Abstract
In recent years local chiral interactions have been derived and implemented in quantum Monte Carlo methods in order to test to what extent the chiral effective field theory framework impacts our knowledge of few- and many-body systems. In this Letter, we present Green's function Monte Carlo calculations of light nuclei based on the family of local two-body interactions presented by our group in a previous paper in conjunction with chiral three-body interactions fitted to bound- and scattering-state observables in the three-nucleon sector. These interactions include Δ intermediate states in their two-pion-exchange components. We obtain predictions for the energy levels and level ordering of nuclei in the mass range A=4-12, accurate to ≤2% of the binding energy, in very satisfactory agreement with experimental data.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 052503 |
| Journal | Physical Review Letters |
| Volume | 120 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Feb 1 2018 |
Funding
Piarulli M. 1 Baroni A. 2 Girlanda L. 3,4 Kievsky A. 5 Lovato A. 1,6 Lusk Ewing 7 Marcucci L. E. 5,8 Pieper Steven C. 1 Schiavilla R. 2,9 Viviani M. 5 Wiringa R. B. 1 Physics Division, 1 Argonne National Laboratory , Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA Department of Physics, 2 Old Dominion University , Norfolk, Virginia 23529, USA Department of Mathematics and Physics, 3 University of Salento , 73100 Lecce, Italy 4 INFN-Lecce , 73100 Lecce, Italy 5 INFN-Pisa , 56127 Pisa, Italy 6 INFN-Trento , 38050 Povo, Italy Mathematics and Computer Science Division, 7 Argonne National Laboratory , Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA Department of Physics, 8 University of Pisa , 56127 Pisa, Italy 9 Theory Center , Jefferson Lab, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA 1 February 2018 2 February 2018 120 5 052503 31 July 2017 © 2018 American Physical Society 2018 American Physical Society In recent years local chiral interactions have been derived and implemented in quantum Monte Carlo methods in order to test to what extent the chiral effective field theory framework impacts our knowledge of few- and many-body systems. In this Letter, we present Green’s function Monte Carlo calculations of light nuclei based on the family of local two-body interactions presented by our group in a previous paper in conjunction with chiral three-body interactions fitted to bound- and scattering-state observables in the three-nucleon sector. These interactions include Δ intermediate states in their two-pion-exchange components. We obtain predictions for the energy levels and level ordering of nuclei in the mass range A = 4 – 12 , accurate to ≤ 2 % of the binding energy, in very satisfactory agreement with experimental data. NUclear Computational Low-Energy Initiative (NUCLEI) U.S. Department of Energy 10.13039/100000015 Office of Science 10.13039/100006132 DE-AC02-06CH11357 DE-AC05-06OR23177 U.S. Department of Energy 10.13039/100000015 DE-AC02-06CH11357 National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) A major goal of nuclear theory is to explain the spectra, structure, and reactions of nuclei in a fully microscopic approach. In such an approach, which we will refer to below as the basic model of nuclear theory, the nucleons interact with each other via many-body (primarily, two- and three-body) effective interactions, and with external electroweak probes via effective currents describing the coupling of these probes to individual nucleons and many-body clusters of them. The nuclear Hamiltonian in the basic model is taken to consist of nonrelativistic kinetic energy, and two- and three-body interactions. There are indications that four-body interactions may contribute at the level of ∼ 100 keV in He 4 , but current formulations of the basic model do not typically include them (see, for example, Ref. [1] ). Two-body interactions consist of a long-range component, for internucleon separation r ≳ 2 fm , due to one-pion exchange (OPE) [2] , and intermediate- and short-range components, for, respectively, 1 fm ≲ r ≲ 2 fm and r ≲ 1 fm . Up to the mid-1990s, such interactions were based almost exclusively on meson-exchange phenomenology. Those of the mid-1990s [3–5] were constrained by fitting nucleon-nucleon ( N N ) elastic scattering data up to lab energies of 350 MeV, with χ 2 / datum ≃ 1 relative to the database available at the time [6] . Two well-known and still widely used examples in this class are the Argonne v 18 (AV18) [4] and CD-Bonn [5] . These so-called realistic interactions also contained isospin-symmetry-breaking (ISB) terms. At the level of accuracy required [6] , full electromagnetic interactions, along with strong interactions, had to be specified in order to fit the data precisely, and the AV18 model included electromagnetic corrections up to order α 2 ( α is the fine structure constant). Already in the 1980s, accurate three-body calculations showed that contemporary N N interactions did not provide enough binding for the three-body nuclei, H 3 and He 3 [7] . In the late 1990s and early 2000s this realization was extended to the spectra (ground and low-lying excited states) of light p -shell nuclei in calculations based on quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods [8] and later confirmed independently in no-core shell-model studies [9] . Consequently, the basic model with N N interactions fit to scattering data, without the inclusion of a three-nucleon ( 3 N ) interaction, is incomplete. Because of the composite nature of the nucleon and, in particular, the prominent role of the Δ resonance in pion-nucleon scattering, multinucleon interactions arise quite naturally in meson-exchange phenomenology. The Illinois 3 N interactions [10] contain a dominant two-pion exchange (TPE)—the venerable Fujita-Miyazawa interaction [11] —and smaller multipion exchange components resulting from the excitation of intermediate Δ ’s. The most recent version, Illinois-7 (IL7) [12] , also contains phenomenological isospin-dependent central terms. The small number (four) of parameters that fully characterize it were determined, in conjunction with the AV18, by fitting 23 ground or low-lying nuclear states in the mass range A = 3 – 10 . The resulting AV 18 + IL 7 Hamiltonian then led to predictions of about 100 ground- and excited-state energies up to A = 12 , including the C 12 ground- and Hoyle-state energies, in good agreement with the corresponding empirical values [1] . A new phase in the evolution of the basic model, and renewed interest in its further development, have been spurred by the emergence in the early 1990s of chiral effective field theory ( χ EFT ) [13–15] , a low-energy effective representation of QCD. Within χ EFT many studies have been carried out dealing with the construction of N N and 3 N interactions [16–30] and accompanying ISB corrections [31–33] . These interactions were typically formulated in momentum space, and included cutoff functions to regularize their behavior at large momenta which, however, made them strongly nonlocal when Fourier transformed in configuration space, and therefore unsuitable for use with quantum Monte Carlo methods. Among these, in particular, the Green’s function Monte Carlo (GFMC) method is the method of choice to provide reliable solutions of the many-body Schrödinger equation—presently for up to A = 12 nucleons—with full account of the complexity of the many-body, spin-, and isospin-dependent correlations induced by nuclear interactions (see Ref. [1] and references therein for an exhaustive review of GFMC). In order to overcome these difficulties, in recent years local, configuration-space chiral N N interactions have been derived [34–36] . Here, we focus on the family of local interactions constructed by our group [36] . They are written as the sum of an electromagnetic-interaction component, v i j EM , including first- and second-order Coulomb, Darwin-Foldy, vacuum polarization, and magnetic moment terms (as in Ref. [4] ), and a strong-interaction component, v i j , characterized by long- and short-range parts [36] . The long-range part includes OPE and TPE terms up to next-to-next-to-leading order (N2LO) in the chiral expansion [37] , derived in the static limit from leading and subleading π N and π N Δ chiral Lagrangians. The short-range part is described by charge-independent contact interactions up to N3LO and charge-dependent ones up to NLO [36] , characterized by a total of 26 low-energy constants (LECs). Such potentials should therefore be understood as improved -N2LO, with N3LO contact terms treated as phenomenological remainders that prove crucial for a good fit to N N data. In this context, it is worthwhile pointing out that there exist alternative counting schemes for contact operators [38–41] based, e.g., on renormalization group analyses, which imply their promotion to lower orders of the low-energy expansion, as compared to the ordinary Weinberg counting. This would in turn explain the prominent role they take in bringing the theoretical description close to experimental data. We constructed two classes of interactions, which only differ in the range of laboratory energy over which the fits were carried out, either 0–125 MeV in class I or 0–200 MeV in class II (the fits used the 2013 N N database, including the deuteron ground-state energy and two-neutron scattering length, as assembled by the Granada group [42] ). For each class, three different sets of cutoff radii ( R S , R L ) were considered ( R S , R L ) = ( 0.8 , 1.2 ) fm in set (a), (0.7,1.0) fm in set (b), and (0.6,0.8) fm in set (c), where R S and R L enter, respectively, the configuration-space cutoffs for the short- and long-range parts of v i j [36] . The χ 2 / datum achieved by the fits in class I (II) was ≲ 1.1 ( ≲ 1.4 ) for a total of about 2700 (3700) data points. We will refer to these high-quality N N interactions generically as the Norfolk v i j ’s (NV2s), and designate those in class I as NV2-Ia, NV2-Ib, and NV2-Ic, and those in class II as NV2-IIa, NV2-IIb, and NV2-IIc. The NV2s were found to provide insufficient attraction, in GFMC calculations, for the ground-state energies of nuclei with A = 3 – 6 [36,43,44] , thus corroborating the insight realized in the early 2000s within the older (and less fundamental) meson-exchange phenomenology. To remedy this shortcoming, we construct here the leading 3 N interaction V i j k in χ EFT , including Δ intermediate states. It is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 1 , and consists [20,21] of a long-range piece mediated by TPE and denoted with the superscript 2 π , panels (a) and (b), and a short-range piece parametrized in terms of two contact interactions and denoted with the superscript CT, panels (c) and (d), V i j k = ∑ cyclic i j k ( V i j k 2 π + V i j k CT ) . (1) In configuration space, the TPE term from intermediate Δ states, panel (a) in Fig. 1 , and from interactions proportional to the LECs c 1 , c 3 , and c 4 in the subleading chiral Lagrangian L π N ( 2 ) [45] , panel (b), reads V i j k 2 π = g A 2 256 π 2 m π 6 f π 4 [ 8 c 1 Σ i j Σ k j T i j k ( + ) + 2 9 c ˜ 3 Σ i j k ( + ) T i j k ( + ) - 1 9 ( c ˜ 4 + 1 4 m ) Σ i j k ( - ) T i j k ( - ) ] , (2) with spin and isospin operator structures defined, respectively, as Σ l m ≡ Z ˜ π ( r l m ) σ l · r ^ l m , where r l m ≡ r l - r m , and Σ i j k ( ∓ ) ≡ [ X ˜ i j , X ˜ j k ] ∓ , T i j k ( ∓ ) ≡ [ τ i · τ j , τ j · τ k ] ∓ , (3) X ˜ i j ≡ T ˜ π ( r i j ) S i j + Y ˜ π ( r i j ) σ i · σ j . (4) Here [ … , … ] ∓ denote commutators ( - ) or anticommutators ( + ), S i j is the standard tensor operator, σ i and τ i are Pauli spin and isospin matrices relative to nucleon i , and Y ˜ π ( r ) , T ˜ π ( r ) , and Z ˜ π ( r ) are, respectively, standard Yukawa and tensor functions and combinations of these, regularized by the cutoff C R L ( r ) introduced in Ref. [37] (for convenience, they are listed in the Supplemental Material [46] ). The LECs c ˜ 3 and c ˜ 4 are related to the corresponding c 3 and c 4 in L π N ( 2 ) via c ˜ 3 = c 3 - h A 2 / ( 9 m Δ N ) and c ˜ 4 = c 4 + h A 2 / ( 18 m Δ N ) , where h A and m Δ N are, respectively, the N -to- Δ axial coupling constant and Δ - N mass difference. The values of these constants as well as the LECs c 1 , c 3 , and c 4 , the (average) pion mass m π and decay amplitude f π , and (average) nucleon mass m and axial coupling constant g A , are taken from Tables I and II of Ref. [37] . 1 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503.f1 FIG. 1. Diagrams illustrating schematically the contributions to the chiral 3 N interaction. Nucleons, Δ ’s, and pions are denoted by solid, thick-solid, and dashed lines, respectively. The circle in panel (b) represents the vertex involving the LECs c 1 , c 3 , and c 4 in L π N ( 2 ) . The CT term is parametrized as V i j k CT = g A c D 96 π m π 3 Λ χ f π 4 τ i · τ k X ˜ i k [ C R S ( r i j ) + C R S ( r j k ) ] + c E Λ χ f π 4 τ i · τ k C R S ( r i j ) C R S ( r j k ) , (5) where C R S ( r ) is the Gaussian cutoff introduced in Ref. [37] (it is also given in Ref. [46] ), Λ χ is the chiral-symmetry-breaking scale taken as Λ χ = 1 GeV , and the two (dimensionaless) LECs c D and c E are determined by simultaneously reproducing the experimental H 3 ground-state energy, E 0 ( H 3 ) , and the central value of the neutron-deuteron ( n d ) doublet scattering length, a n d 2 . These observables are calculated with hyperspherical-harmonics (HH) expansion methods (see Ref. [47] and references therein). Because of the strong correlation between the observables E 0 ( H 3 ) and a n d 2 (Phillips line) and between E 0 ( H 3 ) and E 0 ( He 4 ) (Tjon line), an alternative way to determine c D and c E , as pointed out in Refs. [48,49] , would be to constrain these LECs by reproducing the tritium binding energy and Gamow-Teller matrix element contributing to its β decay. Such a strategy was adopted in Refs. [50,51] in relation to the (momentum-space) chiral interactions developed by Entem and Machleidt [18] . However, the problem with its implementation here is that the models of nuclear axial currents developed so far in Refs. [52,53] , do not include Δ intermediate states, in contrast to the present chiral interactions. The c D , c E values for NV2-Ia, NV2-Ib, NV2-IIa and NV2-IIb with the cutoff radii ( R S , R L ) in the Norfolk 3 N interactions matching those of the corresponding NV2s to make the NV 2 + 3 models are listed in Table I . We observe that models NV2-Ic and NV2-IIc are not considered any further in the present work, owing to the difficulty in the convergence of the HH expansion and the severe fermion-sign problem in the GFMC imaginary-time propagation with these interactions [36] . I 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503.t1 TABLE I. The (dimensionaless) values of c D and c E determined for the different NV 2 + 3 chiral interactions having cutoff radii ( R S , R L ) equal to (0.8,1.2) fm for models Ia and IIa, and (0.7,1.0) fm for models Ib and IIb are shown along with the H 3 , He 3 , and He 4 ground-state energies (in MeV) and n d doublet scattering length (in fm), obtained in HH calculations without and with the inclusion of the three-body interactions; the experimental values are E 0 ( H 3 ) = − 8.482 MeV , E 0 ( He 3 ) = − 7.718 MeV , E 0 ( He 4 ) = − 28.30 MeV [54] , and a n d 2 = ( 0.645 ± 0.010 ) fm [55] . The E 0 ( H 3 ) and a n d 2 (central value) are exactly reproduced when 3 N interactions are included, and are not listed below in this case. Without 3 N With 3 N Model c D c E E 0 ( H 3 ) E 0 ( He 3 ) E 0 ( He 4 ) a n d 2 E 0 ( He 3 ) E 0 ( He 4 ) Ia 3.666 - 1.638 - 7.825 - 7.083 - 25.15 1.085 - 7.728 - 28.31 Ib - 2.061 - 0.982 - 7.606 - 6.878 - 23.99 1.284 - 7.730 - 28.31 IIa 1.278 - 1.029 - 7.956 - 7.206 - 25.80 0.993 - 7.723 - 28.17 IIb - 4.480 - 0.412 - 7.874 - 7.126 - 25.31 1.073 - 7.720 - 28.17 In Table I we also report the n d scattering length and ground-state energies of H 3 , He 3 , and He 4 obtained without 3 N interaction as well as those predicted for He 3 and He 4 when this interaction is included. Increasing the laboratory-energy range over which the N N interaction is fitted, from 0–125 MeV in class I to 0–200 MeV in class II, decreases the A = 3 – 4 ground-state energies calculated without the 3 N interaction by as much as 1.3 MeV in He 4 with model (b). However, when the 3 N interaction is included, the effect is reversed and much reduced; in He 4 the increase amounts to 140 keV in going from model Ib to IIb. The dependence on the cutoff radii ( R S , R L ) , i.e., the difference between the rows Ia-Ib and IIa-IIb, is significant without the 3 N interaction, but turns out to be negligible when it is retained, being in this case of the order of a few keV and hence comparable to the numerical precision of the present HH methods. This tradeoff is of course achieved through the large variation of the LECs c D and c E ; c E is found to be natural for all models, while c D only for models Ib and IIa. Lastly, in the Supplemental Material [46] , we show that the NV 2 + 3 chiral interactions developed here do not resolve the discrepancies between the calculated and measured polarization observables in low-energy p d elastic scattering, including the well-known “ A y puzzle” [56,57] . Before presenting the GFMC predictions for the spectra of larger nuclei, it is worthwhile comparing the HH and GFMC results for the three- and four-nucleon bound states. The GFMC-calculated ground-state energies with model NV 2 + 3 - Ia are E 0 ( H 3 ) = − 8.463 ( 9 ) , E 0 ( He 3 ) = − 7.705 ( 9 ) , and E 0 ( He 4 ) = - 28.24 ( 3 ) , where the Monte Carlo statistical errors are given in parentheses. The small differences ( ≲ 0.5 % ) between the HH results listed in Table I and the GFMC ones are due in part to intrinsic numerical inaccuracies of these methods, and in part to the fact that the HH wave functions include small admixtures with total isospin T = 3 / 2 for A = 3 nuclei, and T = 1 and 2 for A = 4 , beyond their corresponding dominant isospin components with T = 1 / 2 and T = 0 . These admixtures are induced by ISB terms present in the NV2 interaction models, which are neglected in the present GFMC calculations. The GFMC energy results calculated with the NV 2 + 3 - Ia model are shown in Fig. 2 for 37 different nuclear states in A = 4 – 12 nuclei. They are compared to results from the older AV 18 + IL 7 model [1] and experiment [54] . The agreement with experiment is impressive for both Hamiltonians, with absolute binding energies very close to experiment, and excited states reproducing the observed ordering and spacing, indicating reasonable one-body spin-orbit splittings. The rms energy deviation from experiment for these states is 0.72 MeV for NV 2 + 3 - Ia compared to 0.80 MeV for AV 18 + IL 7 (note that B 11 has not been computed with AV 18 + IL 7 ). The signed average deviations, + 0.15 and - 0.23 MeV , respectively, are much smaller, indicating no systematic over- or underbinding of the Hamiltonians. For both Hamiltonians, the inclusion of the 3 N interactions is in many cases necessary to get ground states that are correctly bound against breakup; e.g., He 6 is not bound with just the N N interaction [36] , but is in the current work. The lowest 3 + and 1 + states of B 10 are of particular interest. For both AV18 and NV2-Ia without 3 N interactions, the 1 + state is incorrectly predicted as the ground state (for NV2-Ia by 1.9 MeV) but including the 3 N interactions gives the correct 3 + ground state. However, it is important to emphasize that in the AV 18 + IL 7 model the four parameters in the 3 N interaction are fitted to the energies of many nuclear levels up to A = 10 . 2 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503.f2 FIG. 2. The energy spectra of A = 4 – 12 nuclei obtained with the NV 2 + 3 - Ia chiral interactions are compared to experimental data [54] . Also shown are results obtained with the phenomenological AV 18 + IL 7 interactions [1] . Twelve of the states shown are stable ground states, while another six are particle-stable low-lying excitations; i.e., they decay only by electroweak processes. The remaining states are particle-unstable; i.e., they can decay by nucleon or cluster emission, which is much more rapid than electroweak decay, but about half of these have narrow decay widths ≤ 100 keV . Because the GFMC method does not involve any expansion in basis functions, it correctly includes effects of the continuum. If the energy propagation is continued to large enough imaginary time τ , the wave function will evolve to separated clusters and the energy to the sum of the energies of those clusters. For the physically narrow states, the GFMC constrained-path propagation starting from a confined variational trial function reaches a stable energy without any noticeable decay over the finite τ used in the present calculations. For physically very wide states ( > 1 MeV ), e.g., the first 2 + and 4 + states in Be 8 , the calculations show a smooth energy decline beyond τ ∼ 0.1 MeV - 1 [58] , while the rms radius shows a smooth growth, indicative that the propagation is disassembling the system into its component parts. In these few cases the energy of the state is estimated from the value at the beginning of the smooth energy decline. Additional particle-stable isobaric analog states, e.g., in B 8 and C 9 , 10 , have been calculated in the GFMC method, but are not shown. A VMC survey of more than 60 additional states has also been made, including higher excited states, more isobaric analog states, e.g., in Be 7 , and various particle-unstable nuclei like He 7 , C 8 , and B 9 . While the most important test of a Hamiltonian is the ability to reproduce known states, it is also important not to predict states in places where they are not observed; e.g., predicting a particle-stable He 10 ground state would be a failure of the model. The VMC survey has found no such problems for either the NV 2 + 3 - Ia or AV 18 + IL 7 models. The very satisfactory agreement between the predicted and observed spectra validates the present formulation of the basic model in terms of N N and 3 N chiral interactions, constrained by data in the few-nucleon systems only. Of course, one should not dismiss the earlier success of the AV 18 + IL 7 realistic interactions, even though the agreement in that case was obtained by relying on experimental data beyond A = 3 in order to constrain the 3 N interaction. If anything, the overall success of the chiral and realistic formulations shows that Hamiltonians containing two very different models of the N N force, both of which provide good fits to N N data, and 3 N forces containing just a small number of parameters fitted to a few data, can give very similar descriptions of light-nuclei spectra. This gives us confidence in predictions made in the framework of the basic model of nuclear theory. Key to this significant advance is our group’s ability to reliably solve the nuclear many-body problem for bound states of up to A = 12 nuclei with QMC methods, and for the three- and four-nucleon bound and scattering states with HH methods. This capability, especially for QMC methods, is driven by ever expanding computational resources and by continuing improvements in algorithms. In particular, the development of specific libraries operating under mpi [59] —the Asynchronous Dynamic Load Balancing ( adlb ) library and Distributed MEMory ( dmem ) library—have allowed us to fully exploit the massively parallel Theta supercomputer (3,624 Intel Knight’s Landing nodes with 64 cpu/node) of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility. Even under these favorable conditions, however, the final C 12 ground-state calculation still consumed 650 000 cpu-h. Future work will investigate the other chiral Hamiltonian models developed here, in particular, their impact on nuclear spectra, as well as refinements in the 3 N interaction obtained by retaining subleading terms [23,60] and by constraining them via fits to either nuclear spectra or 3 N scattering observables. The work of M. P., A. L., E. L., S. C. P., and R. B. W has been supported by the NUclear Computational Low-Energy Initiative (NUCLEI) SciDAC project. This research is further supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under Contracts No. DE-AC02-06CH11357 (M. P., A. L., S. C. P., and R. B. W) and No. DE-AC05-06OR23177 (R. S.). It used computational resources provided by Argonne’s Laboratory Computing Resource Center, by the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357 (via a Theta Early Science grant), and by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). [1] 1 J. Carlson , S. Gandolfi , F. Pederiva , S. C. Pieper , R. Schiavilla , K. E. Schmidt , and R. B. Wiringa , Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 , 1067 ( 2015 ). RMPHAT 0034-6861 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067 [2] 2 H. Yukawa , Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 1 , 1 ( 1955 ). 10.1143/PTPS.1.1 [3] 3 V. G. J. Stoks , R. A. M. Klomp , C. P. F. Terheggen , and J. J. de Swart , Phys. Rev. C 49 , 2950 ( 1994 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2950 [4] 4 R. B. Wiringa , V. G. J. Stoks , and R. Schiavilla , Phys. Rev. C 51 , 38 ( 1995 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38 [5] 5 R. Machleidt , Phys. Rev. C 63 , 024001 ( 2001 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.024001 [6] 6 V. G. J. Stoks , R. A. M. Klomp , M. C. M. Rentmeester , and J. J. de Swart , Phys. Rev. C 48 , 792 ( 1993 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.48.792 [7] 7 J. L. Friar , B. F. Gibson , and G. L. Payne , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 34 , 403 ( 1984 ). ARPSDF 0163-8998 10.1146/annurev.ns.34.120184.002155 [8] 8 B. S. Pudliner , V. R. Pandharipande , J. Carlson , S. C. Pieper , and R. B. Wiringa , Phys. Rev. C 56 , 1720 ( 1997 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.1720 [9] 9 P. Navrátil , J. P. Vary , and B. R. Barrett , Phys. Rev. C 62 , 054311 ( 2000 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054311 [10] 10 S. C. Pieper , V. R. Pandharipande , R. B. Wiringa , and J. Carlson , Phys. Rev. C 64 , 014001 ( 2001 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.014001 [11] 11 J. Fujita and H. Miyazawa , Prog. Theor. Phys. 17 , 360 ( 1957 ). PTPKAV 0033-068X 10.1143/PTP.17.360 [12] 12 S. C. Pieper , AIP Conf. Proc. 1011 , 143 ( 2008 ). APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2932280 [13] 13 S. Weinberg , Phys. Lett. B 251 , 288 ( 1990 ). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90938-3 [14] 14 S. Weinberg , Nucl. Phys. B363 , 3 ( 1991 ). NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90231-L [15] 15 S. Weinberg , Phys. Lett. B 295 , 114 ( 1992 ). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(92)90099-P [16] 16 C. Ordonez , L. Ray , and U. van Kolck , Phys. Rev. C 53 , 2086 ( 1996 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.53.2086 [17] 17 E. Epelbaum , W. Glöckle , and U.-G. Meissner , Nucl. Phys. A637 , 107 ( 1998 ). NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00220-6 [18] 18 D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt , Phys. Rev. C 68 , 041001 ( 2003 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.041001 [19] 19 R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem , Phys. Rep. 503 , 1 ( 2011 ). PRPLCM 0370-1573 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 [20] 20 U. van Kolck , Phys. Rev. C 49 , 2932 ( 1994 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2932 [21] 21 E. Epelbaum , A. Nogga , W. Glockle , H. Kamada , U.-G. Meissner , and H. Witala , Phys. Rev. C 66 , 064001 ( 2002 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.064001 [22] 22 V. Bernard , E. Epelbaum , H. Krebs , and U.-G. Meissner , Phys. Rev. C 84 , 054001 ( 2011 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.054001 [23] 23 L. Girlanda , A. Kievsky , and M. Viviani , Phys. Rev. C 84 , 014001 ( 2011 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.014001 [24] 24 H. Krebs , A. Gasparyan , and E. Epelbaum , Phys. Rev. C 85 , 054006 ( 2012 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.054006 [25] 25 A. Ekström , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 192502 ( 2013 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.192502 [26] 26 A. Ekström , G. R. Jansen , K. A. Wendt , G. Hagen , T. Papenbrock , B. D. Carlsson , C. Forssén , M. Hjorth-Jensen , P. Navrátil , and W. Nazarewicz , Phys. Rev. C 91 , 051301(R) ( 2015 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.051301 [27] 27 E. Epelbaum , H. Krebs , and U.-G. Meißner , Eur. Phys. J. A 51 , 53 ( 2015 ). EPJAFV 1434-6001 10.1140/epja/i2015-15053-8 [28] 28 P. Navrátil , Few Body Syst. 41 , 117 ( 2007 ). 10.1007/s00601-007-0193-3 [29] 29 I. Tews , S. Gandolfi , A. Gezerlis , and A. Schwenk , Phys. Rev. C 93 , 024305 ( 2016 ). PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.024305 [30] 30 A. Ekström , arXiv:1707.09028 . [31] 31 J. L. Friar and U. van Kolck , Phys. Rev. C 60 , 034006 ( 1999 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.60.034006 [32] 32 J. L. Friar , U. van Kolck , M. C. M. Rentmeester , and R. G. E. Timmermans , Phys. Rev. C 70 , 044001 ( 2004 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.044001 [33] 33 J. L. Friar , G. L. Payne , and U. van Kolck , Phys. Rev. C 71 , 024003 ( 2005 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024003 [34] 34 A. Gezerlis , I. Tews , E. Epelbaum , S. Gandolfi , K. Hebeler , A. Nogga , and A. Schwenk , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 032501 ( 2013 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.032501 [35] 35 A. Gezerlis , I. Tews , E. Epelbaum , M. Freunek , S. Gandolfi , K. Hebeler , A. Nogga , and A. Schwenk , Phys. Rev. C 90 , 054323 ( 2014 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.054323 [36] 36 M. Piarulli , L. Girlanda , R. Schiavilla , A. Kievsky , A. Lovato , L. E. Marcucci , S. C. Pieper , M. Viviani , and R. B. Wiringa , Phys. Rev. C 94 , 054007 ( 2016 ). PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.054007 [37] 37 M. Piarulli , L. Girlanda , R. Schiavilla , R. N. Perez , J. E. Amaro , and E. R. Arriola , Phys. Rev. C 91 , 024003 ( 2015 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024003 [38] 38a D. B. Kaplan , M. J. Savage , and M. B. Wise , Phys. Lett. B 424 , 390 ( 1998 ); PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00210-X 38b D. B. Kaplan , M. J. Savage , and M. B. Wise Nucl. Phys. B534 , 329 ( 1998 ). NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00440-4 [39] 39 A. Nogga , R. G. E. Timmermans , and U. van Kolck , Phys. Rev. C 72 , 054006 ( 2005 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.054006 [40] 40 M. C. Birse , Phys. Rev. C 74 , 014003 ( 2006 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.014003 [41] 41 M. P. Valderrama and D. R. Phillips , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 , 082502 ( 2015 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.082502 [42] 42a R. Navarro Pérez , J. E. Amaro , and E. Ruiz Arriola , Phys. Rev. C 88 , 024002 ( 2013 ); PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024002 42b R. Navarro Pérez , J. E. Amaro , and E. Ruiz Arriola Phys. Rev. C 88 , 069902(E) ( 2013 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.069902 [43] 43 J. E. Lynn , I. Tews , J. Carlson , S. Gandolfi , A. Gezerlis , K. E. Schmidt , and A. Schwenk , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 , 062501 ( 2016 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.062501 [44] 44 J. E. Lynn , I. Tews , J. Carlson , S. Gandolfi , A. Gezerlis , K. E. Schmidt , and A. Schwenk , Phys. Rev. C 96 , 054007 ( 2017 ). PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.054007 [45] 45a N. Fettes , U.-G. Meissner , M. Mojzis , and S. Steininger , Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 283 , 273 ( 2000 ); APNYA6 0003-4916 10.1006/aphy.2000.6059 45b N. Fettes , U.-G. Meissner , M. Mojzis , and S. Steininger Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 288 , 249(E) ( 2001 ). APNYA6 0003-4916 10.1006/aphy.2001.6134 [46] 46 See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503 for details regarding the cutoffs and radial functions of the chiral 3 N interaction and a figure showing low-energy proton-deuteron cross sections and polarization observables. [47] 47 A. Kievsky , S. Rosati , M. Viviani , L. E. Marcucci , and L. Girlanda , J. Phys. G 35 , 063101 ( 2008 ). JPGPED 0954-3899 10.1088/0954-3899/35/6/063101 [48] 48 A. Gårdestig and D. R. Phillips , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 232301 ( 2006 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.232301 [49] 49 D. Gazit , S. Quaglioni , and P. Navrátil , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 102502 ( 2009 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.102502 [50] 50 L. E. Marcucci , A. Kievsky , S. Rosati , R. Schiavilla , and M. Viviani , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 052502 ( 2012 ). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.052502 [51] 51a A. Baroni , L. Girlanda , A. Kievsky , L. E. Marcucci , R. Schiavilla , and M. Viviani , Phys. Rev. C 94 , 024003 ( 2016 ); PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024003 51b A. Baroni , L. Girlanda , A. Kievsky , L. E. Marcucci , R. Schiavilla , and M. Viviani Phys. Rev. C 95 , 059902(E) ( 2017 ). PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.059902 [52] 52 A. Baroni , L. Girlanda , S. Pastore , R. Schiavilla , and M. Viviani , Phys. Rev. C 93 , 015501 ( 2016 ). PRVCAN 2469-9985 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.015501 [53] 53 H. Krebs , E. Epelbaum , and U.-G. Meiner , Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 378 , 317 ( 2017 ). APNYA6 0003-4916 10.1016/j.aop.2017.01.021 [54] 54 G. Audi , A. H. Wapstra , and C. Thibault , Nucl. Phys. A729 , 337 ( 2003 ). NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.003 [55] 55 K. Schoen , D. L. Jacobson , M. Arif , P. R. Huffman , T. C. Black , W. M. Snow , S. K. Lamoreaux , H. Kaiser , and S. A. Werner , Phys. Rev. C 67 , 044005 ( 2003 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.044005 [56] 56 W. Glöckle , H. Witala , D. Hüber , H. Kamada , and J. Golak , Phys. Rep. 274 , 107 ( 1996 ). PRPLCM 0370-1573 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00085-2 [57] 57 S. Shimizu , K. Sagara , H. Nakamura , K. Maeda , T. Miwa , N. Nishimori , S. Ueno , T. Nakashima , and S. Morinobu , Phys. Rev. C 52 , 1193 ( 1995 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1193 [58] 58 S. Pastore , R. B. Wiringa , S. C. Pieper , and R. Schiavilla , Phys. Rev. C 90 , 024321 ( 2014 ). PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024321 [59] 59 E. Lusk , R. Butler , and S. C. Pieper , Int. J. High Perf. Computing Appl. 32 , 4 ( 2017 ). 10.1177/1094342017703448 [60] 60 J. Golak , Eur. Phys. J. A 50 , 177 ( 2014 ). EPJAFV 1434-6001 10.1140/epja/i2014-14177-7