the extrapolated energies 'agree with experiment within the estimated truncation error' is therefore not supported for 16O. The truncation error is defined as the largest energy variation above Lambda=2 fm^-1, and the text acknowledges that 'this might be an underestimate.' Since the 16O result is one of the three flagship predictions, the authors need a more reliable uncertainty estimate, ideally from an actual N2LO calculation or from a multi-cutoff protocol that is demonstrably conservative, before the agreement claim can stand.
  3. [p.4, Eq. (9) and the fitting procedure for 12C and 16O] The central values for 12C and 16O are obtained by fitting Eq. (9) to the NLO points while excluding the lowest cutoff value, with the justification that it 'may still be affected by higher-order Lambda^-1 corrections.' For 6Li, q_6 is approximately zero and the highest-cutoff point is used as the central value. This creates a potential selection effect: the fit window and the exclusion criterion are chosen a posteriori, and the reported central values and errors depend on those choices. I ask the authors to specify, before fitting, a fixed protocol (e.g., exclude Lambda < Lambda_min and vary Lambda_min by +/-0.5 fm^-1) and to report how the central values and the quoted errors shift under that protocol. This is necessary for the cutoff-stability claim to be a falsifiable test rather than a post hoc fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The argument of the exponential in Eq. (1) appears to contain a typo ('r,2' instead of r^2). Please correct the notation.
  2. [p.2, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The statement that 'the 4He energy is reproduced exactly at NLO' should be made more explicit: E^(1) is fitted to the alpha-particle binding energy, so the exact reproduction is a calibration, not a prediction. The paper is clear about this later, but the sentence as written could mislead readers into thinking 4He is an output.
  3. [p.3, text on x selection] The claim that compensation 'is expected to be feasible for x <= 1' is presented without a precise definition of feasibility. Please quantify what would constitute failure (e.g., a D(1) or E(1) that changes sign or acquires an unexpectedly large magnitude) and state what tests were performed besides the a_{1/2}(nd) check.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The captions should state explicitly which points were excluded from the fits shown as red bands in Figs. 2 and 3. The text mentions the exclusion of the lowest cutoff, but the figures alone should be self-explanatory.
  5. [p.5, discussion of q_A] The identification q_A ~ xi_A^2 M_hi and the resulting estimate xi_12 ~ xi_16 ~ 0.4 would benefit from a definition of the quoted systematic uncertainty and from a brief explanation of why q_A is assumed to have minimal x dependence; as written, this paragraph is terse and hard to verify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor fitted-input overstatement: the ^4He energy is reproduced exactly by calibration, while the A>=6 predictions are genuinely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; paragraph after Eq. (8) and after Eq. (6), and discussion of thresholds in figures section]
    "Calculated ground-state energies of ^4He, ^6Li, ^12C, and ^16O converge and agree with experiment within theoretical uncertainties. ... The four-body LEC E^{(1)}, required for renormalization [7], is calibrated to the alpha-particle binding energy, E(^4He)=-28.3 MeV [24]. ... Because the ^4He energy is reproduced exactly at NLO, the experimental and NLO three-^4He thresholds for ^12C coincide."

    The NLO four-body LEC E^{(1)} is fit to the alpha binding energy, so the reported NLO ^4He energy is exactly the input -28.3 MeV by construction. The abstract lists ^4He among the energies that 'agree with experiment', turning a calibration point into a claimed success. Additionally, R3 = 0.4149 fm is chosen to reproduce E^{(0)}(^4He) ~ -29.57 MeV at x = 1, so the LO ^4He value is also tuned. This is a real but minor circularity: the central claims for ^6Li, ^12C, and ^16O are not fit to their own experimental binding energies, so the A>=6 results remain independent predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the novel A>=6 results is largely self-contained. The LECs are fixed to two-body scattering lengths and effective ranges, the triton and helion energies, and the alpha-particle energy; none of ^6Li, ^12C, or ^16O is fitted to its own experimental ground-state energy. The improved-LO cutoff independence is a property of the finite-range construction, and the NLO cutoff dependence is handled by the explicit extrapolation of Eq. (9), not by tuning final energies. The choices of x and R3 are calibrations to few-body inputs and numerical stability, not to the A>=6 targets. The reliance on prior self-citations [16,17] for the expectation that the artificial ranges can be compensated is supported by independent two-body and atomic ^4He-cluster demonstrations, so it is not a circular load-bearing chain. The main flagged issue is that ^4He is listed among the 'agree with experiment' results although its NLO energy is enforced by the E^{(1)} calibration; this is a fitted input presented as a calculated success. The separate concerns about the uncompensated R3 at NLO and the heuristic truncation error for ^16O are validation and correctness questions, not additional circularity. Overall the central claim for not-so-light nuclei remains independent, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on standard EFT inputs and on two choices specific to this paper: the artificial three-body range R3, tuned to 4He, and the improvement scale x=1. The claim that the improvement is removable at NLO is an expectation, not a proof. The energies of 6Li, 12C, and 16O are not fitted to their own experimental values, so the circularity burden is low; the main risk is that the improved LO and the x-selection shape the results, with the 16O deviation exposing a possible flaw in the truncation estimate.

free parameters (10)
  • C^(0)_0,s (singlet two-body contact) = fixed to a_s = -18.95 fm
    Determines A=2 S-wave scattering; standard EFT input from experiment.
  • C^(0)_0,t (triplet two-body contact) = fixed to a_t = 5.4112 fm
    Determines A=2 S-wave scattering; standard EFT input from experiment.
  • NLO two-body LECs C^(1)_0,s, C^(1)_1,s, C^(1)_0,t, C^(1)_1,t = fixed to r_s = 2.750 fm and r_t = 1.753 fm
    Reproduce effective ranges while preserving scattering lengths.
  • D^(0) (LO three-body LEC) = calibrated to E(3H) = -8.482 MeV
    Required for renormalization for A>=3; sets the three-body scale.
  • D^(1) (NLO three-body LEC) = restores triton binding after NLO shifts
    Keeps the triton at its experimental value at NLO.
  • C^(1)_pp (NLO proton-proton contact) = calibrated to E(3He) = -7.718 MeV
    Handles Coulomb renormalization; the authors choose the helion energy rather than two-nucleon scattering.
  • E^(1) (NLO four-body LEC) = calibrated to E(4He) = -28.3 MeV
    Required for renormalization; makes the alpha-particle energy exact at NLO.
  • R3 (fake three-body range) = 0.4149 fm
    Chosen to reproduce the optimal 4He binding energy at x=1; not derived from first principles.
  • x (improvement scale fraction) = 1.0 (tested 0.9 to 1.0)
    Ties the fake ranges together; chosen to preserve perturbativity and minimize numerical uncertainty, with only a narrow range checked.
  • q_A^(1) for A=6,12,16 = q6 ~ 0, q12 ~ 25.0 MeV, q16 ~ 34.88 MeV
    Coefficients of the 1/Lambda extrapolation of NLO energies; fitted to numerical cutoff dependence and used to quote central values, but not to experimental target energies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pionless EFT power counting and regulator independence
    Standard framework from Refs. [1,21]; contact interactions with a cutoff are assumed to represent low-energy nuclear physics, with LECs adjusted to remove cutoff dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper Improved LO can be compensated at NLO/N2LO
    The authors expect perturbative compensation for x <= 1, citing Refs. [16,17], but do not prove it for A >= 6.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual NLO cutoff dependence follows Eq. (9), E_A^(1)(Lambda) = E_A^(1)(1 + q_A^(1)/Lambda)
    Used to extrapolate central values; higher-order terms in 1/Lambda are neglected, and the authors note the truncation error estimate may be an underestimate.
  • ad hoc to paper R3 and x choices keep the theory inside the LO uncertainty band
    R3 is fixed to 4He and x=1 is chosen to minimize numerical errors; independence of x is not established beyond the 0.9 to 1.0 range.
  • domain assumption Numerical methods (SVM and VMC-NQS) converge to exact solutions
    Stochastic Variational Method and neural-network Quantum Monte Carlo are trusted and benchmarked for A <= 6.
  • domain assumption Higher-order and isospin-breaking terms are negligible at NLO
    Standard NLO truncation; down-up quark mass difference is neglected, while Coulomb effects are included through C^(1)_pp.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A renormalizable theory for not-so-light nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JM5E76CE

@misc{pith2026250509299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A renormalizable theory for not-so-light nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JM5E76CE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09299}
}
abstract

We present an improved action for Pionless Effective Field Theory (EFT). Previous formulations of renormalizable nuclear EFTs have encountered instabilities in systems with more than four nucleons. We resolve this issue by introducing a finite interaction range at leading order, which is compensated for in perturbation theory at next-to-leading order. Calculated ground-state energies of $^4$He, $^6$Li, $^{12}$C, and $^{16}$O converge and agree with experiment within theoretical uncertainties. This first successful implementation of systematic renormalizability beyond the lightest nuclei enables not only applications to larger nuclei but also extensions to other EFTs in the strong-coupling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09299 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Ground-state energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ground-state energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Observation of renormalization group invariance in symmetry-restored nuclear lattice effective field theory

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    After restoring Galilean invariance with counterterms, the N2LO lattice prediction for 4He binding stays constant for cutoffs 250-400 MeV and matches experiment.

  2. Hypernuclei with Neural Network Quantum States

    nucl-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neural network quantum states, extended to include Lambda hyperons, reproduce hypernuclear separation energies to within roughly 9% and predict the observed proton-radius shrinkage in 7ΛLi.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    power counting

    have successfully described nuclear systems with A≤ 5 nucleons [2] with systematic and efficient control over theoretical uncertainties and short-range dynamics. However, they have encountered difficulties in produc- ing stable ground states at leading order (LO) in heavier systems, in contrast with phenomenological approaches that eschew a consistent hie...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    We apply the improved action to 4He and 6Li us- ing the SVM, and to 12C and 16O using the variational Monte Carlo method based on neural-network quantum states (VMC-NQS) [26–28]

    The proximity to the experimental value a1/2(nd) = (0.65± 0.04) fm [25] indicates no issues arise unless the fake three-body range becomes significantly larger than the one we employ, which is roughly half the size of the two-body ranges. We apply the improved action to 4He and 6Li us- ing the SVM, and to 12C and 16O using the variational Monte Carlo meth...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020), 1906.12122

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Bagnarol, M

    M. Bagnarol, M. Sch¨ afer, B. Bazak, and N. Barnea, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138078 (2023), 2306.04036

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A 646, 444 (1999), nucl-th/9811046

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Platter, H.-W

    L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052101 (2004), cond-mat/0404313

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Bazak, M

    B. Bazak, M. Eliyahu, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052502 (2016), 1607.01509

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Ji and D

    C. Ji and D. R. Phillips, Few Body Syst. 54, 2317 (2013), 1212.1845

    arXiv 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bazak, J

    B. Bazak, J. Kirscher, S. K¨ onig, M. Pav´ on Valderrama, N. Barnea, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 143001 (2019), 1812.00387

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, U. van Kolck, and S. A. Vitiello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223002 (2017), 1707.08546

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    De-Leon and F

    H. De-Leon and F. Pederiva (2022), 2211.00165

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Stetcu, B

    I. Stetcu, B. R. Barrett, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 653, 358 (2007), nucl-th/0609023

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Contessi, A

    L. Contessi, A. Lovato, F. Pederiva, A. Roggero, J. Kirscher, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 772, 839 (2017), 1701.06516

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bansal, S

    A. Bansal, S. Binder, A. Ekstr¨ om, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054301 (2018), 1712.10246

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C.-J. Yang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054304 (2021), 2011.11584

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C. J. Yang, Phys. Rev. C109, 054003 (2024), 2312.05085

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C.-J. Yang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. Ru- pak, and U. van Kolck, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 233 (2023), 2109.13303

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Contessi, M

    L. Contessi, M. Pav´ on Valderrama, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138903 (2024), 2403.16596

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Contessi, M

    L. Contessi, M. Sch¨ afer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022814 (2024), 2310.15760

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ekstr¨ om and L

    A. Ekstr¨ om and L. Platter, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139207 (2025), 2409.08197

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Suzuki and K

    Y. Suzuki and K. Varga, Stochastic Variational Approach to Quantum-Mechanical Few-Body Problems (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    K¨ onig, H

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Grießhammer, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, J. Phys. G 43, 055106 (2016), 1508.05085

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. W. Hackenburg, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044002 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A 676, 357 (2000), nucl-th/9906032

    2000 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. Wang, G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, F. G. Kondev, M. MacCormick, X. Xu, and B. Pfeiffer, Chin. Phys. C 36, 1603 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    W. Dilg, L. Koester, and W. Nistler, Phys. Lett. B. 36, 208 (1971)

    1971

  20. [28]

    Adams, G

    C. Adams, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 022502 (2021), 2007.14282

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gnech, C

    A. Gnech, C. Adams, N. Brawand, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Few Body Syst. 63, 7 (2022), 2108.06836

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 142501 (2024), 2308.16266

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kievsky and M

    A. Kievsky and M. Gattobigio, Few Body Syst. 57, 217 (2016), 1511.09184

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kievsky, M

    A. Kievsky, M. Viviani, D. Logoteta, I. Bombaci, and L. Girlanda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 072701 (2018), 1806.02636

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gattobigio, A

    M. Gattobigio, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034004 (2019), 1903.08900

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Deltuva, M

    A. Deltuva, M. Gattobigio, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064001 (2020), 2011.06828

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gattobigio and A

    M. Gattobigio and A. Kievsky, Few Body Syst. 64, 86 (2023), 2305.16814

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kirscher, H

    J. Kirscher, H. W. Griesshammer, D. Shukla, and H. M. Hofmann, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 239 (2010), 0903.5538

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schiavilla, L

    R. Schiavilla, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, L. E. Marcucci, M. Piarulli, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054003 (2021), 2102.02327

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. M. Bub, M. Piarulli, R. J. Furnstahl, S. Pastore, and D. R. Phillips (2024), 2408.02480

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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