Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Off-shell ambiguities in relativistic mean-field nuclear currents are spurious when currents are defined at operator level, and a new mapping—Eq. (26)—makes bound-state matrix elements independent of on-shell Dirac-algebra reparametrization

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:03 UTC pith:5CT2MATV

load-bearing objection Formal core solid — Eq. (26) does remove the spurious 'third-type' off-shell ambiguity in RMF currents — but the flagship pion-photoproduction application rests on an unmeasured time-like amplitude, so the ±/∓ sizes in Fig. 6 are illustrative, not predictive. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29634 v1 pith:5CT2MATV submitted 2026-07-31 nucl-th

Explicitly on-shell currents in relativistic mean field models

Alexis Nikolakopoulos , Ryan Plestid This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords relativistic mean field modelsoff-shell ambiguitieson-shell currentsGordon identitycoherent pion photoproductionelastic electron scatteringnuclear form factorsBogoliubov transformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the 'off-shell ambiguities' long known to plague relativistic mean-field calculations of nuclear scattering are not inherent to bound-state physics, but are artifacts of a naive prescription for inserting free-nucleon currents into bound-state wavefunctions. Once the current is written as an operator built from free-nucleon creation and annihilation operators, and bound-state wavefunctions are related to free states via the exact Bogoliubov transformation, all ambiguities arising from on-shell Dirac algebra (e.g., the Gordon identity) disappear. The central result, Eq. (26), is a mapping between free-nucleon and bound-state matrix elements that is manifestly independent of the chosen representation of the free-nucleon current. A direct consequence is that previously reported factor-of-five uncertainties in coherent pion photoproduction cross sections are explained as artifacts of the old ansatz. Genuine ambiguities remain, but they are traced to the current's own dependence on the binding mean field—a limitation that a consistent background-field-dependent current would resolve.

Core claim

The core discovery is that for any current defined as a bilinear in free-nucleon creation/annihilation operators whose matrix elements match free on-shell amplitudes, the correct bound-state matrix element is obtained by Eq. (26), in which each of the four Dirac channels (particle-particle, anti-particle-anti-particle, and the two pair-creation/annihilation channels) carries an on-shell projector. Because projectors occupy all four channels, any identity that relies on the free Dirac equation—such as the Gordon decomposition—leaves the final amplitude invariant. The old prescription, Eq. (2), is recovered only when all four channels share the same momentum-independent bilinear (Eq. 32), whic

What carries the argument

The central object is the operator-level one-body current Ĵ⁽¹⁾_μ of Eq. (18), expanded in free-nucleon creation and annihilation operators with four matrix-element channels: ⟨N|J|N⟩, ⟨N̄|J|N̄⟩, ⟨N̄N|J|0⟩, and ⟨0|J|N̄N⟩. The key identity is Eq. (26), which expresses the bound-state matrix element as an integral of four projected bilinears, each carrying an on-shell projector built from free Dirac factors (/p±m). These projectors ensure that all on-shell Dirac algebra operates undisturbed inside the integral, and the placement of γ⁰ differs from earlier off-shell prescriptions, making positive- and negative-energy projections exactly orthogonal. The mechanism that removes the ambiguity is the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pair-creation/annihilation amplitudes Γ^(c,d) for pion photoproduction are taken to be the same as the direct γN→πN amplitudes with sign-flipped momenta (Eq. 69); the paper explicitly declines to determine them from data (they would require time-like e⁺e⁻→N N̄π data), so the quantitative size of the ±∓ contributions—and hence the claimed generic O(10%) correction—rests on an unmeasured input.

What would settle it

A measurement or first-principles calculation of e⁺e⁻→N N̄π at the relevant time-like momentum transfers would directly settle the size of the ±∓ contributions for coherent pion photoproduction: if those amplitudes differ substantially from the direct γN→πN amplitudes, the O(10%) corrections shown in Fig. 6 would not be a prediction of the formalism. Alternatively, a precision measurement of the ¹²C charge form factor near its first zero could test the predicted suppression of the ±∓ terms in elastic scattering.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The reported 500% (factor-of-five) uncertainties in coherent pion photoproduction cross sections are artifacts of the naive ansatz; the new mapping gives unique results for any equivalent parametrization of the free-nucleon amplitudes.
  • For elastic scattering, the positive-negative (±∓) energy contributions are strongly suppressed when nucleon form factors are evaluated at time-like four-momenta (as the formalism requires), making the final charge form factor essentially indistinguishable from retaining only positive-energy states.
  • The leading positive-energy contribution provides a systematic leading-order approximation, and relativistic corrections from negative-energy states can be computed in a well-defined manner.
  • For elementary currents with no form factors and momentum-independent bilinears, the new mapping reduces exactly to the familiar Eq. (2), recovering the standard prescription for bound electrons in a Coulomb potential.
  • When the full momentum dependence of form factors is included, the current so constructed does not automatically satisfy Ward identities; this failure signals the genuine need for background-field-dependent currents.
  • The leading positive-energy term in coherent pion photoproduction is dominated by a single CGLN amplitude (F₂), providing a clean leading-order result for nuclear calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this paper is right, the same 'explicitly on-shell' procedure should remove analogous basis-dependence ambiguities in other mean-field applications—such as neutrino-nucleus scattering event generators using relativistic mean-field final states—and previously reported spreads across parametrizations in those contexts likely deserve re-examination.
  • A decisive test of the quantitative claims would be to measure or calculate e⁺e⁻→N N̄π amplitudes at the relevant time-like momentum transfers; the authors fix the pair-creation amplitudes by fiat to the direct γN→πN amplitudes and argue they should be suppressed by an order of magnitude at time-like kinematics—a prediction that can be checked directly.
  • The exact orthogonality of positive- and negative-energy projections implied by Eq. (26) suggests a natural interpretation of the vector density in mean-field nuclei: pair-creation terms do not contribute to charge or baryon-number normalization, which could simplify the construction of conserved currents in future work.
  • The paper's finding that mishandled time-like form factors shift the zero of the charge form factor implies that existing mean-field extractions of neutron-skin thickness (e.g., from parity-violating electron scattering) should be rechecked with Eq. (26) before being used to constrain neutron-star equations of state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the 'off-shell ambiguities' encountered when using free-nucleon currents inside relativistic mean-field bound states are spurious once the current is defined as a bilinear in free-nucleon creation and annihilation operators. The central result, Eq. (26), maps free-nucleon matrix elements to bound-state matrix elements with projectors in all four particle/antiparticle channels, making Gordon-type reparametrizations inert. The authors derive the standard prescription Eq. (2) as a special case for elementary currents, discuss residual background-field dependence and Ward-identity violations, and apply the formalism to elastic electron scattering and coherent pion photoproduction. They argue that the previously reported factor-of-five ambiguity in coherent pion photoproduction is resolved and that the leading positive-energy contribution provides a reliable approximation.

Significance. The formal result Eq. (26) is valuable and, as far as I can judge, correctly derived. The derivation is explicit and self-contained: it follows from the operator definition Eq. (18) via the Bogoliubov map, reduces to Eq. (23) for elementary currents, and identifies precisely the spurious terms generated by naive Gordon decompositions. The paper is also commendably candid about the residual model dependence, namely the background-field dependence of the current and the unmeasured time-like channels. If the practical inputs can be constrained, the framework offers a principled resolution of a known ambiguity and is likely to be useful in neutrino-event-generator and electron-scattering applications. The paper fits no parameters; all numerical inputs are external. The main weakness is phenomenological, not formal: the pion-photoproduction application rests on an unconstrained time-like amplitude input.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (69), Fig. 6] The quantitative claim that the +− and −+ contributions are O(10%) of the leading amplitude, and the statement that retaining only the ++ term is 'reliable', rest on the unmeasured time-like amplitudes \tilde A_i. The paper explicitly says 'We won't attempt to estimate the value of the amplitudes' and 'simply fix[es] the values of the amplitudes to those of the direct pion production reaction'. Thus Fig. 6 is an illustration under a placeholder input, not a prediction from Eq. (26). The argued suppression at t ≃ 4M_N^2 is qualitative and is not computed from any model or data. This does not invalidate Eq. (26) — the basis-independence is real — but the advertised 'resolution' of the Ref. [9] factor-of-five uncertainty is phenomenologically incomplete. The authors should either constrain \tilde A_i from time-like data or a crossing-symmetric model, or explicitly label the pion-photoproduc
  2. [Sec. III C and Sec. IV A] The paper acknowledges that the currents defined via Eq. (18) do not satisfy the Ward identity once form factors are included (Eq. (35)). This is not itself an error, but it is a load-bearing caveat for the elastic-scattering application. The separate conservation of J^{++}+J^{--} and J^{+-}+J^{-+}, Eq. (55), is shown only for the simplified case of fixed couplings with Q=(0,q) and neglected recoil; when the full momentum dependence of the form factors is retained, the authors state that current conservation is violated at O(p^4/M^4). Since the elastic-scattering conclusions in Figs. 1 and 2 use the fixed-coupling approximation, the numerical results are not sensitive to this issue, but the claim that Eq. (26) removes 'all ambiguities related to on-shell vs. off-shell Dirac algebra' should be stated together with the fact that the resulting current is not conserved. This residual non-con
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (18)] In the second and third lines of Eq. (18), the d† operator appears to carry p,s instead of p',s'. As printed, the term ⟨N̄(p',s')N(p,s)|J|0⟩ b†_{p,s} d†_{p,s} cannot create the required N̄(p',s')N(p,s) state; it should be d†_{p',s'}. The same index issue appears in the second line. This is presumably a typographical error but should be fixed.
  2. [Eqs. (11)-(12)] The Bogoliubov relations as displayed omit the 1/√(2E_p) normalization on the right-hand side, whereas Eq. (13) explicitly retains it and Eq. (15) uses it in the kernel K. If the normalization is absorbed into the definition of the Fourier transforms \tilde ϕ and \tilde χ, the convention should be stated; otherwise the displayed equations are dimensionally inconsistent.
  3. [Sec. IV B, around Eq. (61)] The sentence 'we did not include the explicit q^2 dependence of the amplitudes' is confusing for real-photon production, where q^2=0. It should be clarified whether the ANL-Osaka amplitudes are evaluated at q^2=0 and whether this is an approximation or an exact statement for real photons.
  4. [Figs. 1 and 2] The labels 'SL+SL', 'SL+TL', and 'n.r.' are used without definition in the captions. They are explained in the text, but the figures should be self-contained, especially for a broad nucl-th readership.
  5. [References and footnotes] Reference [2] contains a typo: 'World Scientfic' should be 'World Scientific'. In footnote 9, 'ss ≈ 0.146 GeV' should be defined (presumably the ω' pole position) or written with the appropriate symbol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (26) is derived from the operator definition and reduces to the naive ansatz only as a special case; the unmeasured time-like pion-production amplitudes are an acknowledged input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The current in Eq. (18) is explicitly defined as a model in terms of free-nucleon matrix elements, with the four channels given in Eq. (19). Equation (26) follows from inserting the Bogoliubov-transformed operators (Eqs. 11-14) into the one-body current and performing spin sums. The projectors (/p'+m), (/p+m), (˜/p'-m), and (˜/p-m) are consequences of the operator algebra, not inserted to force the result. The claimed invariance under Gordon-type reparametrizations is therefore a theorem about the model, not an assumption; the paper also explicitly derives the failure of the naive Eq. (2) by showing Eq. (32) is violated by Gordon-reparametrized bilinears. No parameter in this paper is fitted to the paper's own targets: ANL-Osaka multipoles, VMD time-like form factors, and RMF wavefunctions are external inputs. The only genuinely load-bearing input not determined by the formalism is the set of time-like pair-channel amplitudes Gamma^(c,d) in pion photoproduction. The paper states this explicitly in Sec. IV B: "We won't attempt to estimate the value of the amplitudes. To illustrate the 'natural' magnitude of J±,∓ we simply fix the values of the amplitudes to those of the direct pion production reaction." Consequently, the O(10%) magnitudes in Fig. 6 are conditional on that assumption, not predictions derived solely from Eq. (26). This is a limitation/correctness risk, but not circularity: the input is named, not disguised as an output, and it does not feed back into the derivation of Eq. (26). The only self-citations are Ref. [24] (co-author, used to contrast the treatment with past projector insertions) and Ref. [22] (co-author, supporting an O(<p^2>^{3/2}/M^3) hierarchy estimate); neither is a uniqueness theorem nor a load-bearing premise. There is no step in which a predicted quantity is, by construction, equal to a fitted input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted constants. The formal result rests on the operator-level ansatz for the current (disclosed by the authors) and on crossing assumptions for the unmeasured pair channels. All numerical inputs come from the cited literature (ANL-Osaka multipoles, VMD time-like form factors, Sharma-Nagarajan-Ring wavefunctions).

free parameters (1)
  • Gamma^(c,d) pion-production pair-channel amplitudes (placeholder) = taken equal to direct-production invariant amplitudes A_i(s,t,u)
    Set to the direct gamma N -> pi N amplitudes for illustration (Sec. IV B, Eq. 69), since constructing them 'would require time-like data from e.g., e+e- -> N anti-N pi'. This choice determines the quantitative sizes of J(+,-) in Fig. 6.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The one-body current is a bilinear in free-nucleon creation/annihilation operators with matrix elements fixed by free on-shell amplitudes (Eqs. 18-19), independent of background fields.
    The paper states this is 'a model for the current... imposed by hand'; background-field dependence is excluded, which is the acknowledged source of the residual genuine ambiguity (Secs. III, III C).
  • domain assumption Crossing relations determine Gamma^(b,c,d) from Gamma^(a) via sign-flipped momenta [46,47].
    Used in Secs. III B and IV B (Eq. 69) to define anti-nucleon and pair channels; for pion production the numerical values are taken from the direct reaction as a placeholder.
  • domain assumption Weak-binding hierarchy: v-dagger(-p) phi << u-dagger(p) phi (Eq. 33), of O(<p^2>^{3/2}/M^3).
    Justifies identifying the ++ contribution as the leading term and matching to non-relativistic treatments (Sec. III B); the +- / -+ terms are kept in the numerics but interpreted as subleading.
  • domain assumption Mean-field (RMF) description of the nucleus as Dirac nucleons in classical scalar and vector fields (Eq. 3).
    The entire formalism assumes the RMF Lagrangian with time-independent classical S and V fields and the vacuum |Omega[S,V]> (Sec. II).
  • standard math On-shell spinor algebra (Gordon identity, free Dirac equation) applies to free spinors u and v.
    Used in Sec. III A to map between equivalent parametrizations of the free-nucleon current.
  • domain assumption Time-like nucleon form factors are described by vector-meson-dominance models [37-41].
    Elastic-scattering +- / -+ contributions in Sec. IV A are evaluated with 7 VMD parametrizations; the paper notes time-like form factors are far less constrained than space-like ones.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 26255 in / 23365 out tokens · 206409 ms · 2026-08-03T03:03:34.148757+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Relativistic mean field models are a useful tool for modeling semi-leptonic scattering and photo production on nuclei. When using free-nucleon currents, it is often claimed that there exist so-called ``off-shell ambiguities''. Here we show that when the current is defined in terms of free-nucleon creation and annihilation operators, all ambiguities related to on-shell vs. off-shell Dirac algebra disappear. Genuine ambiguities persist because the current itself depends on the mean field responsible for nuclear binding; these would be fixed if a consistent background-field dependent current were used. As applications, we consider elastic scattering from a nucleus, and (very large) ambiguities that were previous reported in the literature in the context of coherent pion photoproduction. We explain how these ambiguities are removed by the procedure introduced herein.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29634 by Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Ryan Plestid.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contributions to the total charge form factor of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Charge form factor, the full results (SL+TL) where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. PWIA results for coherent pion photoproduction off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total PWIA cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Square roots of the PWIA cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    With on-shell infor- mation from free nucleon scattering one only has access to the current in the absence of background fields

    The current operator, ˆJµ, will in general depend on background fields used to define the bound or continuum states∣α⟩and∣β⟩. With on-shell infor- mation from free nucleon scattering one only has access to the current in the absence of background fields

  2. [2]

    From on-shell amplitudes alone one cannot discern if one should takeQµ =(E p′ − Ep,q)orq µ =(ω,q)withωthe incoming photon energy in a bound state andEp = √ p2+M 2

    There is an ambiguity in the operator level defini- tion of the current. From on-shell amplitudes alone one cannot discern if one should takeQµ =(E p′ − Ep,q)orq µ =(ω,q)withωthe incoming photon energy in a bound state andEp = √ p2+M 2

  3. [3]

    off- shell ambiguities

    Spinor algebra which holds on-shell allows for dif- ferent representations of the same on-shell ampli- tudes. These different representations give different answers when evaluated using Eq. (2). Thefirstissueisagenuinelimitationofusingfree-nucleon matrix elements in a mean-field models. The second point is a genuine ambiguity but can be “fixed” if one has...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    The latter parametrize matrix elements computed in the CMS, whereq∗ =−p ∗

    Relation to CGLN amplitudes The invariant amplitudesA i for pion photoproduction can be related to the CGLN amplitudes [47]. The latter parametrize matrix elements computed in the CMS, whereq∗ =−p ∗. They are defined as iϵ⋅F CGLN =F 1 σ⋅ϵ−iF 2 (σ⋅ ˆk∗ π)σ⋅( ˆq∗×ϵ)+F 3 (σ⋅ ˆq∗)ˆkπ⋅ϵ+F 4 (σ⋅ ˆk∗ π)ˆk∗ π⋅ϵ.(C3) The normalization is given by dσ dΩ∗ = ∣k∗ π∣ ∣...

  5. [5]

    peculiar

    Wigner rotation To connect the (positive energy) wavefunctions to the CGLN amplitudes one performs a boost to the pion-nucleon CMS system; this implies a spin rotation. Indeed, withB(−)(p)denoting an (inverse) boost with four-momentump i.e. velocityp/p 0, the boost of the positive energy wavefunctions to the CMS may be written B−(p+q)u +(p)Φ=B −(p+q)B(p)u...

  6. [6]

    Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics37, 193 (1996)

    P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Walecka,Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics(World Scientfic, Imperial College Press, 2004)

    J. Walecka,Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics(World Scientfic, Imperial College Press, 2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E6, 515 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9701058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

    P. G. Reinhard, Reports on Progress in Physics52, 439 (1989)

    1989

  11. [11]

    J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Udias, Nucl. Phys. A632, 323 (1998), arXiv:nucl- th/9710038

    arXiv 1998

  12. [12]

    De Forest, Nuclear Physics A392, 232 (1983)

    T. De Forest, Nuclear Physics A392, 232 (1983)

    1983

  13. [13]

    Caballero, T

    J. Caballero, T. Donnelly, and G. Poulis, Nuclear Physics A555, 709 (1993)

    1993

  14. [14]

    L. J. Abu-Raddad, J. Piekarewicz, A. J. Sarty, and R. A. Rego, Phys. Rev. C60, 054606 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9812061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    Nikolakopoulos, R

    A. Nikolakopoulos, R. González-Jiménez, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Udías, Phys. Rev. D107, 053007 (2023), arXiv:2210.12144 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Nikolakopoulos, R

    A. Nikolakopoulos, R. González-Jiménez, N. Jachowicz, K. Niewczas, F. Sánchez, and J. M. Udías, Phys. Rev. C105, 054603 (2022), arXiv:2202.01689 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    González-Jiménez, A

    R. González-Jiménez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Udías, Phys. Rev. C100, 045501 (2019). 20

    2019

  18. [18]

    McKean, R

    J. McKean, R. González-Jiménez, M. Kabirnezhad, J. M. Udías, and Y. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D112, 032009 (2025), arXiv:2502.10629 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Nikolakopoulos, A

    A. Nikolakopoulos, A. Ershova, R. González-Jiménez, J. Isaacson, A. M. Kelly, K. Niewczas, N. Rocco, and F. Sánchez, Phys. Rev. C110, 054611 (2024), arXiv:2406.09244 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    McKean, L

    J. McKean, L. Munteanu, and S. Abe, Phys. Rev. D114, 012011 (2026), arXiv:2601.14831 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. V. Luchuk, Phys. Rev. D112, 093005 (2025), arXiv:2506.19355 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Dolan, J

    S. Dolan, J. McKean, and L. Munteanu, (2026), arXiv:2605.28696 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, J. García-Marcos, V. Belocchi, M. B. Barbaro, G. Co’, and R. González-Jiménez, Phys. Rev. D114, 013006 (2026), arXiv:2603.03210 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Franco-Munoz, J

    T. Franco-Munoz, J. McKean, J. García-Marcos, M. Hooft, R. González-Jiménez, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Udías, (2026), arXiv:2605.00756 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Hoyer,Journey to the Bound States, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, 2021) arXiv:2101.06721 [hep-ph]

    P. Hoyer,Journey to the Bound States, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, 2021) arXiv:2101.06721 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    S. J. Brodsky, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys.12, 213 (1984)

    1984

  27. [27]

    Plestid and M

    R. Plestid and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D110, 056032 (2024), arXiv:2403.12184 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    J. S. OConnell, T. W. Donnelly, and J. D. Walecka, Phys. Rev. C6, 719 (1972)

    1972

  29. [29]

    Nikolakopoulos and R

    A. Nikolakopoulos and R. González-Jiménez, (2025), arXiv:2512.22763 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    L. S. Brown, Phys. Rev.150, 1338 (1966)

    1966

  31. [31]

    Pastore, R

    S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla, and J. L. Goity, Phys. Rev. C78, 064002 (2008), arXiv:0810.1941 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C80, 034004 (2009), arXiv:0906.1800 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  33. [33]

    Pastore, L

    S. Pastore, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C84, 024001 (2011), arXiv:1106.4539 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    J. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. C70, 068202 (2004)

    2004

  35. [35]

    Gardner and J

    S. Gardner and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C50, 2822 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9401001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C86, 045503 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Sharma, M

    M. Sharma, M. Nagarajan, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B312, 377 (1993)

    1993

  38. [38]

    J. L. Friar, J. Martorell, and D. W. L. Sprung, Phys. Rev. A56, 4579 (1997)

    1997

  39. [39]

    L. L. Foldy and S. A. Wouthuysen, Phys. Rev.78, 29 (1950)

    1950

  40. [40]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Denig and G

    A. Denig and G. Salme, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.68, 113 (2013), arXiv:1210.4689 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Iachello and Q

    F. Iachello and Q. Wan, Phys. Rev. C69, 055204 (2004)

    2004

  43. [43]

    Iachello, A

    F. Iachello, A. Jackson, and A. Lande, Physics Letters B43, 191 (1973)

    1973

  44. [44]

    Tomasi-Gustafsson, F

    E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, F. Lacroix, C. Duterte, and G. I. Gakh, Eur. Phys. J. A24, 419 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0503001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    E. L. Lomon and S. Pacetti, Phys. Rev. D85, 113004 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 039901 (2012)], arXiv:1201.6126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    B. Yan, C. Chen, X. Li, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D109, 036033 (2024), arXiv:2312.04866 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Alvarez-Ruso, M

    L. Alvarez-Ruso, M. S. Athar, M. Barbaro, D. Cherdack, M. Christy, P. Coloma, T. Donnelly, S. Dytman, A. de Gouvêa, R. Hill, P. Huber, N. Jachowicz, T. Katori, A. Kronfeld, K. Mahn, M. Martini, J. Morfín, J. Nieves, G. Perdue, R. Petti, D. Richards, F. Sánchez, T. Sato, J. Sobczyk, and G. Zeller, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics100, 1 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    W. J. Briscoe, A. Schmidt, I. Strakovsky, R. L. Workman, and A. Švarc (SAID Group), Phys. Rev. C108, 065205 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, M. A. Matveev, A. V. Sarantsev, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A44, 203 (2010)

    2010

  50. [50]

    Bennhold and H

    C. Bennhold and H. Tanabe, Nuclear Physics A530, 625 (1991)

    1991

  51. [51]

    Berends, A

    F. Berends, A. Donnachie, and D. Weaver, Nuclear Physics B4, 1 (1967)

    1967

  52. [52]

    G. F. Chew, M. L. Goldberger, F. E. Low, and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev.106, 1345 (1957)

    1957

  53. [53]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C88, 035209 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C94, 015201 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Kamano, T

    H. Kamano, T. S. H. Lee, S. X. Nakamura, and T. Sato, (2019), arXiv:1909.11935 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Tiator and L

    L. Tiator and L. E. Wright, Phys. Rev. C30, 989 (1984)

    1984

  57. [57]

    Tiator, A

    L. Tiator, A. Rej, and D. Drechsel, Nuclear Physics A333, 343 (1980)

    1980

  58. [58]

    Tsaran and M

    V. Tsaran and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. C110, 014605 (2024), arXiv:2403.08608 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Zhang and B

    X. Zhang and B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. C86, 035504 (2012), arXiv:1208.1553 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    S. A. Gurvitz, J. P. Dedonder, and R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. C19, 142 (1979)

    1979

  61. [61]

    Carrasco, J

    R. Carrasco, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Nuclear Physics A565, 797 (1993)

    1993

  62. [62]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C100, 044608 (2019), arXiv:1907.11764 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Odagawa, T

    N. Odagawa, T. Sato, and H. Ohtsubo, Progress of Theoretical Physics86, 1277 (1991), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/86/6/1277/5410480/86-6-1277.pdf

    1991

  64. [64]

    García-Marcos, T

    J. García-Marcos, T. Franco-Munoz, R. González-Jiménez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Udías, Phys. Rev. C109, 024608 (2024), arXiv:2310.18056 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    J. M. Mammei, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, B. T. Reed, and C. Sfienti, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 321 (2024), arXiv:2311.06146 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Bechler, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General26, 6039 (1993)

    A. Bechler, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General26, 6039 (1993)

    1993

  67. [67]

    J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964)

    1964

  68. [68]

    D. J. Ernst and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C21, 1472 (1980)

    1980

  69. [69]

    Rocco, S

    N. Rocco, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. C100, 045503 (2019), arXiv:1907.01093 [nucl-th]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    D. Han, Y. S. Kim, and D. Son, Phys. Rev. D31, 328 (1985)

    1985

  71. [71]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.135, B1049 (1964)

    1964

  72. [72]

    W. N. Polyzou and C. Elster, J. Phys. G41, 094006 (2014), arXiv:1404.2365 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014