Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT

Dean Lee; Evgeny Epelbaum; Hermann Krebs; Lukas Bovermann

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a non-perturbative N3LO chiral lattice calculation, with three-nucleon contact couplings fitted to triton binding and half-life, reproduces the helion energy and predicts charge radii a few percent below…

desk verdict A transparent, technically sound A=3 lattice EFT benchmark whose truncation-error estimate is the soft spot -- and the authors already flag it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19613 v1 pith:GFGURJO2 submitted 2024-11-29 nucl-th hep-lathep-phnucl-ex

Lukas Bovermann , Evgeny Epelbaum , Hermann Krebs , Dean Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thhep-lathep-phnucl-ex

keywords chiraleffectivefieldtheorynuclearlatticeEFTthree-nucleonforcetritonhalf-lifehelionchargeradiusN3LOlow-energyconstantsnon-perturbativecalculation

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 aims to show that three-nucleon observables can be computed non-perturbatively in chiral effective field theory on a lattice at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO), without expanding the subleading nuclear forces in perturbation theory. After fitting the two three-nucleon contact low-energy constants to the triton ground-state energy and beta-decay half-life, the calculation reproduces the helion ground-state energy within uncertainties and predicts triton and helion charge radii a few percent below the experimental values. The paper also finds that smearing the three-nucleon contact interaction has no significant effect in the three-nucleon system, and that including data from heavier nuclei in the fit does not clearly improve these observables. If the result holds, it demonstrates a reliable non-perturbative route through the higher-order chiral expansion for light nuclei.

What carries the argument

The central object is the N3LO lattice Hamiltonian for the three-nucleon system: the previously built N3LO two-nucleon interaction of Ref. [8] together with the leading three-nucleon force $V_{cE}^{(0)}$, $V_{cD}^{(0)}$, and $V_{3N}^{\rm TPE}$. Because the system is small, the Hamiltonian is diagonalized non-perturbatively: the ground-state energy is obtained by a Lanczos solve on lattices of lengths $L=4a,\dots,9a$ and then extrapolated to infinite volume with the three-body formula $E(L\to\infty)=E_\infty+E_0 L^{-3/2}\exp(-L/L_0)$ from Ref. [22]. The carrying objects for the fit are the two low-energy constants $c_D$ and $c_E$ (or $C_{0,3N}$), tuned to the triton half-life and ground-state energy respectively, with the truncation uncertainty of Eq. (3) estimated by setting $X_{\rm LO}=X_{\rm NLO}$ and $X_{\rm N2LO}=X_{\rm N3LO}$ because only NLO and N3LO results were computed.

What would settle it

Compute the same three-nucleon observables at full N2LO order and check whether the N2LO point falls inside the error band estimated from Eq. (3); if it falls outside, the truncation uncertainty is underestimated and the fitted low-energy constants are less constrained than claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working on a lattice with spacing $a=1.9733$ fm, the authors solve the few-nucleon Schrödinger equation exactly at N3LO instead of treating subleading forces perturbatively. They take the N3LO two-nucleon lattice interaction from Ref. [8], add the leading three-nucleon force terms $V_{cE}^{(0)}$, $V_{cD}^{(0)}$, and $V_{3N}^{\rm TPE}$, fix $c_D$ by the triton half-life computed with the N2LO axial current, and fix either $c_E$ or the smeared contact coefficient $C_{0,3N}$ by the triton ground-state energy. The resulting helion energy lands within the experimental error bars, while both charge radii come out a few percent low, which the authors attribute to neglected exchange contributions to the charge density operator. The central quantitative result is that the NLO helion deviation is cured by the N2LO three-nucleon force, and that the choice between unsmeared $c_E$ and smeared $C_{0,3N}$ does not matter at the three-nucleon level.

Load-bearing premise

The error bars rest on treating the NLO result as a proxy for the missing leading-order result and the N3LO result as a proxy for the missing N2LO result, since only NLO and N3LO computations were actually performed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The N2LO three-nucleon force removes the NLO discrepancy in the helion ground-state energy, so the triton-helion splitting emerges without fitting to any $A>3$ nucleus.
Triton and helion charge radii are predicted a few percent below experiment, pointing to two-body charge-density (exchange-current) operators as the likely missing input in Eq. (5).
Smearing the three-nucleon contact interaction has no significant effect at $A=3$, so any locality effect seen in the literature likely requires systems with more than three nucleons.
Including bound-state energies of heavier nuclei in the LEC fit, as in the wavefunction-matching approach, does not noticeably improve the three-nucleon charge radii, and a leading-order axial current with neglected truncation uncertainty appears insufficient for the triton half-life.
The constructed N3LO interaction can be applied to nucleon-deuteron scattering through the adiabatic projection method.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors do not test this, but if the charge-radius shortfall is really caused by omitted exchange currents, adding those two-body charge-density operators should shift both radii upward by roughly two to four percent while leaving the ground-state energies nearly unchanged.
By the same logic, running the same Hamiltonian at $A=4$ or $A=6$ would separate the smearing-insensitivity seen here from the multi-nucleon correlations that make the local smeared contact matter in medium-mass binding.
A direct N2LO calculation would provide the missing anchor for the truncation estimate in Eq. (3); if the N2LO point lies outside the band built from NLO and N3LO values, the quoted LEC errors are understated.
Combining this non-perturbative N3LO Hamiltonian with wavefunction matching could push the same fitted interactions to $A\geq 4$ without a sign problem, giving an independent check on the fitted LECs.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper does something genuinely new in a modest way: it shows that a non-perturbative N3LO chiral lattice EFT calculation of the three-nucleon bound states is feasible without wavefunction matching, and it extracts values for the leading 3NF LECs. The helion ground-state energy comes out close to experiment, and the charge radii are a few percent low, with the gap plausibly blamed on omitted exchange currents. The two-nucleon interaction and axial current are inherited from previous work, so the new content is the A=3 computation and the LEC fit -- a legitimate extension rather than a discovery, but a useful one for the subfield.

The strengths are real: the exact diagonalization and fitting are standard and described cleanly; Table 1 is honest about which quantities are fitted (triton energy and half-life) and which are predictions (helion energy, both charge radii); and the comparison to the wavefunction-matching results is fair. The null result for smearing of the 3N contact is stated without overinterpretation. This is careful work.

The soft spot is the truncation error in Eq. (3). The formula is designed for a complete N^nLO expansion, but only NLO and N3LO points exist, so the authors set X_LO = X_NLO and X_N2LO = X_N3LO. The second substitution zeroes the term with the largest prefactor, Q|X_N2LO - X_N3LO|, and that term could add roughly 50% to the energy error bars if a real N2LO point lies between NLO and N3LO. The paper explicitly warns that the estimate "should be taken with care", and it does -- but the quoted LEC uncertainties and the "close to experiment" language lean on those error bars. Since the helion energy is a real prediction and it agrees even under a more conservative error budget, the central claim survives; the problem is more about overstated precision on the LECs. The fitted triton observables are by construction, so they should not be counted as support.

Who is this for? Chiral lattice EFT practitioners and few-nucleon theorists who want a non-perturbative N3LO benchmark or starting LEC values. It deserves refereeing: the computation is clean, the limitations are stated rather than hidden, and the truncation-error issue is addressable in review, not fatal. My advice: send it to review, and ask the authors to add a conservative alternative truncation estimate or an explicit N2LO point, but publish it as an exploratory benchmark.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents non-perturbative exact-diagonalization calculations for the three-nucleon system using an N3LO chiral lattice interaction. The three-nucleon contact LECs (cE and cD, or C0,3N and cD) are adjusted to reproduce the triton ground-state energy and beta-decay half-life, with the axial current at N2LO; the helion ground-state energy and the charge radii of triton and helion are then computed as independent checks. The results are compared with experiment, with the NLO version of the same lattice setup, and with recent wave-function-matching lattice calculations. The central finding is that the N3LO calculation yields a helion energy consistent with experiment, charge radii a few percent below experiment, and no significant dependence on the smearing of the three-nucleon contact interaction.

Significance. If taken at face value, the results provide a useful benchmark for non-perturbative chiral lattice EFT in the A=3 sector without a Monte Carlo sign problem. The helion energy and charge radii serve as genuine independent checks because the triton energy and half-life are fit targets, and the paper is transparent about which quantities are fitted. The exact-diagonalization approach and the explicit LEC determination make the calculation reproducible in principle. The quantitative significance is limited by the incompleteness of the N3LO truncation-error estimate and by the single lattice size used for the radii, but the qualitative demonstration of a non-perturbative N3LO three-nucleon simulation is valuable for the lattice-EFT community.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The truncation uncertainty used to set the error bars in Table 1 is not a complete N3LO estimate. With only NLO and N3LO results, setting X_LO = X_NLO and X_N2LO = X_N3LO removes the term with the largest prefactor in Eq. (3), namely Q|X_N2LO - X_N3LO| with Q = 1/3, and the retained 'NLO' calculation still uses the N3LO two-nucleon interaction from Ref. [8] with only the three-nucleon force and the axial current omitted, so X_NLO is not a pure chiral-order result. The tabulated errors should therefore be understood as lower bounds on the truncation error, yet they are used for the comparison with experiment and with Refs. [3,5]. Please provide a conservative alternative (for example, retaining Q|X_NLO - X_N3LO| or performing a sensitivity study with varied Q) or state explicitly in the text and in Table 1 that the quoted errors are not full truncation uncertainties.
[Section 3, LEC fitting] The fitting criterion of bisecting the LEC interval until the observables are closer to the experimental values than the truncation error bar makes the LEC uncertainties in Eqs. (1)-(2) conditional on the truncation estimate discussed above. Because the acceptance interval is the truncation error, an underestimated truncation error directly shrinks the fitted LEC ranges and the propagated fitting uncertainties. Please propagate a more conservative truncation estimate through the LEC fit, or report the LEC uncertainties separately and state their dependence on the adopted acceptance criterion.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, before Eq. (3)] The statement 'we thus set X_LO = X_NLO and X_N2LO = X_N3LO' should be spelled out by explicitly writing the retained terms in Eq. (3), since a reader may otherwise think the NLO-N2LO difference is also discarded.
[Section 3.2] The charge radii are computed at a single lattice size L = 9a without the infinite-volume extrapolation used for the energies; a brief estimate of the expected finite-size effect would help assess the few-percent deficit relative to experiment.
[Table 1] Marking the fitted rows (triton ground-state energy and triton half-life) with a footnote symbol would make the by-construction agreement visible at a glance.
[Section 4] The statement that the locality effect observed in Ref. [11] likely only occurs in systems with more than three nucleons is speculative; consider softening the wording.
[Abstract] The abstract contains a spacing typo in 'byadjusting' that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper transparently labels the fitted triton energy and half-life, and its predictive claims (helion energy, charge radii, NLO row) are computed after the LEC determination rather than reduced to it.

full rationale

Fitted quantities are labeled as fitted. Section 3 states: "The triton half-life was used to determine the value of the LEC cD, which has been followed by a fit of the triton ground state energy to fix either cE or C0,3N", and Table 1 explicitly marks the triton energy as "fitted using LEC cE or C0,3N" and the half-life as "fitted using LEC cD". Agreement of those two rows with experiment is therefore by construction, but the paper does not present them as predictions. The genuinely predictive content — the helion ground-state energy, both charge radii, and the NLO row before the three-nucleon force is included — is computed after the LEC determination from the same Hamiltonian and is not used to fix any LEC. The truncation-error estimate in Eq. (3) uses the substitutions X_LO = X_NLO and X_N2LO = X_N3LO because only NLO and N3LO results exist; this is a flagged approximation ("our estimations of the truncation uncertainty should be taken with care"), not a circular reduction of a predicted quantity to an input. The chiral two- and three-nucleon interactions from Refs. [3,6,7,8] are used as inputs; although some of these are self-citations, they are derived interactions with stated external assumptions (chiral EFT, fits to NN scattering and pion-nucleon data), not an invoked uniqueness theorem or an ansatz whose content is identical to the present paper's claims. No step in the derivation equates a predicted observable to a fitted parameter by construction.

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

The paper's central numbers rest on two fitted LECs plus a set of imported Hamiltonian and current operators. The main new contribution is the non-perturbative solution and LEC determination, not new degrees of freedom or new entities.

free parameters (3)

cD = -0.0625 ± 0.0625
LEC of the single one-pion-exchange three-nucleon force, fitted to the triton beta-decay half-life using the N2LO axial current.
cE = -0.39844 ± 0.00781
LEC of the unsmeared three-nucleon contact interaction, fitted to the triton ground-state energy (Eq. 1).
C0,3N = (-0.7246 ± 0.0234) fm^5
Coefficient of the smeared three-nucleon contact interaction, alternative fit to the triton ground-state energy with cE = 0 (Eq. 2).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The N3LO two-nucleon lattice interaction from Ref. [8] is valid and transferable to the A=3 sector at a = 1.9733 fm.
Section 2 relies on this interaction for all two-nucleon physics and neglects multi-pion exchanges as representable by contact interactions.
domain assumption The three-nucleon force at N2LO contains only V_cE, V_cD and V_TPE; no N3LO 3N forces are included.
Section 2 specifies the 3N force used; this is part of the chiral power counting being tested.
domain assumption The N2LO nuclear axial current is sufficient for the Gamow-Teller matrix element; the N3LO axial current is omitted.
Section 2 states the N3LO axial current is omitted, and Section 3.3 uses the N2LO current to fit cD.
ad hoc to paper The truncation-error formula Eq. (3) with X_LO = X_NLO and X_N2LO = X_N3LO gives a meaningful uncertainty estimate.
Section 3 acknowledges only NLO and N3LO are computed, so the formula collapses to a single difference; the authors warn the estimate should be taken with care.
standard math The finite-volume extrapolation formula Eq. (4) from Ref. [22] is valid for L = 4a to 9a.
Section 3.1 uses this analytic L-dependence; it is an externally derived result.
domain assumption The LECs c1, c3, c4 in V_TPE are taken from the Roy-Steiner pion-nucleon analysis of Ref. [12].
Section 2 uses these values as inputs; they are not fit in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFGURJO2

@misc{pith2026241119613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFGURJO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19613}
}

abstract

We study the three-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order ($\mathrm{N^3LO}$) in the framework of chiral effective field theory (EFT) on the lattice. Our calculations do not rely on a perturbative treatment of subleading contributions to the nuclear forces. For the two-nucleon potential, we apply the previously developed $\mathrm{N^3LO}$ lattice interaction. For the leading contribution to the three-nucleon force, we determine the two low-energy constants (LECs) in the contact interactions by adjusting the ground state energy and half-life of triton, where the latter employs the nuclear axial current at $\mathrm{N^2LO}$ in chiral EFT. Additionally, the ground state energy of helion and the charge radii of the two considered nuclei are computed. No effect of the smearing regularization in the three-nucleon contact interaction is observed here. We compare our results with recent lattice-EFT calculations that are based on a potential tuned to light and medium-mass nuclei using the wave-function-matching technique to circumvent the Monte-Carlo sign problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19613 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Irreducible diagrams for nuclear force (NF) and axial nuclear current (NC) at (next-to-)𝑛 leading order (N𝑛LO) of few-nucleon chiral lattice EFT. The solid, dashed, wavy and zigzag lines denote nucleons, pions, photons and W− -bosons, respectively. The black small circles, large circles, squares and diamonds correspond to vertices with the chiral dimension 0, 1, 2, 4, respectively. The gray circles indicate isospin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[8]

N. Li, S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, D. Lee, B.-N. Lu and U.-G. Meißner,Neutron-proton scattering with lattice chiral effective field theory at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. C98(2018) 044002 [1806.07994]

arXiv 2018
[1]

Lee,Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems,Prog

D. Lee,Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63 (2009) 117 [0804.3501]

arXiv 2009
[2]

Lähde and U.-G

T.A. Lähde and U.-G. Meißner,Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory: An introduction, vol. 957, Springer (2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-14189-9

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14189-9 2019
[3]

Elhatisari et al.,Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature 630 (2024) 59 [2210.17488]

S. Elhatisari et al.,Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature 630 (2024) 59 [2210.17488]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Elhatisari, D

S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T.A. Lähde et al.,Ab initio alpha-alpha scattering,Nature 528 (2015) 111 [1506.03513]. 6 Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT Lukas Bovermann

arXiv 2015
[5]

Elhatisari, F

S. Elhatisari, F. Hildenbrand and U.-G. Meißner,The triton lifetime from nuclear lattice effective field theory,Phys. Lett. B859 (2024) 139086 [2408.06670]

arXiv 2024
[6]

Epelbaum, H.-W

E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner,Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1773 [0811.1338]

arXiv 2009
[7]

Krebs, E

H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner,Nuclear axial current operators to fourth order in chiral effective field theory, Annals Phys.378 (2017) 317 [1610.03569]

arXiv 2017

Show all 31 references

[9]

Baroni, L

A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, L.E. Marcucci, R. Schiavilla and M. Viviani,Tritium 𝛽-decay in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C94(2016) 024003 [1605.01620]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Lee and R

D. Lee and R. Thomson,Temperature-dependent errors in nuclear lattice simulations,Phys. Rev. C75(2007) 064003 [nucl-th/0701048]

2007 arXiv
[11]

Elhatisari et al.,Nuclear binding near a quantum phase transition,Phys

S. Elhatisari et al.,Nuclear binding near a quantum phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 132501 [1602.04539]

2016 arXiv
[12]

Hoferichter, J

M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner,Matching pion-nucleon Roy-Steiner equations to chiral perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 192301 [1507.07552]

2015 arXiv
[13]

B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner,Essential elements for nuclear binding,Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134863 [1812.10928]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Reinert, H

P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum,Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two-nucleon potentials up to fifth order, Eur. Phys. J. A54 (2018) 86 [1711.08821]

2018 arXiv
[15]

Epelbaum, A

E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Glöckle, H. Kamada, U.-G. Meißner and H. Witała,Three nucleon forces from chiral effective field theory,Phys. Rev. C66(2002) 064001 [nucl-th/0208023]

2002 arXiv
[16]

Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics,PTEP 2022(2022) 083C01

2022
[17]

E.Epelbaum, High-precisionnuclearforces: Wheredowestand? ,PoS CD2018(2019)006

2019
[18]

M. Wang, G. Audi, F.G. Kondev, W.J. Huang, S. Naimi and X. Xu,The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references,Chin. Phys. C41 (2017) 030003

2017
[19]

Angeli and K.P

I. Angeli and K.P. Marinova,Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update,Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.99(2013) 69

2013
[20]

Simpson,Half-life of tritium and the Gamow-Teller transition rate, Phys

J.J. Simpson,Half-life of tritium and the Gamow-Teller transition rate, Phys. Rev. C35 (1987) 752. 7 Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT Lukas Bovermann

1987
[21]

Stellin, S

G. Stellin, S. Elhatisari and U.-G. Meißner,Breaking and restoration of rotational symmetry in the low-energy spectrum of light alpha-conjugate nuclei on the lattice I:8Beand 12C,Eur. Phys. J. A54(2018) 232 [1809.06109]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Meißner, G

U.-G. Meißner, G. Ríos and A. Rusetsky,Spectrum of three-body bound states in a finite volume,Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015) 091602 [1412.4969]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Hoppe, C

J. Hoppe, C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk and J. Simonis,Probing chiral interactions up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order in medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C100 (2019) 024318 [1904.12611]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Simonis, S.R

J. Simonis, S.R. Stroberg, K. Hebeler, J.D. Holt and A. Schwenk,Saturation with chiral interactions and consequences for finite nuclei, Phys. Rev. C96(2017) 014303 [1704.02915]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Foldy and S.A

L.L. Foldy and S.A. Wouthuysen,On the Dirac theory of spin 1/2 particle and its nonrelativistic limit,Phys. Rev.78(1950) 29

1950
[26]

Friar, J

J.L. Friar, J. Martorell and D.W.L. Sprung,Nuclear sizes and the isotope shift, Phys. Rev. A 56(1997) 4579 [nucl-th/9707016]

1997 arXiv
[27]

Ong, J.C

A. Ong, J.C. Berengut and V.V. Flambaum,The Effect of spin-orbit nuclear charge density corrections due to the anomalous magnetic moment on halonuclei,Phys. Rev. C82 (2010) 014320 [1006.5508]

2010 arXiv
[28]

Schiavilla et al.,Weak capture of protons by protons, Phys

R. Schiavilla et al.,Weak capture of protons by protons, Phys. Rev. C58(1998) 1263 [nucl-th/9808010]

1998 arXiv
[29]

Raman, C.A

S. Raman, C.A. Houser, T.A. Walkiewicz and I.S. Towner,Mixed Fermi and Gamow-Teller 𝛽-transitions and isoscalar magnetic moments,Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.21(1978) 567

1978
[30]

Hardy and I.S

J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear𝛽 decays: 2014 critical survey, withpreciseresultsfor 𝑉𝑢𝑑 andCKMunitarity ,Phys.Rev.C 91(2015)025501[ 1411.5987]

2015 arXiv
[31]

M. Pine, D. Lee and G. Rupak,Adiabatic projection method for scattering and reactions on the lattice,Eur. Phys. J. A49 (2013) 151 [1309.2616]. 8

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

N. Li, S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, D. Lee, B.-N. Lu and U.-G. Meißner,Neutron-proton scattering with lattice chiral effective field theory at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. C98(2018) 044002 [1806.07994]

arXiv 2018

[2] [1]

Lee,Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems,Prog

D. Lee,Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63 (2009) 117 [0804.3501]

arXiv 2009

[3] [2]

Lähde and U.-G

T.A. Lähde and U.-G. Meißner,Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory: An introduction, vol. 957, Springer (2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-14189-9

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14189-9 2019

[4] [3]

Elhatisari et al.,Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature 630 (2024) 59 [2210.17488]

S. Elhatisari et al.,Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems, Nature 630 (2024) 59 [2210.17488]

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Elhatisari, D

S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, G. Rupak, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T.A. Lähde et al.,Ab initio alpha-alpha scattering,Nature 528 (2015) 111 [1506.03513]. 6 Non-perturbative three-nucleon simulation using chiral lattice EFT Lukas Bovermann

arXiv 2015

[6] [5]

Elhatisari, F

S. Elhatisari, F. Hildenbrand and U.-G. Meißner,The triton lifetime from nuclear lattice effective field theory,Phys. Lett. B859 (2024) 139086 [2408.06670]

arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

Epelbaum, H.-W

E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner,Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1773 [0811.1338]

arXiv 2009

[8] [7]

Krebs, E

H. Krebs, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner,Nuclear axial current operators to fourth order in chiral effective field theory, Annals Phys.378 (2017) 317 [1610.03569]

arXiv 2017