arxiv: 2604.14985 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-16 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Perturbative calculations of light nuclei up to N³LO in chiral effective field theory

Oliver Thim , Andreas Ekstr\"om , Christian Forss\'en

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 09:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th

keywords chiral effective field theorynuclear binding energieslight nucleipower countingperturbative calculationsrenormalization group

0 comments

The pith

Chiral effective field theory with RG-guided power counting predicts binding energies of tritium, helium-4, and lithium-6 up to N3LO by treating subleading two-nucleon interactions perturbatively.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper computes ground-state energies of light nuclei in chiral effective field theory at successively higher orders. It employs a power counting scheme informed by renormalization-group invariance to organize the expansion and treats subleading two-nucleon forces as perturbative corrections. Ground-state energies for helium-4 and lithium-6 are obtained via numerical derivatives of results from Lanczos diagonalization. Including the tritium binding energy in the fit proves essential for obtaining stable predictions in the larger systems. The calculations demonstrate that this framework can generate nuclear interactions with genuine predictive power while remaining systematically connected to quantum chromodynamics.

Core claim

The central claim is that renormalization-group guided power counting in chiral EFT permits a consistent perturbative treatment of two-nucleon interactions up to N3LO. When the low-energy constants are calibrated to the tritium binding energy, the resulting interactions yield reliable ground-state energies for helium-4 and lithium-6 without encountering large higher-order corrections or convergence breakdowns in these few-nucleon systems.

What carries the argument

Renormalization-group guided power counting that organizes chiral EFT interactions and justifies perturbative inclusion of subleading two-nucleon forces.

If this is right

Light-nuclei binding energies can be calculated with controlled truncation errors from the chiral expansion.
Calibrating the interaction to the tritium binding energy is required to obtain robust results for helium-4 and lithium-6.
Perturbative treatment of subleading two-nucleon forces avoids the need for full non-perturbative resummation in these systems.
Nuclear structure predictions gain a more direct and systematic link to the underlying quantum chromodynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same power counting may be tested on other observables such as charge radii or electromagnetic transition strengths in light nuclei.
If perturbative convergence persists, the approach could lower computational demands for ab initio calculations in medium-mass nuclei.
Discrepancies with data might point to the necessity of including higher-order three-nucleon forces at N3LO.
The framework could be extended to scattering observables or to nuclei with A greater than 6 to check the range of validity.

Load-bearing premise

The renormalization-group guided power counting stays valid and subleading two-nucleon interactions can be added perturbatively without generating large higher-order effects or convergence failures in four- and six-nucleon systems.

What would settle it

If the N3LO predictions for the helium-4 or lithium-6 binding energies deviate from experiment by amounts larger than the expected truncation error, or if adding the next order worsens rather than improves agreement, the perturbative power-counting scheme would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14985 by Andreas Ekstr\"om, Christian Forss\'en, Oliver Thim.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Moreover, unnaturally large sub-leading contributions and a pronounced cutoff dependence are observed, particularly at N3LO. We then explore how predictions for 4He and 6Li are impacted by gradually conditioning the inference of the S-wave LECs on the binding energies of 2,3H. This study is prompted by the observation that A > 2 energies are very sensitive to the LECs in the 3S1−3D1 channel, and in partic… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ground-state energies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relative error in FD computations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ground-state energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ground-state energies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We predict ground-state energies of $^3$H, $^4$He, and $^6$Li in chiral effective field theory up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order (N$^3$LO) using a power counting guided by renormalization-group invariance. Subleading two-nucleon interactions are treated perturbatively, and for $^4$He and $^6$Li, we calculate the perturbative corrections from numerical derivatives of ground-state energies obtained with Lanczos diagonalization. We find that including the $^3$H binding energy in the calibration is essential for robust predictions of $^4$He and $^6$Li. This work demonstrates that the employed power counting can be applied to construct nuclear interactions with predictive power for light nuclei, bringing nuclear structure predictions closer to a foundation in quantum chromodynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives concrete N3LO perturbative results for 4He and 6Li using Lanczos derivatives and shows tritium calibration matters, but leaves the size and stability of those corrections unexamined.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that treating subleading two-nucleon forces perturbatively at N3LO with RG-guided power counting produces usable numbers for helium-4 and lithium-6 once the tritium binding energy is folded into the fit. They compute the corrections via numerical derivatives of Lanczos ground-state energies rather than full re-diagonalization, which is a practical shortcut for these small systems. That approach is new enough in this context to be worth noting, and the calibration test is a clear, honest result: without tritium the predictions for the other nuclei shift noticeably. The work stays within established chiral EFT machinery and delivers explicit ground-state energies up to N3LO for A=4 and A=6. That is useful incremental data for anyone tracking how well the power counting holds in light nuclei. The soft spot is the missing validation for the perturbative step itself. The abstract gives no numbers on the relative size of the N3LO correction versus N2LO, no scan over derivative step size to confirm linearity, and no a-posteriori estimate from omitted orders. If the series is only marginally convergent, fitting to tritium could mask rather than fix the problem. Without those checks the claim of predictive power grounded in QCD rests on the assumption that the RG counting remains valid, which the paper does not test directly. This is the kind of paper that belongs in a reading group for nuclear EFT practitioners who want to see the next concrete numbers and the calibration sensitivity. A referee should look at it because the calculations are non-trivial and the numerical method is reproducible in principle, even though the convergence evidence needs tightening before the predictive-power conclusion can be taken at face value.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents perturbative calculations of the ground-state energies of ^3H, ^4He, and ^6Li in chiral effective field theory up to N^3LO. It employs a renormalization-group guided power counting in which subleading two-nucleon interactions are treated perturbatively. Corrections for ^4He and ^6Li are obtained from numerical derivatives of Lanczos ground-state energies. The authors report that including the ^3H binding energy in the low-energy constant calibration is essential for obtaining robust predictions of the A=4 and A=6 systems and conclude that the approach demonstrates predictive power for light nuclei with a foundation closer to QCD.

Significance. If the perturbative treatment and RG power counting are validated, the work would represent a useful step toward systematic, computationally efficient nuclear interactions at higher orders. It could reduce the cost of including N^3LO terms while preserving the ability to make falsifiable predictions for light nuclei once calibrated to a minimal set of data.

major comments (2)

[Perturbative corrections and numerical derivatives] The section describing the perturbative corrections for ^4He and ^6Li (via numerical derivatives of Lanczos energies) provides no explicit convergence diagnostics. There is no reported magnitude of the N^3LO shift relative to N^2LO, no test of derivative stability with respect to step size, and no a-posteriori error estimate from omitted orders. Because the central claim of robust, predictive power rests on the perturbative series remaining well-behaved in these systems, this omission is load-bearing.
[Calibration and results for A=4,6] The calibration discussion asserts that inclusion of the ^3H binding energy is essential for robust ^4He and ^6Li predictions, yet the manuscript does not quantify the change in those predictions when ^3H is omitted from the fit. A direct before/after comparison would be required to substantiate the claim that the RG-guided power counting yields predictive power only after this calibration step.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states concrete numerical results are obtained but does not quote the final energies or uncertainties; adding these values would improve readability.
[Methods] Notation for the perturbative expansion parameter and the numerical derivative step size should be defined explicitly in the methods section to allow reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped identify areas where additional detail will strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested information in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The section describing the perturbative corrections for ^4He and ^6Li (via numerical derivatives of Lanczos energies) provides no explicit convergence diagnostics. There is no reported magnitude of the N^3LO shift relative to N^2LO, no test of derivative stability with respect to step size, and no a-posteriori error estimate from omitted orders. Because the central claim of robust, predictive power rests on the perturbative series remaining well-behaved in these systems, this omission is load-bearing.

Authors: We agree that explicit convergence diagnostics are important to substantiate the perturbative treatment. In the revised manuscript we will report the magnitudes of the N^3LO shifts relative to N^2LO for both ^4He and ^6Li, include tests of numerical derivative stability under variations in step size, and add an a-posteriori truncation-error estimate based on the observed order-by-order convergence pattern. These additions will directly address the concern that the well-behaved nature of the series is load-bearing for our conclusions. revision: yes
Referee: The calibration discussion asserts that inclusion of the ^3H binding energy is essential for robust ^4He and ^6Li predictions, yet the manuscript does not quantify the change in those predictions when ^3H is omitted from the fit. A direct before/after comparison would be required to substantiate the claim that the RG-guided power counting yields predictive power only after this calibration step.

Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative before/after comparison is needed to make the claim fully explicit. In the revised manuscript we will add a direct comparison (in a table or supplementary figure) of the ^4He and ^6Li ground-state energies obtained with and without the ^3H binding energy in the low-energy-constant calibration. This will quantify the improvement in predictive accuracy and robustness when the ^3H datum is included, thereby supporting the assertion that this calibration step is essential. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The provided abstract and description show a standard calibration of low-energy constants to a subset of data (including ³H binding energy) followed by perturbative predictions for ⁴He and ⁶Li using numerical derivatives of Lanczos energies. No quoted equations or steps reduce any claimed prediction exactly to the fitted inputs by construction, nor do they rely on self-citation chains, imported uniqueness theorems, or smuggled ansatze. The power counting and perturbative treatment are presented as independent methodological choices whose validity is asserted separately from the numerical results. This is the most common honest outcome for such EFT applications.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the chiral EFT Lagrangian, a specific RG-guided power counting scheme, and the validity of perturbative treatment of subleading 2N forces. Low-energy constants are fitted to data (including tritium binding energy). No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Low-energy constants (LECs) in chiral EFT
Standard chiral EFT parameters fitted to nucleon-nucleon scattering and the tritium binding energy to calibrate the interaction.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Chiral effective field theory power counting guided by renormalization-group invariance
Invoked to justify treating subleading two-nucleon interactions perturbatively up to N3LO.
domain assumption Perturbative expansion converges for the ground-state energies of A=3-6 nuclei
Assumed when adding corrections via numerical derivatives of Lanczos results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5441 in / 1436 out tokens · 67902 ms · 2026-05-10T09:27:11.944357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

S. Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

1979
[2]

Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys

S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990)

1990
[3]

Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl

S. Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

1991
[4]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rept.503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2011
[5]

Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces

E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Mod- ern Theory of Nuclear Forces, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1773 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[6]

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

work page arXiv 2020
[7]

Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many-Body Theory, Front

H. Hergert, A Guided Tour ofab initioNuclear Many-Body Theory, Front. in Phys.8, 379 (2020), arXiv:2008.05061 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

Ekstr¨ om, C

A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, What is ab initio in nuclear theory?, Front. Phys.11, 1129094 (2023), arXiv:2212.11064 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[9]

Elhatisari, D

S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, T. Luu, and U.-G. Meißner, Ab ini- tio alpha-alpha scattering, Nature528, 111 (2015), arXiv:1506.03513 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2015
[10]

S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, AbInitioLimits of Atomic Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021), arXiv:1905.10475 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2021
[11]

Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

B. Huet al., Ab initio predictions link the neutron skin of 208Pb to nuclear forces, Nature Phys.18, 1196 (2022), arXiv:2112.01125 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

Z. H. Sun, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, G. Hagen, G. R. 6 Jansen, and T. Papenbrock, Multiscale Physics of Atomic Nuclei from First Principles, Phys. Rev. X15, 011028 (2025), arXiv:2404.00058 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Nogga, R

A. Nogga, R. G. E. Timmermans, and U. van Kolck, Renormalization of one-pion exchange and power count- ing, Phys. Rev. C72, 054006 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0506005

work page arXiv 2005
[14]

Frank, D

W. Frank, D. J. Land, and R. M. Spector, Singular po- tentials, Rev. Mod. Phys.43, 36 (1971)

1971
[15]

van Kolck, The Problem of Renormalization of Chiral Nuclear Forces, Front

U. van Kolck, The Problem of Renormalization of Chiral Nuclear Forces, Front. in Phys.8, 79 (2020), arXiv:2003.06721 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[16]

Long and U

B. Long and U. van Kolck, Renormalization of Singular Potentials and Power Counting, Annals Phys.323, 1304 (2008), arXiv:0707.4325 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[17]

Long and C

B. Long and C. J. Yang, Short-range nuclear forces in singlet channels, Phys. Rev. C86, 024001 (2012), arXiv:1202.4053 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2012
[18]

Long and C.-J

B. Long and C.-J. Yang, Renormalizing chiral nuclear forces: Triplet channels, Phys. Rev. C85, 034002 (2012)

2012
[19]

Long and C

B. Long and C. J. Yang, Renormalizing chiral nuclear forces: a case study of 3P0, Phys. Rev. C84, 057001 (2011), arXiv:1108.0985 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2011
[20]

Pavon Valderrama, Reexamining the perturbative renormalizability of coupled triplets, Phys

M. Pavon Valderrama, Reexamining the perturbative renormalizability of coupled triplets, Phys. Rev. C113, 014001 (2026), arXiv:2510.15789 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2026
[21]

M. P. Valderrama, Perturbative renormalizability of chi- ral two pion exchange in nucleon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Rev. C83, 024003 (2011), arXiv:0912.0699 [nucl- th]

work page arXiv 2011
[22]

O. Thim, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Perturbative com- putations of neutron-proton scattering observables us- ing renormalization-group invariant chiral effective field theory up to N3LO, Phys. Rev. C109, 064001 (2024), arXiv:2402.15325 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

Thim, Low-Energy Theorems for Neutron–Proton Scattering inχEFT Using a Perturbative Power Count- ing, Few Body Syst.65, 69 (2024), arXiv:2403.10292 [nucl-th]

O. Thim, Low-Energy Theorems for Neutron–Proton Scattering inχEFT Using a Perturbative Power Count- ing, Few Body Syst.65, 69 (2024), arXiv:2403.10292 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[24]

Y.-H. Song, R. Lazauskas, and U. van Kolck, Triton bind- ing energy and neutron-deuteron scattering up to next- to-leading order in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C96, 024002 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 100, 019901 (2019)], arXiv:1612.09090 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2017
[25]

C. J. Yang, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, and G. Hagen, Power counting in chiral effective field theory and nuclear bind- ing, Phys. Rev. C103, 054304 (2021), arXiv:2011.11584 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2021
[26]

O. Thim, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Perturba- tiveχEFT calculations of the deuteron and triton up to N2LO, Phys. Rev. C112, 064008 (2025), arXiv:2510.12207 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Renormalization- group-invariant effective field theory

A. M. Gasparyan and E. Epelbaum, “Renormalization- group-invariant effective field theory” for few-nucleon systems is cutoff dependent, Phys. Rev. C107, 034001 (2023), arXiv:2210.16225 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[28]

R. Peng, B. Long, and F.-R. Xu, Contact operators in renormalization of attractive singular potentials, Phys. Rev. C110, 054001 (2024), arXiv:2407.08342 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

C. J. Yang, A further study on the renormaliza- tion group aspect of perturbative corrections (2024), arXiv:2410.08845 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[30]

Thim, py-ncsm: Python code for the no- core shell model,https://github.com/othim/py-ncsm (2025), github repository

O. Thim, py-ncsm: Python code for the no- core shell model,https://github.com/othim/py-ncsm (2025), github repository

2025
[31]

Forss´ en, B

C. Forss´ en, B. D. Carlsson, H. T. Johansson, D. S¨ a¨ af, A. Bansal, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, Large-scale ex- act diagonalizations reveal low-momentum scales of nu- clei, Phys. Rev. C97, 034328 (2018), arXiv:1712.09951 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2018
[32]

Caurier and F

E. Caurier and F. Nowacki, Present Status of Shell Model Techniques, Acta Physica Polonica B30, 705 (1999)

1999
[33]

Caurier, G

E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, J. Retamosa, and A. P. Zuker, Full 0 h-bar omega shell model calculation of the binding energies of the 1f(7/2) nuclei, Phys. Rev. C59, 2033 (1999), arXiv:nucl- th/9809068

work page arXiv 2033
[34]

Navrtil and E

P. Navrtil and E. Caurier, Nuclear structure with accu- rate chiral perturbation theory nucleon nucleon potential: Application to Li-6 and B-10, Phys. Rev. C69, 014311 (2004)

2004
[35]

B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, Y.-Z. Ma, D. Lee, and U.- G. Meißner, Perturbative Quantum Monte Carlo Method for Nuclear Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 242501 (2022), arXiv:2111.14191 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2022
[36]

Curry, J

R. Curry, J. E. Lynn, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Gezerlis, Second-order perturbation theory in continuum quantum Monte Carlo calculations, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042021 (2023), arXiv:2302.07285 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Curry, R

R. Curry, R. Somasundaram, S. Gandolfi, A. Gez- erlis, and I. Tews, Perturbative treatment of nonlo- cal chiral interactions in auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo calculations, Phys. Rev. C111, 015801 (2025), arXiv:2409.16365 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, M. T. Pratola, and S. Wesolowski, Quantifying Correlated Truncation Errors in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. C100, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1904.10581 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

P. J. Millican, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, D. R. Phillips, and M. T. Pratola, Assessing correlated trunca- tion errors in modern nucleon-nucleon potentials, Phys. Rev. C110, 044002 (2024), arXiv:2402.13165 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

M. C. Birse, Power counting with one-pion exchange, Phys. Rev. C74, 014003 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0507077

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[41]

Wu and B

S. Wu and B. Long, Perturbativennscattering in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C99, 024003 (2019)

2019
[42]

R. Peng, S. Lyu, and B. Long, Perturbative chiral nu- cleon–nucleon potential for the 3P0 partial wave, Com- mun. Theor. Phys.72, 095301 (2020), arXiv:2011.13186 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[43]

Mondal, M

S. Mondal, M. Sch¨ afer, M. Bagnarol, N. Barnea, U. Raha, and J. Kirscher, A practical approach to per- turbative corrections to few-body observables (2025), arXiv:2509.17366 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

Fornberg, Generation of finite difference formulas on arbitrarily spaced grids, Mathematics of Computation 51, 699 (1988)

B. Fornberg, Generation of finite difference formulas on arbitrarily spaced grids, Mathematics of Computation 51, 699 (1988)

1988
[45]

W. J. Huang, M. Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures, Chin. Phys. C45, 030002 (2021)

2020
[46]

See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for phase shifts and additional deuteron re- sults
[47]

J. L. Friar, Dimensional power counting in nuclei, Few Body Syst.22, 161 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607020

work page arXiv 1997
[48]

Binderet al.(LENPIC), Few-nucleon and many- nucleon systems with semilocal coordinate-space regu- 7 larized chiral nucleon-nucleon forces, Phys

S. Binderet al.(LENPIC), Few-nucleon and many- nucleon systems with semilocal coordinate-space regu- 7 larized chiral nucleon-nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. C98, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1802.08584 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2018
[49]

K ¨onig, Energies and radii of light nuclei around unitarity, Eur

S. K¨ onig, Energies and radii of light nuclei around uni- tarity, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 113 (2020), arXiv:1910.12627 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[50]

B. D. Carlsson, A. Ekstr¨ om, C. Forss´ en, D. F. Str¨ omberg, G. R. Jansen, O. Lilja, M. Lindby, B. A. Mattsson, and K. A. Wendt, Uncertainty analysis and order-by-order optimization of chiral nuclear interactions, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011019 (2016), arXiv:1506.02466 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2016
[51]

Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning

D. Frame, R. He, I. Ipsen, D. Lee, D. Lee, and E. Rrapaj, Eigenvector continuation with subspace learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 032501 (2018), arXiv:1711.07090 [nucl- th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[52]

K¨ onig, A

S. K¨ onig, A. Ekstr¨ om, K. Hebeler, D. Lee, and A. Schwenk, Eigenvector Continuation as an Efficient and Accurate Emulator for Uncertainty Quantification, Phys. Lett. B810, 135814 (2020), arXiv:1909.08446 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[53]

Furnstahl and Sebastian König and Dean Lee , title =

T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Eigenvector Continuation and Projection-Based Emulators, (2023), arXiv:2310.19419 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[54]

V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Partial wave analysis of all nucleon- nucleon scattering data below 350-MeV, Phys. Rev. C 48, 792 (1993)

1993
[55]

Navarro P´ erez, J

R. Navarro P´ erez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, The low-energy structure of the nucleon–nucleon interaction: statistical versus systematic uncertainties, J. Phys. G43, 114001 (2016), arXiv:1410.8097 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2016
[56]

D. R. Phillips, G. Rupak, and M. J. Savage, Improving the convergence of N N effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B473, 209 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9908054

work page arXiv 2000
[57]

Machleidt, Phys

R. Machleidt, The High precision, charge dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential (CD-Bonn), Phys. Rev. C63, 024001 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0006014. 8 END MA TTER Numerical accuracy of perturbative computations.− We now analyze the convergence of the FD method for computing perturbative corrections in more detail. The relative error in ann:th-order finite-d...

work page arXiv 2001
[58]

The (+∆) indicates that the Nijmegen phase shift atT lab = 25 MeV is shifted +7 ◦ to reduce the strength of the NLO correction, as seen in the NLO phase shift predictions in Fig

used, as indicated. The (+∆) indicates that the Nijmegen phase shift atT lab = 25 MeV is shifted +7 ◦ to reduce the strength of the NLO correction, as seen in the NLO phase shift predictions in Fig. S1. Pot. Partial wave LO NLO N2LO N3LO 1S0 5 5, 25 5, 25, 50 5, 25, 50, 75 A 3S1 30 - 30, 50 30, 50 ϵ1 50 50 1S0 5 5, 25 (+∆) 5, 25, 50 5, 25, 50, 75 B’ 3S1 3...