Scattering matrix pole expansions for complex wavenumbers in R-matrix theory

Pablo Ducru∗ and Benoit Forget† Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139 U.S.A.

Vladimir Sobes‡ University of Tennessee Department of Nuclear Engineering 1412 Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996, U.S.A.

Gerald Hale§ and Mark Paris¶ Los Alamos National Laboratory Theoretical Division (T-2) MS B283, Los Alamos, NM 87454 U.S.A.

(Dated: October 28, 2020) In this follow-up article to [1], we establish new results on scattering matrix pole expansions for complex wavenumbers in R-matrix theory. In the past, two branches of theoretical formalisms emerged to describe the scattering matrix in nuclear physics: R-matrix theory, and pole expansions. The two have been quite isolated from one another. Recently, our study of Brune’s alternative parametrization of R-matrix theory has shown the need to extend the scattering matrix (and the underlying R-matrix operators) to complex wavenumbers [1]. Two competing ways of doing so have emerged from a historical ambiguity in the definitions of the shift S and penetration P functions: the legacy Lane & Thomas “force closure” approach, versus analytic continuation (which is the standard in mathematical physics). The R-matrix community has not yet come to a consensus as to which to adopt for evaluations in standard nuclear data libraries, such as ENDF [2]. In this article, we argue in favor of analytic continuation of R-matrix operators. We bridge R-matrix theory with the Humblet-Rosenfeld pole expansions, and unveil new properties of the Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles and widths, including their invariance properties to changes in channel radii ac. We then show that analytic continuation of R-matrix operators preserves impor- tant physical and mathematical properties of the scattering matrix – cancelling spurious poles and guaranteeing generalized unitarity – while still being able to close channels below thresholds.

I. INTRODUCTION matrix theory studies the particular two-body-in/two- body-out model of this scattering event, with the funda- Myriad nuclear interactions have been modeled with mental assumption that the total Hamiltonian is the su- R-matrix theory, with applications to many branches perposition of a short-range, interior Hamiltonian, which of nuclear physics, from nuclear simulation, radiation is null after a given channel radius ac, and a long-range, transport, astrophysics and cosmology, and extending exterior Hamiltonian which is well known (free parti- to particle physics or atomistic and molecular simula- cles or Coulomb potential, for instance)[4, 17–19]. R- tion [3][4][5][6–10]. Our current nuclear data libraries matrix theory can parametrize the energy dependence of the scattering matrix in different ways. The Wigner- arXiv:2010.14062v1 [nucl-th] 24 Oct 2020 are based on R-matrix evaluations (ENDF[2], JEFF[11], BROND[12], JENDL[13], CENDL[14], TENDL[15, 16]). Eisenbud parametrization is the historical standard, be- The R-matrix scattering model takes different incoming cause its parameters are real and well defined, though particle-waves and lets them interact through a given some are arbitrary (the channel radius ac and the bound- Hamiltonian to produce different possible outcomes. R- ary condition Bc). To remove this dependence on an arbitrary boundary condition Bc, the nuclear commu- nity has recently been considering shifting nuclear data libraries to an alternative parametrization of R-matrix ∗ p [email protected] ; [email protected]; Also from theory [1, 20–22]. Ecole´ Polytechnique, France. & Schwarzman Scholars, Tsinghua In parallel, a vast literature in mathematical physics University, China. and nuclear physics has studied pole expansions of the † [email protected] ‡ [email protected] scattering matrix [23–27], starting with the well-known § [email protected] developments by Humblet and Rosenfeld [28–35]. ¶ [email protected] In this article, we show in section II how the Siegert- 2

Humblet expansion into radioactive states is the link be- ters (section II A), link them to the Brune alternative tween R-matrix theory and the scattering matrix pole parametrization (section II B), reveal their branch struc- expansions of Humblet & Rosenfeld. In the process, ture (theorem 1 section II C), which emerges from the we unveil new relations between the radioactive poles wavenumber-energy mapping (1): and residues and the alternative parametrization of R- matrix theory, and establish for the first time the num- ρc(E) ←→ E (1) ber of radioactive poles in wavenumber space (theorem 1) along with their branch-structure. Section III inves- where ρc , ackc is the dimensionless wavenumber vari- tigates the invariance properties of Siegert-Humblet ra- able ρ , diag (ρc), ac is the arbitrary channel radius, and kc(E) is the wavenumber of channel c, which is linked to dioactive parameters to a change in channel radius ac. We demonstrate in theorem 2 that invariance of the scat- the energy E of the system (eigenvalue of the Hamilto- nian of the Sch¨odingerequation) as explained in section tering matrix to ac sets a partial differential equation on II.A. of [1]. the Kapur-Peierls operator RL, which in turn enables us to derive explicit transformations of the Siegert-Humblet radioactive widths {rj,c} under a change of channel ra- dius a . Section IV considers the continuation of the A. Definition of Siegert & Humblet c parametrization scattering matrix to complex wavenumbers in R-matrix theory. We establish several new results. We show that the legacy of Lane & Thomas to force-close channels be- Following the notation of [1] (to which we refer for low threshold not only breaks the analytic properties of further explanations), we here recall the essential relation the scattering matrix, but also introduces nonphysical expressing the scattering matrix U as a function of R- spurious poles. Yet we prove that these spurious poles matrix operators: are cancelled-out if one performs analytic continuation of U = O−1I + 2iρ1/2O−1R O−1ρ1/2 (2) R-matrix operators instead (theorem 3). We also show L that this analytic continuation of R-matrix operators en- I and O are the incoming and outgoing wavefunctions, forces the generalized unitarity conditions described by which are subject to the following Wronksian condition: Eden & Taylor [36] (theorem 4). Finally, in the case of (1) (1) for all channel c, w O I −I O = 2i, or with iden- massive particles, we propose a solution to the conun- c , c c c c tity matrix (expression (7) in [1]) and denoting [ · ](1) drum of how to close the channels below thresholds, by I the diagonal channel c derivative with respect to ρ invoking both a quantum tunneling argument, whereby c the transmission matrix is evanescent below threshold (1) (1) w , O I − I O = 2iI (3) (theorem 5), and a physical argument based on the defi- nition of the cross section as the ratio of probability cur- and where RL is the Kapur-Peierls operator, defined as rents (theorem 6). All these results make us argue that, (see equation (20) section II.D of [1]): contrary to what Lane & Thomas prescribed [4], the R- −1 T matrix parametrization should be analytically continued RL , [I − R (L − B)] R = γ Aγ (4) to complex wave-numbers kc ∈ C. These considerations have practical implications on R-matrix evaluation codes, This Kapur-Peierls RL operator is at the heart of the such as EDA [37, 38], SAMMY [39], or AZURE [40], used Siegert-Humblet parametrization, and its study com- to build our nuclear data libraries (ENDF[2], JEFF[11], poses a core part of this article. The Kapur-Peierls oper- BROND[12], JENDL[13], CENDL[14], TENDL[15, 16]). ator RL is a function of the Wigner-Eisenbud R-matrix We thus call for analytic continuation of R-matrix opera- R, parametrized by the resonance parameters (energies tors to become the new standard for nuclear cross section e , diag (Eλ) and widths γ , mat (γλ,c)) evaluations. T −1 R(E) , γ (e − E I) γ (5)

as well as the arbitrary boundary condition B , II. SIEGERT-HUMBLET POLE EXPANSION IN diag (B ), and the reduced logarithmic derivative of the RADIOACTIVE STATES c outgoing wavefunction L , diag (Lc), defined as (c.f. section II.B of [1]) We here establish new R-matrix theory results con- cerning the Siegert-Humblet expansion into radioactive ρc ∂Oc Lc(ρc) , (6) states (c.f. sections IX.2.c-d-e p.297-298 in [4]). These Oc ∂ρc radioactive parameters express the energy dependence of the scattering matrix into a simple sum of poles and and which admits the following Mittag-Leffler pole ex- residues. We show this constitutes the link between R- pansion (theorem 1 section II.B of [1]): matrix theory and the scattering matrix pole expansions Lc(ρ) −` X 1 of Humblet and Rosenfeld [28–35] (section II F). In the = + i + (7) ρ ρ ρ − ωn wake, we show how to obtain the radioactive parame- n≥1 3 where {ωn} are the roots of the Oc(ρ) outgoing wave- poles are complex and usually decomposed as: functions: ∀n, Oc(ωn) = 0 (reported in table II of [1] for neutral particles). Γj Ej , Ej − i (12) Equivalently, the Kapur-Peierls operator RL can be ex- 2 pressed with the level matrix A (see equations (17) and (18) of section II.C of [1]): It can be shown (c.f. discussion section IX.2.d pp.297– 298 in [4], or section 9.2 eq. (9.11) in [28]) that fun- −1 T A , e − EI − γ (L − B) γ (8) damental physical properties (conservation of probabil- ity, causality and time reversal) ensure that the poles re- All these R-matrix operators are functions of the side either on the positive semi-axis of purely-imaginary wavenumbers kc(E) (or their corresponding dimension- kc ∈ iR+ – corresponding to bound states for real sub- less wavenumber variable ρ diag (ρ )). The Siegert- , c threshold energies, i.e. Ej < ET and Γj = 0 – or that Humblet pole expansion in radioactive states consists of c all the other poles are on the lower-half kc plane, with analytically continuing the Kapur-Peierls R operator L Γj > 0, corresponding to “resonance” or “radioactively to complex wavenumbers kc ∈ C, thereby becoming a decaying” states. All poles enjoy the specular symme- locally meromorphic operator. The poles of this mero- try property: if kc ∈ C is a pole of the Kapur-Peierls morphic operator can be assumed to have a Laurent ex- ∗ operator, then −kc is too. pansion of order one (i.e. simple poles), as we will discuss −1

Let Mj = dim Ker RL (Ej) be the dimension of in section IV C. Since the Kapur-Peierls RL operator is the nullspace of the inverse of the Kapur-Peierls op- complex-symmetric, its residues at any given pole value erator at pole value Ej – that is Mj is the geomet- Ej ∈ C are also complex-symmetric. For non-degenerate −1
ric multiplicity. We can thus write Ker RL (Ej) = eigenvalues Ej ∈ C, the corresponding residues are rank-  M  T Span q1,..., qm,..., q j . As we discuss in section one and expressed as rj rj , while for degenerate eigenval- j j j ues Ej ∈ C of multiplicity Mj, the corresponding residues IV C, it is physically reasonable to assume that the PMj m mT geometric and algebraic multiplicities are equal (semi- are rank-Mj and expressed as m=1 rj rj . On a given domain, the Mittag-Leffler theorem [41, 42] then states simplicity condition), which entails a Laurent develop- that R locally takes the form, in the vicinity W(E) ment of order one for the poles – i.e. no higher powers of L 1 in expansion (9). Since RL is complex-symmetric, (neighborhood) of any complex energy E ∈ C away from E−Ej the branch points (threshold energies ET ) of mapping if we assume we can find non-quasi-null eigenvectors so- c mT m (1), of a sum of poles and residues and a holomorphic lutions to (11) – that is ∀ (j, m) , qj qj 6= 0 so it entire part HolRL (E): is non-defective [49–55] – then Gohberg-Sigal theory can be adapted to the case of complex-symmetric matrices to PMj m mT X m=1 rj rj normalize the rank-Mj residues of RL matrix as: RL(E) = + HolRL (E) (9) W(E) E − Ej j≥1 Mj Mj m mT X X qj qj rmrmT = (13) or, in the particular (but most common) case where Ej is j j  −1  ∂R m=1 m=1 mT L m a non-degenerate eigenvalue (with multiplicity Mj = 1), qj ∂E qj E=Ej T X rj rj R (E) = + Hol (E) (10) n mo L RL The residue widths r , here called radioactive widths, W(E) E − Ej j j≥1 can thus directly be expressed as: This is the Siegert-Humblet expansion into so-called ra- m dioactive states [43–47] — equivalent to equation (2.16) qj rm = (14) of section IX.2.c. in [4] where we have modified the no- j s   ∂R−1 mT L m tation for greater consistency (Ej corresponds to Hλ of qj ∂E qj E=Ej [4] and rj corresponds to ωλ) since there are more com- plex poles Ej than real energy levels Eλ. The Siegert- ∂R−1 Humblet parameters are then the poles {Ej} and residue where L can readily be calculated by means of ∂E widths {r } of this complex resonance expansion of the E=Ej j the following property: Kapur-Peierls operator RL. The Gohberg-Sigal theory [48] provides a method for −1 −1 ∂RL ∂R ∂L calculating these poles and residues by solving the fol- = (Ej) − (Ej) (15) ∂E ∂E ∂E lowing generalized eigenvalue problem — which we call E=Ej radioactive problem: where the R-matrix R is invertible at the radioactive −1 R (E) qj = 0 (11) L E=Ej poles {Ej}, with  that is finding the poles Ej of the Kapur-Peierls op- ∂R−1 (E) = −R−1γT (e − E )−2 γR−1 (16) erator, RL, and their associated eigenvectors {qj }. The ∂E I 4

In practice, we are most often presented with non- In the most frequent case of non-degenerate eigenvalues degenerate states where Mj = 1, meaning the kernel is to (19), this yields rank-one residues as: −1
an eigenline Ker R (Ej) = Span (qj ), which entails L T rank-one residues normalized as: X aj aj A(E) = + HolA(E) (22) T W(E) E − Ej T qj qj j≥1 rj rj =   (17) ∂R−1 qT L q Again, under non-quasi-null eigenvectors assumption j ∂E j E=Ej mT m bj bj 6= 0, Gohberg-Sigal theory ensures the residues or equivalently are normalized as: −1 ! bmbmT T ∂RL m mT j j rj rj = 1 (18) aj aj =   (23) ∂E T −1 E=Ej m ∂A m bj ∂E bj E=Ej thus for clarity of reading and without loss of generality, we henceforth drop the superscript “m” and summation which is readily calculable from over the multiplicity, unless it is of specific interest. The radioactive poles, {E }, and radioactive widths, ∂A−1 ∂L j (E ) = − − γ (E )γT (24)  h iT ∂E j I ∂E j rm = rm , . . . , rm , . . . , rm , are the Siegert- j j,c1 j,c j,cNc Plugging (21) into (4), and invoking the unicity of the Humblet parameters. They are complex and locally un- complex residues, implies the radioactive widths (14) can tangle the energy dependence into an expansion sum of be obtained as poles and residues (9). Additional discussion on these poles and residues can be found in [4], sections IX.2.c-d- rm = γTam (25) e p.297-298, or in [44?? , 45]. j j The Kapur-Peierls matrix RL is invariant to a change This is an interesting and novel way to define the in boundary conditions Bc — c.f. equations (25) and (26) Siegert-Humblet parameters, which is similar to the al- of section II.F of [1] — this entails the radioactive poles ternative parameters definition of [1]. From this perspec- {Ej} and widths {rj } are independent of the boundary tive, the alternative parameters appear as a special case condition Bc. that leave the Siegert-Humblet level-matrix parameters invariant to boundary condition Bc. Indeed, one could search for the Siegert-Humblet expansion of the alterna- B. Level matrix A(E) approach to Siegert & tive parametrization of R-matrix theory, by simply pro- Humblet expansion ceeding as in equation (34) section III.A of [1], but replac- ing the level matrix A with the alternative level matrix An alternative approach to calculating the Siegert- Ae (defined in equations (30) and (33) section III.A of Humblet parameters a , E , rm ,E from the Wigner- c j j,c Tc [1]): Eisenbud ones {ac,Bc, γλ,c,Eλ,ETc } is through the level matrix A. We search for the poles and eigenvectors of −1 Ae (E) bej = 0 (26) the level matrix operator A: E=Ej −1 A (E) bj = 0 (19) E=Ej The exact same Gohberg-Sigal procedure can then be applied to the Mittag-Leffler expansion of the alternative from (8), this means solving for the eigenvalues {Ej} and level matrix Ae, in the vicinity W(E) of E ∈ C away from associated eigenvectors {bj } that satisfy: branch points {ETc },  T (20) e − γ (L(Ej) − B) γ bj = Ejbj T PMj m m X m=1 agj agj This problem is analogous to the alternative parametriza- A(E) = + Hol (E) (27) e Ae W(E) E − Ej tion of R-matrix theory, but replacing the shift factor S j≥1 with the outgoing-wave reduced logarithmic derivative L (c.f. [1]). yielding the normalized residue widths: Again, the same hypotheses as for the Kapur-Peierls T m m operator RL in section II A allow us to adapt the T bfj bfj agmagm = (28) Gohberg-Sigal theory to the case of complex-symmetric j j T   bm ∂Ae−1 bm operators to yield the following local Mittag-Leffler ex- fj ∂E fj pansion of the level matrix (with normalized residues): E=Ej

PMj m mT where (24) can be combined to equation (33) of [1]: X m=1 aj aj A(E) = + HolA(E) (21) W(E) E − Ej T T j≥1 γ Aγ = γe Aeγe 5 to calculate the energy derivative. Then, plugging (28) (11), where the R(E) matrix (5) is a function of the into the same equation (33) of [1], we obtain the rela- energy E, while L(ρ) is a function of the dimensionless tion between the alternative R-matrix parameters and wavenumber ρc , ackc(E). Thus, radioactive problem the Siegert-Humblet radioactive parameters: (11) can be solved either in energy space or in mo- mentum space, both of which are linked by the ρ(E) m T m rj = γe agj (29) mapping (1). This mapping induces a multi-sheeted Riemann surface, which introduces branch-points and This relation (29) is especially enlightening when sheets we now unveil in theorem 1. compared to (25) from the viewpoint of invariance to boundary condition Bc. Indeed, we explained that the Theorem 1. Siegert-Humblet Radioactive Pole n o m Expansion Branch Structure. Siegert-Humblet parameters Ej, rj are invariant with 0 Let the radioactive poles {Ej} be the solutions of the ra- a change of boundary condition Bc → Bc. This is how- dioactive problem (11), and {ET } denote the threshold n mo c ever not true of the level matrix residue widths aj energies, branch-points of the ρc(E) wavenumber-energy from (23). Thus, we can formally write this invariance mapping (1), then: by differentiating (25) with respect to Bc and noting that ∂rm • in the neighborhood W(E) of any complex energy E j = 0, yielding: ∂B away from branch-points {ETc }, there exists a se- ries of complex matrices {c } such that the Mittag- ∂γT ∂am n 0 = am + γT j (30) Leffler expansion (10) takes the analytic form: ∂B j ∂B r rT This new relation links the variation of the Wigner- X j j X n RL(E) = + cnE (32) Eisenbud resonance widths γ at level values E (res- W(E) E − Ej λ,c λ j≥1 n≥0 onance energies) under a change of boundary conditions Bc0 , to the variation of the level matrix residue widths m • the radioactive poles {Ej} are complex, and live aj,c at pole values Ej under change of boundary condition on the multi-sheeted Riemann surface of kc(E) Bc0 . Since transformations (26) and (27) of section II.F ∂γT wavenumber-energy mapping (1): in [1] detail how to perform ∂B , equation (30) could be m used to update a under a change B → B 0 . n o j c c E , +, +, −,..., +, − (33) Another telling insight from relation (30) is when we j apply it to the relation between the alternative param- eters and the Siegert-Humblet radioactive widths (29). • Let NL be the number of solutions to the radioactive problem (11) in wavenumber ρ space. For neutral Since the alternative parameters γe are invariant to Bc (that is their main purpose), the same differentiation as particles: in (30) now yields zero derivatives, Nc ! X (NET 6=ET −1) ∂am NL = 2Nλ + `c × 2 c c0 (34) T gj 0 = γ (31) c=1 e ∂B This is obvious from the fact that the alternative level • For charged particles, there is an infinite number matrix Ae is invariant under change of boundary condi- (countable) of radioactive poles: NL = ∞. tion. Yet invariance (31) is insightful at it presents the n o Proof. Away from the branch points {ETc }, the holomor- alternative parameters Efi, γe as the ones which, when phic part of Mittag-Leffler expansion (10) can be ana- transformed to Siegert-Humblet radioactive parameters lytically expanded in series as (32) – we here assumed {Ej, rj } though (29), leave the level residue widths {afj } the non-degenerate case of rank-one residues (multiplic- invariant to Bc. ity Mj = 1) though it is readily generalizable to (9). Conversely, the Kapur-Peierls pole expansion (10) ex- When solving radioactive problem (11), or (20), to ob- tends the alternative parametrization in that it generates tain the Siegert-Humblet poles {Ej} and residues {rj }, 0 boundary condition Bc independent poles {Ej} and ra- or {aj }, it is necessary to compute the L matrix func- dioactive widths {r } that explicitly invert the alterna- 0 0 j tion L (E) , L (ρ(E)) for complex energies E ∈ C. tive level matrix Ae to yield (27). As discussed in [1] (c.f. sections II.A, B, III. B. and C. of [1]), mapping (1) generates a multi-sheeted Rie- mann surface with 2Nc branches (with the threshold val- C. Siegert-Humblet Radioactive Pole Expansion ues ETc as branch points), corresponding to the choice Branch Structure for each channel c, of the sign of the square root in ρ(E). This means that when searching for the poles, one Section II A introduced the Siegert-Humblet has to keep track of these choices and specify for each parametrization as the solutions of radioactive problem pole Ej on what sheet it is found. Every pole Ej must 6 thus come with the full reporting of these Nc signs, i.e. the scattering matrix one needs to provide the Siegert- {Ej, −, +, +,..., −, +} as (33). Humblet parameters {Ej, rj,c}, cut the energy domain of When searching for these radioactive poles in interest into local windows W(E) away from threshold wavenumber space, the RL Kapur-Peierls operator (4) is branch-points {ETc }, and provide a set of local coeffi- continued to complex wavenumbers by meromorphic con- cients {c } for each window. n n∈ 1,NW(E) tinuation of L(ρ), where the reduced logarithmic deriva- As discussedJ in [1]K (c.f. lemmas 1 and 2 section III.B tive of the outgoing wavefunction (6) takes the Mittag- and theorems 2 and 3 of section III.C of [1]), the defini- Leffler expansion described in equation (13) of theorem tion of the shift and penetration functions for complex 1 section II.B. of [1]. There are more radioactive poles wavenumbers is ambiguous (in particular purely imag- {Ej} than Wigner-Eisenbud levels {Eλ} — as was the inary wavenumbers yield negative or sub-threshold en- case for the alternative parameters (c.f. theorems 2 and ergies), which in turn entail various possible alternative 3 III.C of [1]). For massive neutral particles, we can pro- parameters. When solving radioactive problem (11) to ceed in an analogous fashion as for the proof of theorem find the Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles and residues 3 section III.C of [1], and apply the diagonal divisibility {Ej, rj,c} – or (20) equivalently – there are no such ambi- and capped multiplicities lemma (lemma 3 section III.C. guities on the definition of L: the Kapur-Peierls operator of [1]) to the determinant of the Kapur-Peierls operator is simply analytically continued to complex wavenum- RL in (11) – but this time in ρc space – and then look bers. The unicity of analytic continuation thus entails at the order of the resulting rational fractions in ρc and that the Siegert-Humblet parameters are uniquely de- the number of times√ one must square the polynomials fined, as long as we specify for each channel c what sheet to unfold all ρc = ∓ · sheets of mapping (1). We were of the Riemann surface from mapping (1) was chosen, as thus able to establish that the number NL of poles in in (33). wavenumber ρ-space is 2N + PNc ` poles per sheet: λ c=1 c The {Ej, +, +,..., +, +} sheet is called the physical that is a total of (34) over all sheets, where NET 6=ET c c0 sheet, and we here call the poles on that sheet the designates the number of different thresholds (including principal poles. All other sheets are called nonphysical the obvious ETc = 0 zero threshold) and thus the number and the poles laying on these sheets are called shadow of sheets. poles. Often, the principal poles are responsible for the In the charged particles case, Lc(ρc) has a countably resonant behavior, with shadow poles only contributing infinite number of poles, which in turn induces an infi- to background behavior, but cases have emerged where nite number (countable) of solutions to the radioactive the shadow poles contribute significantly to the reso- problem (11) (c.f. discussion after theorem 1 section II.B nance structure, as reported in [56], and G. Hale there of [1]). introduced a quantity called strength of a pole (c.f. eq. (7) in [56], or paragraph after eq. (2.11) XI.2.b, p.306, and section XI.4, p.312 in [4]) to quantify the impact a It is important to grasp the meaning of the Mittag- pole Ej will have on resonance behavior, by comparing Leffler expansion (10) — or (21) and (27). These are the residue rj,c to the Wigner-Eisenbud widths γλ,c. local expressions: they do not hold for all complex ener- gies E ∈ C because of the branch-point structure of the Result (34) is quite instructive: one can observe that Riemann sheet. However, in the neighborhood W(E) of the number NL of Siegert-Humblet poles adds-up the any complex energy point E ∈ C away from the branch- number of levels Nλ and the number of poles of L (which points (thresholds {ET }), the Mittag-Leffler expansion PNc c is c=1 `c for neutral massive particles, and is infinite in (10) is true, and its holomorphic part admits an ana- the Coulomb case, c.f. discussion after theorem 1 in sec- P n lytic expansion HolRL (E) , n≥0 cnE . This has two tion II.B of [1]. Moreover, NL is duplicated with each new major consequences for the Siegert-Humblet expansion. sheet of the Riemann surface from mapping (1) — that n o First, contrarily to the alternative parameters Ei, γi,c is associated to a new threshold, hence the NET 6=ET . f g c c0 discussed in [1], the Siegert-Humblet set of radioactive Interestingly, comparing NL from (34) with the number poles and widths {Ej, rj,c} do not suffice to uniquely NS of alternative analytic poles from equation (49) in determine the energy behavior of the scattering matrix theorem 3 section III.C of [1] — which are in E-space U(E): one needs to locally add the expansion coefficients and must thus be doubled to obtain the number of ρ- P n space poles — we note that the analytic continuation of [cn]c,c0 of the entire part HolRL (E) , n≥0 cnE . Sec- ond, since the set of coefficients {c } is a priori infinite the shift factor S (c.f. lemma 2 III.B of [1]) adds a vir- n tual pole for each pole of L when unfolding the sheets of (and so is the set of poles in the Coulomb case), this 2 means that numerically the Siegert-Humblet expansion mapping (1), because it is a function of ρc (E). This can can only be used to compute local approximations of the readily be observed in the trivial case of a p-wave (` = 1) channel with one resonance (one level Nλ = 1), where scattering matrix, which can nonetheless reach any tar- 1 S(E) = − 2 introduces two poles at ρ(E) = ±i, get accuracy by increasing the number of {Ej} 1+ρ (E) j∈ 1,NL 2 J K −1+iρ(E)+ρ (E) poles included and the order of the truncation NW(E) in while L(E) = 1−iρ(E) only counts one pole, at {c } . In practice, this means that to compute n n∈ 1,NW(E) ρ(E) = i. J K 7

As for equation (50) of theorem 3 section III.C. of [1], one should add the precision that in the sum over the channels in (34), the multiplicity of possible Lc(ρc) re- peated over many different channels Lc(ρc) = Lc06=c(ρc0 ) is capped by Nλ, which in practice would only occur in the rare cases where only one or two levels occurs for many channels with same angular momenta (and, of course, total angular momenta and parity J π). Numerically, solving the generalized eigenvalue prob- lems (11) or (20) falls into the well-known class of nonlinear eigenvalue problems, for which algorithms we direct the reader to Heinrich Voss’s chapter 115 in the Handbook of Linear Algebra [57]. We will just state that instead of the Rayleigh-quotient type of methods expressed in [57], it can sometimes be computationally advantageous to first find the poles {Ej} by solving the channel determinant problem,   det R−1(E) = 0, or the corresponding level de- L E=Ej   terminant one, det A−1(E) = 0, and then solve E=Ej the associated linear eigenvalue problem. Methods tai- lored to find all the roots of this problem where intro- duced in [58], or in equations (200) and (204) of [59]. Notwithstanding, from a numerical standpoint, having the two approaches is beneficial in that solving (11) will (a) First p-wave resonance. be advantageous over solving (20) when the number of levels Nλ far exceeds the number of channels Nc, and conversely. Nonetheless, the multi-sheeted nature of the radioactive problem makes it harder to solve, as one must search each sheet of mapping (1) to find all the poles.

D. Xenon 134Xe evidence of radioactive parameters

In our previous article [1], we observed the first evi- dence of shadow poles in the alternative parametrization of R-matrix theory in isotope xenon 134Xe spin-parity group J π = 1/2(−), showing how they depend on the choice of continuation to complex wavenumbers. We here document in table I the Siegert-Humblet radioac- tive parameters (poles and residues of the Kapur-Peierls 134 RL operator), for these same p-wave resonances of Xe spin-parity group J π = 1/2(−). As shown in figure 1, both the radioactive parameters and the R-matrix pa- rameters yield an identical Kapur-Peierls RL(E) opera- tor, and therefore exactly reconstruct the scattering ma- trix U(E) of the nuclear interactions. This is made possible because 134Xe spin-parity group J π = 1/2(−) has only a neutron channel with zero thresh- old (ETc = 0). In the particular case of neutral particles (b) Second p-wave resonance. with zero threshold, the outgoing wavefunction reduced logarithmic derivative operator L(ρ) is a rational func- 134 √ FIG. 1. Kapur-Peirels RL(E) operator (4) of xenon Xe tion in E: this can be seen from Mittag-Leffer expan- two p-wave resonances in spin-parity group J π = 1/2(−). Di- sion (7) with a finite amount of poles {ωn} (reported in mensionless RL(E) is computed using radioactive parameters theorem 1 section II.B√ and table II of [1]). Therefore, from table I in expression (39), or using the R-matrix param- the transformation z , E unfolds the Riemann surface eters from table I in Reich-Moore level-matrix (8) – that is of mapping (1): that is that searching for solutions to definition (21) of [60] – yielding identical real and imaginary the radioactive problem (11) in z-space is equivalent to parts. 8

without constant nor holomorphic part (c.f. section II.F. TABLE I. Radioactive parameters (Siegert-Humblet poles of [60] for more in depth discussion of this process): and residue widths of the Kapur-Peierls RL(E) operator) 134 of the two p-wave resonances of Xe, spin-parity group T π (−) aj aj J = 1/2 , converted from ENDF/B-VIII.0 evaluation NL √ 2 E (MLBW) to multipole representation using Reich-Moore level X j A(E) = √ p (35) matrix (8), that is definition (21) of [60]. j=1 E − Ej √ z = E with E in (eV) Note that the nullity of the constant term entails the A = 132.7600 following remarkable property: ac = 5.80 : channel radius (Fermis) q 2mn Aac √ −1 ρ = h in ( eV ), so that ρ(z) ρ z NL T 0 A+1 , 0 X aj aj q √ = 0 (36) with 2mn = 0.002196807122623 in units (1/(10−14m eV)) p h j=1 2 Ej

Radioactive parameters (rounded to 5 digits): T Since from (25) we have rj = γ aj (assuming non- Radioactive poles Radioactive residue Level-matrix residue degenerate states), the latter properties on the level- {E , ±} from (20) widths r from (25) widths a from (22) j √ j j matrix can be transcribed into the following exact pole (eV), sheet of (1) ( eV) (dimensionless) expansion for the Kapur-Peierls operator (4):  2.7683E−9    −6.2694E+5 9.1193E−8  −i4.4744E−2  r rT ,+ j j −i1.0238E−4 −i1.4762E+0  1.5345E−9  NL √   X 2 Ej −i2.4964E−2 RL(E) = √ (37) E − pE  4.444E−5  j=1 j   2.1838E+3 8.6799E−4  −i9.995E−1  ,−   +i9.0757E−2 −i2.5113E+1  −1.7608E−5  which is equivalent to eq. (106) of [60], and the null −i2.9849E−4 constant relations (36) entails the remarkable property  4.444E−5  on the radioactive parameters (c.f. eq. (108) of [60]):   2.1838E+3 8.6814E−4  +i9.995E−1  ,+   −i1.6868E−1 +i2.5113E+1 −1.7597E−5 NL T   X rj rj +i2.9849E−4 = 0 (38) 2pE  8.5974E−5  j=1 j   6.3130E+3 2.4919E−3  +i8.5696E−4  ,−   √ +i1.6025E−1 −i1.4085E+1  2.3534E−5  By setting a choice of sheet in z = ± E, the latter −i9.9984E−1 equations can be written as:  8.5964E−5    T 6.3130E+3 2.4916E−3  −i8.5697E−4  rj rj ,+   NL T NL √ −i2.3822E−1 +i1.4085E+1 2.3534E−5 X rj rj X 2 Ej   R (E) = + √ (39) +i9.9984E−1 L E − E p j=1 j j=1 E + Ej R-matrix parameters: | {z } HolRL (E)

E1 = 2186.0 : first resonance energy (eV) p where − Ej is not a pole, and therefore the second term Γ1,n = 0.2600 : neutron width of first resonance 2 is the exact holomorphic part HolRL (E) from (10). (not reduced width), i.e. Γλ,c = 2Pc(Eλ)γλ,c Γ1,γ = 0.0780 : eliminated capture width (eV) E2 = 6315.0 : second resonance energy (eV) Γ = 0.4000 (eV) E. Comparing radioactive, traditional, and 2,n alternative R-matrix parameters Γ2,γ = 0.0780 (eV) gJπ = 1/3 : spin statistical factor 134 Bc = −1 This case of xenon Xe shows the general merits of the radioactive parameters: in contrast with the R- matrix resonance parameters, the radioactive poles Ej √ are independent of both the arbitrary boundary param- searching on both sheets of the ± E Riemann surface eter Bc and the channel radius ac, while the radioactive from mapping (1). Moreover, a study of the numera- widths rj are independent of the boundary parameters −1 tor and denominator of the inverse level matrix A (z) Bc and depend on the channel radius in a systematic from (8) then shows that the level matrix A(z) is ra- way (provided by theorem 2 bellow). Moreover, in this tional function of degree -2 in z-space, with NL poles specific neutral particles with zero-threshold case, the from (34) with only one sheet (no other thresholds than Kapur-Peierls RL(E) operator pole expansions (37) and zero), so that its Mittag-Leffler expansion (22) is actu- (39) are exact, and therefore can fully reconstruct the ally a partial fraction decomposition in simple z poles, R-matrix model scattering matrix, as shown by figure 1. 9

Nonetheless, this example also shows the limitations surface (1) and thus render such specification useless, as of the radioactive parameters pole expansion approach we show in theorem 3 of [1] — this is another strong (32) of theorem 1. Just as the alternative parameters of argument in favor of analytic continuation of R-matrix Brune in [1], the radioactive parameters entangle the en- operators, in particular the shift Sc(ρc) and penetration ergy dimension with the wavenumber one, meaning one Pc(ρc) functions (contrarily to “force-closure” legacy of now has to specify with each radioactive pole Ej its sheet Lane & Thomas). Moreover, in practice this is not as (33) on the Riemann surface of mapping (1), for each much of a limitation, as we showed in theorem 4 of [1] threshold branch, as specified in theorem 1. In contrast, that we can always choose the first Nλ resonant alter- though they depend on the arbitrary boundary param- native poles of the physical sheet {E, +}. Nonetheless, eters Bc and channel radii ac, the traditional Wigner- all Reich-Moore and sub-threshold alternative parame- Eisenbud R-matrix parameters have the truly remark- ters still change depending on whether the shift Sc(E) able (and seldom appreciated) property of de-entangling and penetration Pc(E) functions are analytically contin- the energy dimension from the wavenumber one. The ued (theorem 3 of [1]) or “forced-closed” as defined by Wigner-Eisenbud resonance parameters are real and well Lane & Thomas (theorem 2 of [1]): we here argue that the defined in energy space, without any need to map to the physically and mathematically correct way is to perform wavenumber and therefore specify where the resonance analytic continuation of the shift Sc(ρc) and penetration energies Eλ dwell on the multi-sheeted Riemann surface Pc(ρc) functions, and provide many more arguments for of mapping (1). this in section IV. Another significant limitation of the radioactive pa- Note that a commonly alleged advantage of the alter- rameters is that they are in general incomplete, meaning native poles Efλ is that they correspond to the peak of that the knowledge of the radioactive poles and residues the resonances – actually of the Kapur-Peierls operator 1 is not sufficient to fully parametrize the R (E) Kapur- RL(E) since the cross section has an additional 2 L |kc(E)| Peierls operator: one also needs to parametrize the holo- modulating term (see [60] for more discussion on this). morphic part HolRL (E) in Mittag-Leffler expansion (32). Though this is true in the case of full R-matrix equa- In the general case of charged particles or thresholds, tions (where the resonance energies are real) for resonant there is no simple way of parametrizing this holomor- poles above threshold (not the shadow poles discovered in phic part (though it is known exactly for zero-threshold [1]), this ceases to be true for channel-eliminated Reich- neutral particles as equation (39) specifies). Moreover, Moore evaluations (where the resonance energies are in even if the holomorphic part were known, in the general Γλ,γ effect complex Eλ−i as explained in section II.A.4. of case of charged particles and thresholds there is an infi- 2 [60]). Indeed, the alternative poles E are then complex nite number of radioactive poles (N = ∞), all of which fλ L (c.f. section IV.A of [1]), and neither analytic continu- are necessary to exactly reconstruct the scattering ma- ation nor Lane & Thomas force-closure will entail their trix. This means the radioactive parameters alone are real parts exactly correspond to the Kapur-Peierls op- not very well suited for evaluations in standard nuclear erator R (E) resonance peaks. The exact peaks of the data libraries. Nonetheless, the radioactive poles have L R (E) resonances are actually the real parts of the ra- recently been used to constitute an alternative nuclear L dioactive poles < [E ], and the widths are the imaginary data library — the windowed multipole library — with j parts = [E ], which we here document in table I and shown the goal of achieving significant computational perfor- j in figure 1 for the two p-wave resonances of xenon 134Xe mance gains in nuclear simulations, as we explain in our spin-parity group J π = 1/2(−). In practice, though, the follow-up article [60]: the final in the xenon trilogy on h i pole parametrizations of R-matrix theory [1, 60, 61]. real part of the alternative poles < Efλ are close (but For comparison, the alternative parameters proposed not identical) to the real part of the radioactive poles by Brune in [21] combine some merits and drawbacks < [Ej] (one needs to go to more digits to see the discrep- of both the radioactive and the traditional (Wigner- ancy between values of table VI in [1] to our table I here), Eisenbud) parameters. Like the radioactive parameters, and as such are much closer to the peak of the resonances the alternative parameters are independent of the arbi- than are the Wigner-Eisenbud resonance energies Eλ. trary boundary condition Bc, though they still depend Another important characteristic of the radioactive pa- on arbitrary channel radii ac. Like the Wigner-Eisenbud rameters is that they are the bridge between the R-matrix resonance parameters, the alternative parameters are al- theory parametrizations of nuclear reactions, and the ways complete: with the knowledge of Nλ alternative scattering matrix pole expansions of Humblet and Rosen- poles, one can fully reconstruct the scattering matrix (c.f. feld, as we now explain in section II F. theorem 4 of [1]). On the other hand, unlike the Wigner- Eisenbud resonance parameters, the alternative param- eters entangle the energy dimension with the wavenum- F. Radioactive parameters link R-matrix theory to ber one: as for the radioactive poles, one must specify the scattering matrix pole expansions on which sheet of the Riemann surface (1) are the alter- native poles (c.f. theorems 2 of [1]). However, proper So far, we have started from the R-matrix Wigner- analytic continuation will unfold the sheets of Riemann Eisenbud parameters {Eλ, γλ,c} to construct the poles 10 and residues of the Kapur-Peierls operator RL, through holomorphic part HolU (E) corresponds to the regular (11) and (14). We here show that these Siegert-Humblet function Qc,c0 (E) defined between (10.14a) and (10.14b) radioactive parameters are the link between R-matrix in [28]. theory (c.f. [4, 18, 19]) and the scattering matrix pole Just as Humblet and Rosenfeld did with Qc,c0 (E) in expansions of Humblet-Rosenfeld and others (c.f. [23– section 10.2 of [28] and section 4 of [31], we do not give 25, 28–35]). here an explicit way of calculating this holomorphic con- Indeed, plugging-in the Kapur-Peierls RL operator ex- tribution HolU (E) other than stating that it is possible pansion (10) into the expression of the scattering matrix to expand it in various ways. Far from a threshold, an (2) then yields the Mittag-Leffler expansion of the scat- analytic series in energy space E can stand: tering matrix: X n HolU (E) = snE (42) T W(E) X uj uj n≥0 U(E) = w + HolU (E) (40) W(E) E − Ej j≥1 In the immediate vicinity of a threshold, the asymp- totic threshold behavior will prevail (for massive parti- ` 0 where w 2i is the Wronskian (3), and the scattering `c+1 c , I cles, Uc,c0 ∼ kc kc0 , c.f. eq.(10.5) in [28], or [62]), residue widths uj are defined as: yielding an expansion in wavenumber space of the form:

h 1/2 −1i X n uj , ρ O rj (41) HolU (E) = snkc (E) (43) E=E W(E ) j Tc n≥0 In writing (40), we have used the fact that all the res- Though there is no explicit way of linking these expan- onances of the scattering matrix U(E) come from the sions (43) or (42) to the R-matrix Wigner-Eisenbud pa- Kapur-Peierls radioactive poles {Ej} – indeed, we demon- rameters {Eλ, γλ,c}, this means that the same approach strate in theorem 3, section IV D, that the poles {ωn} of as that discussed in the paragraph following theorem 1 the outgoing wave function O(E) cancel out in (2) and can be taken: one can provide a local set of coefficients are thus not present in the scattering matrix. Cauchy’s {sn} to expand the holomorphic part of the scatter- residues theorem then allows us to evaluate the residues W(E) ing matrix Hol (E), and then calculate the scattering at the pole value to obtain (41). As for (10), if a res- U matrix from the Mittag-Leffler expansion (40). This is onance were to be degenerate with multiplicity M , the j at the core of the windowed multipole representation of residues would no longer be rank-one, but instead the R-matrix cross sections established in [60]. scattering matrix residue associated to pole E would be j An important question is that of the radius of con- PMj umumT, with um ρ1/2O−1 rm. m=1 j j j , E=Ej j vergence of the Mittag-Leffler expansion (40), in other Expression (40) exhibits the advantage that the energy terms how big can the vicinity W(E) be? Humblet and dependence of the scattering matrix U(E) is untangled Rosenfeld analyze this problem in section 1.4 of [28], and in a simple sum. All the resonance behavior stems from perform the Mittag-Leffler expansion (1.50). In the first the complex poles and residue widths {Ej, uj,c}, which paragraph of p.538 it is stated that Humblet demon- yield the familiar Breit-Wigner profiles (Cauchy-Lorentz strated in his Ph.D. thesis that the Mittag-Leffler series distributions) for the cross section. Conversely, all the will converge for M ≥ 1 for U(k), though this does not threshold behavior and the background are described by investigate the multi-channel case, and thus the multi- the holomorphic part HolU (E), which can be expanded sheeted nature of the Riemann surface stemming from in various forms, for instance analytically (42). mapping (1). They assume at the beginning of section This establishes the important bridge between the 10.2 that this property stands in the multi-channel case R-matrix parametrizations and the Humblet-Rosenfeld and yet continue their discussion with a choice of M = 0 expansions of the scattering matrix. More precisely, that would leave the residues diverging according to their Mittag-Leffler expansion (40) is identical to the Humblet- expansion (1.50). This is one reason why we chose in this Rosenfeld expansions (10.22a)-(10.22b) in [28] for the article to start from a local Mittag-Leffler expansion, and neutral particles case, and (5.4a)-(5.4b) in [31] for the then search for its domain of convergence. General math- Coulomb case. We thus here directly connect the R- ematical scattering theory shows that the Mittag-Leffler matrix parameters with the Humblet-Rosenfeld reso- expansion holds at least on the whole physical sheet (c.f. nances, parametrized by their partial widths and real theorem 0.2 p.139 of [24]). Moreover, in his article on and imaginary poles, as described in [30]. In particu- “threshold behaviour in quantum field theory”[63], Eden lar, the poles {Ej} from (12), found by solving (11), are proves that “between the threshold values [...] the [Scat- exactly the ones defined by equations (9.5) and (9.8) in tering] matrix elements are analytic functions of the en- [28]. The scattering residue widths {uj,c}, calculated ergies and momenta of the incident particles”, though it from (41), then correspond to the Humblet-Rosenfeld does not specify in which form the Mittag-Leffler expan- complex residues (10.12) in [28], from which they build sion will converge separately on each sheet. In practice their quantities {Gc,n} appearing in expansions (10.22a)- this requirement is not needed since it is often compu- (10.22b) in [28], or (5.4a)-(5.4b) in [31]. Finally, the tationally more advantageous to break down an energy 11

  region between two consecutive thresholds ETc ,ETc+1 subject to the following partial differential equa- into smaller vicinities (a compression method for effi- tions: for the diagonal elements, cient computation used in the windowed multipole li- brary [60]). ∂RLcc ac + (1 − 2Lc)RLcc − 1 = 0 (44) As we see, by performing the Mittag-Leffler expansion ∂ac (40), we have traded-off a finite set of real, unwound, and for off-diagonal ones, Wigner-Eisenbud parameters {Eλ, γλ,c} that completely parametrize the energy dependence of the scattering ma- ∂RLcc0 1 trix through (2), with an infinite set of complex Siegert- ac + ( − Lc)RLcc0 = 0 (45) ∂ac 2 Humblet radioactive parameters {Ej, rj,c} plus some local coefficients {sn}W(E) for the holomorphic part, all in- • the radioactive poles {Ej} are invariant: tricately intertwined through radioactive problem (11), which makes them dwell on a sub-manifold of the multi- ∂Ej sheeted Riemann surface of mapping (1). This additional = 0 (46) ∂ac complexity of the Siegert-Humblet parameters comes at the gain of a simple parametrization of the energy depen- • the radioactive widths {rj,c} (widths of the Kapur- dence for the scattering matrix: the poles and residues Peierls RL operator residues (13)), are subject to expansion (40). For computational purposes, this may the following first-order linear partial differential sometimes be a trade-off worth doing: this is the basis equation: for the windowed multipole representation of R-matrix cross sections [60]. ∂rj,c 1 ac + ( − Lc)rj,c = 0 (47) ∂ac 2

III. RADIOACTIVE PARAMETERS • which can be formally solved as, INVARIANCE TO CHANNEL RADII s (0) Z ac  (0) ac Lc(kcx) (48) Section II provided new insights into the link between rj,c(ac) = rj,c(ac ) exp dx a (0) x the Humblet-Rosenfeld scattering matrix pole expan- c ac sions, and both the Wigner-Eisenbud, and the Siegert- Humblet parametrizations of R-matrix theory. Concern- • and explicitly integrates to: ing invariance to arbitrary parameters, we saw that the s Siegert-Humblet parameters are invariant under change r (a ) O (ρ (a )) a(0) j,c c = c c c c (49) of boundary condition Bc, but not under change of chan- (0) (0) rj,c(ac ) Oc(ρc(ac )) ac nel radius ac — this is also true for the alternative pa- rameters discussed in [1]. This section is dedicated to • Moreover, letting {ωn} be the roots of the outgoing invariance properties of the Siegert-Humblet radioactive n o parameters to a change in channel radius ac. This prob- wave function ωn | Oc(ωn) = 0 , the latter (49) lem is less studied than that of the invariance to the can take the following elemental product expansion: boundary conditions Bc. To the best of our knowledge, the only previous results on this topic are the partial s (0) (0) !` ! rj,c(ac) ac ac ik a −a(0) Y kcac − ωn differential equations on the Wigner-Eisenbud {Eλ, γλ,c} = e c( c c ) (0) (0) ac ac parameters Teichmann derived in his Ph.D. thesis (c.f. rj,c(ac ) n≥1 kcac − ωn eq. (2.29) and (2.31) sections III.2. p.27 of [64]), a re- (50) cent study of the limit case ac → 0 in [65], as well as where there are an infinite number of such roots the general results of the variations of the R-matrix to {ωn} in the Coulomb case, while for neutral parti- any arbitrary parameter by Mockel and Perez (c.f equa- cle channel c with angular momentum `, there ex- tions (71) and (75) [66]). We here focus on the Siegert- ists exactly ` roots {ω } , the exact and alge-  n n∈ 1,` Humblet parameters Ej, rj,c . Our main result of this braically solvable values ofJ whichK are reported, up section resides in theorem 2, which establishes a way of to angular momentum ` = 4, in table II of [1]. converting the Siegert-Humblet radioactive parameters under a change of channel radius ac. Proof. We start by bringing forth the observation that the scattering matrix U is invariant under change of Theorem 2. Radioactive parameters transfor- channel radius ac, i.e. for any channel c we have: mation under change of channel radius ac. Let the radioactive poles {E } be the solutions of the ra- ∂U j = 0 (51) dioactive problem (11). Under a change of channel radius ∂ac (0) ∂· ac → ac (or infinitesimal ): ∂ac Since theorem 3 will show that the poles of the scattering • the Kapur-Peierls operator RL, defined in (4), is matrix are exactly the ones of the Kapur-Peierls operator 12

RL, which are the Siegert-Humblet poles {Ej}, invariance Note that in the charged particles case, there is an infi- (51) entails that the radioactive poles are invariant under nite number (countable) of roots {ωn}, and the Weier- change of channel radius ac, i.e. (46). strass factorization theorem would thus usually require This is not the case for the radioactive widths {rj,c}. (50) to be cast in a Hadamard canonical representation However, one can use invariance (51) to differentiate the with Weierstrass elementary factors. However, in (50), scattering matrix U expression (2). The L operator def- the product elements tend towards unity as n goes to in-   inition (6), and ρ = k a , entail kcac−ωn c c c finity (0) −→ 1, so that the infinite product in kcac −ωn n→∞ 1/2 −1   (50) should still converge. ∂ρc Oc 1 1/2 −1 1 = ρc Oc − Lc (52) ∂ac ac 2 Note that for neutral particles (massive or massless) s- this enables us to establish the partial differential equa- waves (` = 0), the outgoing wave function is Oc(ρ(ac)) = tions (44) and (45) on the Kapur-Peierls matrix operator ikcac e (c.f. table I of [1]), so that (49) yields rj,c(ac) = RL elements, which can be synthesized into expression, q (0) (0) (0) ac ikc(ac−a ) rj,c(ac ) e c . Alternatively, directly inte-   ac ∂RL 1 1 grating (48) with the outgoing-wave reduced logarithmic a + ( I − L)RL + I ◦ ( I − L)RL − I = 0 ∂a 2 2 derivative expression Lc(ρ(ac)) = ikcac yields back the (53) same result. Thus for s-wave neutral channels subject where ◦ designates the Hadamard matrix product, and to a change of channel radius, the modulus of the ra- where we used the notation: dioactive widths decreases proportionally to the inverse   square root of the channel radius ac, at least for real ∂RL ∂RLcc0 wavenumbers k ∈ , i.e. real energies above the channel , (54) c R ∂a cc0 ∂ac threshold. Since the transition probability rates partial widths can be defined as the square of the modulus of Equivalently, inverting the Kapur-Peierls operator in dif- the radioactive width (c.f. eq. (6) in [56]), this means ferential equation (54) yields the following Riccati equa- these transition partial widths decrease inversely to the 2 tion: r (a ) a(0) j,c c c channel radius: (0) = a . rj,c(ac ) c ∂R−1 1  1  a L − R−1( − L) − ◦ R−1( − L) − R−2 = 0 A striking property of the R-matrix parametrizations ∂a L 2I I L 2I L is that they separate the channel contribution to each (55) resonance, meaning that to compute, for instance, the These first order partial differential equations on the Rc,c0 element in (5), one only requires the widths for each Kapur-Peierls operator RL are equivalent to relations level of each channel, γλ,c, and not some new parameter (71) and (75) Mockel and Perez established for the R for each specific channel pair c, c0 combination. In this matrix in [66]. They are quite inconvenient to solve in spirit, we show in theorem 2 that the Siegert-Humblet that they are channel-dependent, and thus give rise to radioactive widths rj,c play a similar role in that their equations for each cross term. Remarkably, this is not transformation under a change of channel radius only the case for the radioactive residues. depends on that given channel. Having demonstrated the radioactive poles invariance Theorem 2 makes explicit the behavior of the radioac-  (46), Mittag-Leffler expansion (40) entails that uj from tive widths rj,c under a change of channel radius ac. ∂u (41) satisfies invariance: j = 0. Applying result Strikingly, only the Kapur-Peierls matrix RL appears in ∂ac (52) to the latter then yields partial differential equation this change of variable. This means that the R-matrix R and the L0 matrix function suffice to both compute the (47), the direct integration of which readily yields (48).  ρc ∂Oc(ρc) Siegert-Humblet parameters Ej, rj,c from (11), and to Since Lc(ρc) , , (48) integrates explicitly Oc(ρc) ∂ρc change the radioactive widths r under a change of to (49). This result also stands for any degenerate state j,c channel radius a . This novel result portrays the Siegert- of multiplicity M , where for each radioactive width rm c j j Humblet parameters as allowing a simple energy depen- we have: dence to the scattering matrix (40) — albeit locally and s needing the expansion coefficients (42) — all the while m (0) r (ac) O (ρ (a )) a j,c = c c c c (56) being boundary condition Bc independent and easy to (0) (0) m ac transform under a change of channel radius a . rj,c(ac ) Oc(ρc(ac )) c

Finally, the proof of (50) is the element-wise integra- tion of (48) using the Mittag-Leffler pole expansion (7) IV. SCATTERING MATRIX CONTINUATION TO COMPLEX ENERGIES of Lc(ρ), which we established in theorem 1 of [1] – in- voking Fubini’s theorem to permute sum and integral. In the case of neutral particles, there is a finite num- In section 5.2 of [28], Humblet and Rosenfeld continue ber of roots {ωn} so that the product in (50) is finite. the scattering matrix to complex wave numbers kc ∈ C, 13 and define corresponding open and closed channels. They choose the branch-point definitions for the shift S and however never point to the conundrum that this entails: penetration P functions, made explicit in lemma 1 sec- in their approach, the scattering matrix seemingly does tion III.B of [1]. Lane & Thomas do not specify how not annul itself below threshold. This is contrary to the they would continue the quantities (58) for negative en- approach taken by Lane & Thomas, where they explicitly ergies, as they state “we need not be concerned with annul the elements of the scattering matrix below thresh- stating similar relations for the negative energy chan- olds, as stated in the paragraph between equations (2.1) nels” (c.f. paragraph after equation (4.7c), p.271.), but and (2.2) of section VII.1. p.289 [4]. Claude Bloch in- they do specify that P = 0 below threshold energies geniously circumvents the problem by explicitly stating and P = P above. This means that plugging-in P in after eq. (50) in [19] that the scattering matrix is a ma- place of P in (58) has the convenient property of auto- trix of the open channels only, meaning its dimensions matically closing the reaction channels below threshold, change as more channels open when energy E increases since in that case Uc,c0 = ΩcΩc0 , which annuls the off- past new thresholds E > ETc . In his approach, sub- diagonal terms of the cross section (the reaction chan- threshold elements of the scattering matrix need not be nels c 6= c0) when plugged into equation (1.10) in [4] annulled, one simply does not consider them. VIII.1. p.291. Note that this approach only annuls the We dedicate this section to this question of how to off-diagonal terms of the scattering cross section, leav- extend the scattering matrix to complex wavenumbers ing non-zero cross sections for the diagonal σcc(E), even kc ∈ C, while closing the channels below threshold. We below threshold. Indeed, equation (4.5a) section III.4.a., i(ωc−φc) argue that analytic continuation of R-matrix operators p.271 of [4] gives Ωc = e , whilst the cross section (lemma 2 section III.B of [1]) is the physically correct is begotten by the amplitudes of the transmission matrix 2iωc way of constructing the scattering matrix for complex T (E), defined as Tcc0 , δcc0 e − Ucc0 in (2.3), section wavenumbers. To support this, we advance and demon- VIII.2., p.292. For sub-threshold real energies, the di- strate three new arguments: analytic continuation can- agonal term of the transmission matrix is thus equal to 2iωc −2iφc
cels out spurious poles otherwise introduced by the out- Tcc = e 1 − e . This means that in the Lane & 0 going wavefunctions Oc (theorem 3); analytic continua- Thomas approach, all channels c 6= c are force-closed to tion respects generalized unitarity (theorem 4); and, for zero below the incoming channel threshold E < ETc , ex- massive particles (not photons), analytic continuation of cept for the c → c reaction, which is tactfully overlooked real wavenumber expressions to sub-threshold energies as non-physical. naturally sees the transmission matrix evanesce on the Of course, this approach comes at the cost of sacrificing physical sheet (theorem 5), while always closing the chan- the analytic properties of the scattering matrix U: since nels by annulling the cross section (theorem 6). Pc = = [Lc], the penetration factor is no longer meromor- phic and thus neither is U. This entails that in decompo- sition (57) of the scattering matrix, if one “force-closes” A. Forcing sub-threshold elements to zero: the the channels using the branch-point definition of Lane legacy of Lane & Thomas & Thomas — instead of analytically continuing both P and Ω to complex wavenumbers ρ ∈ C — the scatter- To close the channels for real energies below threshold, ing matrix U(E) cannot have poles, as there is then no the simplest approach is the one proposed by Lane & mathematical meaning to such notion. This goes directly Thomas in [4]. The scattering matrix expressions (2) can against a vast amount of literature on the analytic prop- be re-written, for real energies above threshold, according erties of the scattering matrix [23, 24, 28–36, 42, 67, 68]. to section VII.1 equation (1.6b) in [4]: This is the approach presently taken by the SAMMY  1/2 1/2 code at Oak Ridge National Laboratory [39], and upon U = Ω I + wP RLP Ω (57) which rest numerous ENDF evaluations [2]. with Wronskian w from (3) and the values defined for We would like to note that under careful reading, this energies above the thresholds in III.3.a. p.271 of [4]: might not actually have been the approach intended by Lane & Thomas in [4]. Indeed, Lane & Thomas never −1 Ω , O I specify how to prolong the P to sub-threshold energies, −1 −1 (58) P , ρO I and in equation (57) it is P that is present and not P . They do however note in the paragraph between equa- Let us note that the Mittag-Leffler expansion (10) of the tions (2.1) and (2.2) of section VII.1. p.289, that “as Kapur-Peierls matrix R operator can still be performed. − L there are no physical situations in which the Ic occur, The Lane & Thomas “sub-threshold channel force- the components of the [scattering matrix] are not phys- closure” approach exploits the ambiguity in the definition ically significant and one might as well set them equal of the shift S(E) and penetration P (E) factors: to zero as can be seen from (1.6b). This may be accom- L = S + iP (59) plished without affecting the [positive energy channels] by setting the negative energy components of the Wron- − − for complex energies E ∈ C, as discussed in section III.B skian matrix to zero; wc = 0. (This means that the Oc − of [1] (of which we follow the notation). Lane & Thomas and Ic are not linearly independent.)”. The choice of 14

wording is here important. Indeed, it says that it is pos- to be identically zero below thresholds {ETc }. sible to set the Wronskian to zero to close channels below This apparent inability to close channels below thresh- the threshold, though it is not necessary. This is yet an- olds is the principal reason why the nuclear data commu- other way of closing sub-threshold channels that would nity has stuck to the legacy approach of Lane & Thomas allow to keep the analytic properties of the scattering (lemma 1 section III.B of [1]), when computing the scat- −1 −1 matrix, with P , ρO I still analytically continued, tering matrix in equation (2). This has been the subject albeit at the cost of not knowing when in the complex of an ongoing controversy in the field on how to continue plane should the Wronskian wc be set to zero — perhaps the scattering matrix to complex wave numbers. only on R−, which would then become a branch line. We show in theorem 3 (section IV D) that as long as the Wronskian relation (3) is guaranteed, the poles of the outgoing scattering wave function Oc cancel out of the scattering expressions (2) and (57). The Wronskian con- C. Assuming semi-simple poles in R-matrix theory dition (3) is conserved when keeping P from (58) analyt- ically continued — instead of the definition Pc , = [Lc], Before advancing our analytic continuation arguments which cannot respect the Wronskian relation (3) — so of channel closure (section IV F) and generalized unitar- that this approach of setting the Wronskian to zero below ity (section IV E), let us first start with a general note threshold while analytically continuing the penetration on high-order poles in R-matrix theory (see the conse- and shift factors would indeed cancel out the spurious quences for analytic continuation in section IV D). Being poles of the outgoing wave functions Oc. a high-order pole, as opposed to a simple pole, can bear various meanings. In our context, the three following def- initions are of interest: a) Laurent order: the order of the B. Analytic continuation of the scattering matrix polar expansion in the Laurent development in the vicin- ity of a pole; b) Algebraic multiplicity: the multiplicity In opposition to the Lane & Thomas approach, an en- of the root of the resolvant at a pole value; c) Geometric tire field of physics and mathematics has studied the an- multiplicity: the dimension of the associated nullspace. alytic continuation of the scattering matrix to complex From equation (9) and throughout the article, we have wavenumbers kc ∈ C [23–35]. treated the case of degenerate states where the geomet- As we saw, there is no ambiguity as to how to continue ric multiplicity Mj > 1 was higher than one, leading to the L(ρ) matrix function to complex wave numbers (c.f. rank-Mj residues. We have however always assumed the theorem 1 section II.B of [1]), and thus the RL Kapur- Laurent order to be one: in equation (9), the residues Peierls operator (4). Indeed, the incoming Ic(ρc) and might be rank-Mj, but the Laurent order is still unity 1 outgoing O (ρ ) wave functions can be analytically con- (no 2 or higher Laurent orders). c c (E−Ej ) tinued to complex wavenumbers kc ∈ C (c.f. theorem 1 In the general case, the Laurent order is greater than section II.B of [1]), and through the multi-sheeted map- one but it does not equal geometric or algebraic multi- ping (1) to complex energies E ∈ C. This naturally yields plicity. In terms of Jordan normal form, if the Jordan the meromorphic continuation of the scattering matrix to cells had sizes n , ..., n , then the geometric multiplic- complex energies (40). Since many evaluations are per- 1 mg ity is equal to mg, the algebraic multiplicity ma is the formed using decomposition (57), in practice performing sum m = n + ... + n , and the Laurent order is the analytic continuation of R-matrix operators thus means a 1 mg maximum max {n1, ..., nm}. continuing (58) operators Ω and P, setting P , P , and Alternatively, these can be defined as follows: Let defining the shift Sc(ρc) and penetration Pc(ρc) functions as analytically continued complex meromorphic functions M(z) be a complex-symmetric meromorphic matrix op- (that is definition (44) and lemma 2 of [1] as opposed to erator, with a root at z = z0 (i.e. M(z0) is non- the Lane & Thomas “force closure” definition (41) and invertible). The algebraic multiplicity ma is the first non- lemma 1 of [1]). zero derivative of the determinant, i.e. the first integer m   m ∈ such that d a det M(z) 6= 0 ; alter- The shortcoming of this analytic continuation ap- a N dzma proach is that it does not evidently annul the channel z=z0 natively, using Cauchy’s theorem, the first integer ma elements of the scattering matrix for sub-threshold ener- H M(z) such that ma dz = 0. The geometric multi- Cz0 (z−z0) gies E < ETc . Indeed, analytic continuation (40) means the scattering matrix U is a meromorphic operator from plicity mg is the dimension of the kernel (nullspace), i.e. m = dim (Ker (M(z ))). In general the algebraic mul- C to C on the multi-sheeted Riemann surface of map- g 0 ping (1). Unicity of the analytic continuation then means tiplicity is greater than the geometric one: ma ≥ mg. that if the scattering matrix elements are zero below their M(z0) is said to be semi-simple if its geometric and 0 threshold, Uc,c (E) = 0 , ∀E − ETc ∈ R−, then it is iden- algebraic multiplicities are equal, i.e. ma = mg (c.f. the- tically zero for all energies on that sheet of the manifold: orem 2, p.120 in [69]). Semi-simplicity can be established Uc,c0 (E) = 0 , ∀E ∈ C. Thus, the analytic continuation using the following result: M(z0) is semi-simple if, and formalism cannot set elements of the scattering matrix only if, for each nonzero v ∈ Ker (M(z0)), there exists 15 w ∈ Ker (M(z0)) such that: D. Scattering matrix poles are the Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles ! T dM v w 6= 0 (60) This section is dedicated to a remarkable property of dz z=z0 the Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles {Ej}: in R-matrix theory, these are exactly the poles of the scattering ma- trix (theorem 3). If an operator M(z0) is semi-simple at a root z0, then z0 is a pole of Laurent order one for the inverse operator Theorem 3. Scattering matrix poles are the M −1(z) ∼ Mf . For Hermitian operators, the semi- Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles. z−z0 W(z0) In R-matrix theory, when the R-matrix operators simplicity property is guaranteed. However, resonances (Kapur-Peierls RL and incoming and outgoing wave- seldom correspond to Hermitian operators. In our case, functions I and O) are analytically continued to complex the resonances correspond to the poles of the scatter- energies E ∈ C such as to respect the Wronskian con- ing matrix U(E), which is not self-adjoint but complex- dition (3), then the poles of the scattering matrix U are T symmetric U = U (c.f. equation (2.15) section VI.2.c exactly the poles of the Kapur-Peierls operator RL, i.e.  p.287 in [4]). For complex-symmetric operators, semi- the Siegert-Humblet radioactive poles Ej from (11) and simplicity is not guaranteed in general, even when dis- (12). These poles are almost always of Laurent-order of carding the complex case of quasi-null vectors. one. In the case of R-matrix theory, we were able to find Section IV C gives the reasons to assume that the poles cases where the geometric multiplicity of the scattering of the Kapur-Peierls matrix RL are simple (i.e. or Lau- matrix does not match the algebraic one, thus R-matrix rent order one). For the rest of this theorem, we here theory does not always yield semi-simple scattering ma- give two proofs: a first by reductio ad absurdum, and a trices, and the Laurent development orders of the reso- second constructive proof. nance poles can be higher. For instance, we can devise examples of non-semi-simple inverse level matrices from Proof. Reductio ad absurdum: Since the radioactive poles definition (8) by choosing resonance parameters such that Ej are not poles of the outgoing wavefunction, i.e. −1 1/2 the algebraic multiplicity is strictly greater than the ge- O ρ (Ej) 6= 0, expression (2) implies that all the ometric one. poles Ej of the Kapur-Peierls RL(E) operator are poles However, one can also observe in these simple cases of the scattering matrix U(E). As first sight, expression that the space of parameters for which semi-simplicity (2) would suggest the roots {ωn} of the outgoing wave- is broken is a hyper-plane of the space of R-matrix pa- functions (i.e. all such that there exists a channel c for rameters. This gives credit to the traditional physics ar- which Oc(ωn) = 0) are also poles of the scattering ma- guments that the probability of this occurring is quasi- trix. However, when performing analytic continuation null: R-matrix theory can yield scattering matrices with of R-matrix operators while conserving the Wronskian Laurent orders higher than one, but this is extremely un- condition (3), expression (2) is equivalent to expression likely; a mathematical approach of generic simplicity of eq. (1.5) of section VII.1 of [4], for which it is evident resonances can be found in chapter 4 “Black Box Scatter- that the roots {ωn} of the outgoing wavefunction Oc(ρc) n are not poles of the scattering matrix U (that is because ing in R ” of [23], in particular theorem 4.4 (Meromor- phic continuation for black box Hamiltonians), theorem in both the Coulomb and the neutral particle case the 4.5 (Spectrum of black box Hamiltonians), theorem 4.7 outgoing wavefunctions Oc(ρc) are confluent hypergeo- (Singular part of RV(λ) for black box Hamiltonians), and metric functions with simple roots {ωn} entailing that (1) theorem 4.39 (Generic simplicity of resonances for higher Oc (ωn) 6= 0). Hence the poles of the scattering matrix dimensional black box with potential perturbation). In U(E) must be exactly all the radioactive poles Ej. other terms, we assume semi-simplicity is almost always Though this latter proof is correct, it does not explain guaranteed through R-matrix parametrizations. how the roots {ωn} of the outgoing wavefunction Oc(ρc) Henceforth, we use this argument to continue assuming cancel out of the scattering matrix in expression (2). Yet the Kapur-Peierls matrix RL is usually semi-simple, and  it is important to understand this because expression (2) thus the Laurent order of the radioactive poles Ej in defines the potential cross section in standard nuclear (9) is, in practice, one. data libraries, which taken as is should thus count the But let us be aware that in general scattering the- {ωn} as poles. We use this explicit cancellation of these ory, the scattering operator may exhibit high-order poles spurious poles at the residues level to establish the win- [23, 24, 70], and efforts are being made to have these “ex- dowed multipole representation in our follow-up article ceptional points” of second order arise in the specific case [60]. Moreover, if one uses the Lane & Thomas “force of nuclear interactions [71, 72]. The traditional R-matrix closure” definitions, then expression (2) and eq. (1.5) of assumption where the poles of the scattering matrix are section VII.1 of [4] are no longer equivalent in the com- almost-always of Laurent-order one is unable to describe plex plane. In this case, not only is the scattering ma- these physical phenomena. trix U(E) no longer meromorphic, but it also diverges 16 at the {ωn} outgoing wavefunction roots. Also, a con- yield the relations: structive proof requires a closer look at the behavior of specific poles and residues, and gives us an opportunity −1 −1(1) D0 D0 + D 0 D1=I to explain in detail different non-trivial assumptions usu- −1 D D =0 ally made in nuclear physics about radioactive states and 0 1 other states degeneracy. For all these reasons, we believe Constructing D1 to satisfy the latter then entails it of interest to here provide a second, constructive proof of theorem 3. It rests on the following lemma 1. T T v1v1 v2v2 D1= + T −1(1) T −1(1) Lemma 1. Diagonal Semi-Simplicity – If a diagonal v1 D0 v1 v2 D0 v2 matrix D−1(z) is composed of elements with simple roots  ωn , then its inverse is semi-simple, i.e. when a pole where the transpose is used because the matrix is ωn of a diagonal matrix D(z) has an algebraic multiplic- complex-symmetric. This reasoning immediately gener- ity Mn > 1 the Laurent development order of the pole alizes to expression (61). remains 1 while the associated residue matrix is of rank M , and can be expressed as: Let {ωn} be all the roots of the outgoing-wave func- n tions (i.e. the poles of inverse outgoing wave O−1), which Dn we can find by solving the non-linear Eigenvalue problem: D(z) = D0 + W(z=ωn) z − ωn O(ωn)wnm = 0 (62) Mn T (61) X vnv D n n , (1) Looking at (2) shows that the roots of the outgoing wave vTD−1 v m=1 n 0 n functions O could endow the scattering matrix with addi- −1 Proof. Without loss of generality, a change of vari- tional poles, through O , and that these poles could po- tentially have higher Laurent orders, since O−1 appears ables can be performed so as to set ωn = 0. Let D(z) = diag (d (z), d (z), . . . , d (z), d (z), d (z)) twice in expression (2). Yet, because O is diagonal with 1 2 1 j n −1 be a diagonal meromorphic complex-valued opera- simple roots, lemma 1 entails O is semi-simple: the tor, which admits a pole at z = 0. D−1(z) = algebraic multiplicities are equal to the geometric multi- −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
plicities, and thus the poles {ωn} all have Laurent order diag d (z), d (z), . . . , d (z), d (z), dn (z) is well 1 2 1 j one. Situations can arise where same-charge channels known, and det D−1
(z = 0) = d−1(z)2 Q d−1(z). 1 j6=1 j within the same total angular momentum J π will carry Let us assume only d−1(z = 0) = 0, with a simple root, 1 same angular momenta `c = `c0 and equal channel radii R1 −1
so that d1(z) = d01 + . Then det D (z) (z = a = a 0 . In that case, the geometric multiplicity M of W(z=0) z c c n −1 2 Q −1 pole ωn will be equal to the number of channels sharing 0) = d1 (z) j6=1 dj (z) has a double root: the alge- the same functional outgoing waves O = O 0 . Diagonal braic multiplicity is thus 2. However, it is immediate to c c semi-simplicity lemma 1 then establishes that the residue notice that: −1 of O associated to pole ωn is now a diagonal rank-Mn D(z) = diag (d1(z), d2(z), . . . , d1(z), dj(z), dn(z)) matrix, Dn, expressed as:

= diag (d01, d2(z), . . . , d01(z), dj(z), dn(z)) W(z=0) Mn T X wn wn D = m m (63) 1 n T (1) + diag (R , 0,...,R , 0, 0) wnmO (ωn)wnm z 1 1 m=1 (1) This means the Laurent development order remains 1, where O (ωn) designates the first derivative of O, eval- albeit the algebraic multiplicity of the pole is 2 (or uated at the pole value ωn. This establishes the existence higher Mn). It can thus be written that: D(z) = of higher-rank residues associated to the inverse outgoing W(z=0) −1  wave function O . Notice that if the channel radii ac D1 D0 + z . When solving for the non-linear eigenprob- where chosen at random, these high-rank residues would lem D−1(z)v = 0, the kernel is no longer an eigen- almost never emerge (null probability). However, since   −1 a is chosen arbitrarily in the context of R-matrix theory, line, but instead spans (v1, v2), i.e. Ker D0 = c T it is often the case that evaluators set ac to a fixed value Span (v1, v2), with v1 = a1 [1, 0,..., 0, 0, 0] and v2 = for multiple different channels, and even across isotopes. T a2 [0, 0,..., 1, 0, 0] . Then, following Gohberg-Sigal’s This is because the scattering radius is determined early theory [48], the fundamental property: on by the evaluator (an not varied afterwards) based on

−1 the amount of potential scattering observed in the experi- D D = I mental data, which is very similar for isotopes of the same element. Therefore, in practice these high-rank residues and the Laurent development around the pole: are not uncommon. Our constructive proof now estab- −1 −1 −1(1) 2
lishes how analytic continuation annuls these high-rank D (z) = D0 + zD 0 + O z W(z=0) residues. 17

Proof. Constructive: Consider the scattering matrix ex- VII.1. p.289. This shifts the problem to how to maintain −1  1/2 −1 1/2 pression U = O I + 2iρ RLO ρ from (2). the Wronskian condition (3) while setting the Wronskian Result (63) entails that, in the vicinity of ωn (root of the to zero below thresholds. Alternatively, we here argue in outgoing wave-function O) the residue is locally given by: section IV F that this might not be necessary, as analytic continuation can naturally close sub-threshold channels.  1/2 −1 1/2 Dn I+ 2iρ RLO ρ E=ωn U(z) = U0(ωn)+ W(E=ωn) E − ωn (64) E. Generalized unitarity for analytically continued scattering matrix We now notice that evaluating the Kapur-Peierls RL op- erator (4) at the pole value ωn yields the following equal- ity: One of the authors, G. Hale, proved a somewhat more esoteric argument in favor of analytic continuation of the h i−1 R O−1(ω )w = − ρO(1) (ω )w (65) scattering matrix, showing it satisfies generalized unitar- L n nm n nm ity. Eden & Taylor established a generalized unitarity con- Plugging (65) into the residue of (64), and using the dition, eq. (2.16) in [36], which extents the one described fact that (63) guarantees Dn is a linear combination of T by Lane & Thomas, eq. (2.13), VI.2.c. p.287, in that wnmwnm, we then have the following equality on the the subset of open channels is unitary (thus conserving residues at poles ωn: probability), but the scattering matrix can still be con- tinued to sub-threshold channels and be non-zero, that is h 1/2 −1 1/2i h (1)−1i Dn I+ 2iρ RLO ρ = Dn I − 2iO the full scattering matrix of open and closed channels is E=ωn E=ωn (66) not unitary but satisfies the generalized unitarity condi- The rightmost term is diagonal and independent from tion. This is also consistent with approaches other than the resonance parameters. Since the Wronskian matrix R-matrix to modeling nuclear interactions (c.f. commen- w of the external region interaction (for Coulomb or free tary above eq. (3) p.4 in [72], [27], or[25]). particles) is constant (3), w = O(1)I − I(1)O = 2iI, The premises of the problem lies again in the multi- evaluating at outgoing wave-function root ωn, one finds sheeted Riemann surface spawning from mapping (1): (1) 2iI = O I(ωn). Plugging this result into (66) annuls when considering the scattering matrix U(E) at a given the corresponding residue from the scattering matrix, i.e.: energy E, there are multiple possibilities for the choice of wavenumber kc at each channel. Following Eden & Tay- h 1/2 −1 1/2i lor eq. (2.14a) and eq. (2.14b) [36], we consider the case Dn I + 2iρ RLO ρ = 0 (67) E=ωn of momenta being continued along the following paths in the multi-sheeted Riemann surface: one subset of chan- Thus, if the Wronskian condition (3) is respected, the nels c, denoted by Cb, is continued as k → k∗ , while ω poles cancel out of the scattering matrix U c∈Cb c∈Cb n all the others are continued as k → −k∗ , and we c6∈Cb c6∈Cb Importantly, both the Lane & Thomas force-closing collectively denote this continuation k → ke: of sub-threshold channels IV A or the analytic continua- tion IV B will yield the same cross section values for real  ∗ ∀c ∈ Cb , kc → k energies above thresholds. However, theorem 3 demon- k → ke : c (68) ∀c 6∈ C , k → −k∗ strates that the choice of analytic continuation in equa- b c c tion (2), respecting the Wronskian condition (3), leads We then seek to reproduce the generalized unitarity prop- to the cancellation from the scattering matrix U of the  erty eq. (2.16) of [36], which states that the submatrix Ub ωn spurious poles, which have nothing to do with the resonant states of the scattering system. This cancel- composed of the channels c ∈ Cb, verifies the generalized lation is thus physically accurate, and would not take unitarity condition: place had the choice of P = P been made in equation h i† (57) with the Lane & Thomas “force closure” definition Ub (k) Ub (ke) = I (69) P = = [L(z)] ∈ R (c.f. lemma 1 section III.B of [1]), un-  der which the scattering matrix diverges at ωn . Con- We now show that analytically continuing the R-matrix versely, analytically continuing the penetration function expression (2) ensures the scattering matrix respects 1 ∗ ∗
as P (z) , 2i L(z) − [L(z )] ∈ C (c.f. lemma 2 sec- Eden & Taylor generalized unitarity condition. tion III.B of [1]) will guarantee the cancellation of the  ωn poles from the scattering matrix U when using Theorem 4. Analytic continuation of the R- (57). Notice this is almost the definition (73) of ∆L(ρ) matrix expression for the scattering matrix en- we hereafter use in the proof of the generalized unitarity. sures generalized unitarity. Then, to force-close sub-threshold channels, one could set By performing the analytic continuation of the R-matrix the Wronskian to zero, as proposed by Lane & Thomas in expression (2), the scattering matrix U satisfies Eden & the paragraph between equation (2.1) and (2.2) of section Taylor’s generalized unitarity condition (69). 18

Proof. The proof is based on the conjugacy relations of both left and right, and considering the sub-matrices on the outgoing and incoming wavefunctions eq. (2.12), the channels c ∈ Cb thus yields: VI.2.c. in [4], whereby, for any channel c: h i∗ h i∗  ∗ ∗  ∗ ∗ (76) Oc(kc ) = Ic(kc) , Ic(kc ) = Oc(kc) RbL(k) − RbL(ke) = RbL(k)∆dL(k) RbL(ke) Oc(−kc) = Ic(kc) ,Ic(−kc) = Oc(kc) (1) (1) (1) (1) −Oc (−kc) = Ic (kc) , −Ic (−kc) = Oc (kc) This relation is what guarantees the scattering matrix U satisfies generalized unitarity condition (69). Indeed, let (70) us develop the left-hand side of (69), using expressions where the third line was obtained by taking the derivative (74) on the sub-matrices of the channels c ∈ Cb: of the second. Conjugacy relations (70) entail the follow- ing relations on the outgoing-wave reduced logarithmic h i† derivative L: Ub (k) Ub (ke) =   h i∗ h i∗ −1 h 1\− 1 i ∗ ∗ O (k) + ρ 2 R ρ 2 (k)∆L(k) I(k) Lc(kc ) = Lc(−kc) , Lc(−kc ) = Lc(kc) (71) b I L d b    † We also notice that the Wronskian condition (3) is equiv- h −\1 1 i −1 × Ib(ke) I + ∆dL(ke) ρ 2 RLρ 2 (ke) Ob (ke) alent to:   " # −1 h 1\ 1 i (1) (1) 2 − 2 2iρc Oc Ic = Ob (k) I + ρ RLρ (k)∆dL(k) Ib(k)× = ρc − (72) OcIc Oc Ic ∗ ∗ ∗ h −1 ∗ i h −\1 1 i ∗ h ∗ i h ∗ i Ob (kb ) I+ ρ 2 RLρ 2 [(k ) ∆dL(kb ) Ib(kb ) Recognizing the definition (6) of L, and using conju- gacy relations (71), this Wronskian condition (72) can be expressed as a difference of the reduced logarithmic (77) Lc derivatives: Noticing that conjugacy relation (71) entail the follow- h i∗ ing ∆L symmetry from definition (73), ∆dL(kb∗) = 2iρc ∆Lc(kc) , Lc(kc) − Lc(−kc) = (kc) (73) OcIc −∆dL(k), and making use of the conjugacy relations for the wave functions (70), we can further simplify (77) to:   Defining the diagonal matrix ∆L , diag ∆Lc(kc) , we " can then re-write, similarly to (57), the R-matrix ex- † h i −1 h 1\− 1 i pression (2) of the scattering matrix U as a function of Ub (k) Ub (ke) = I + Ob (k) ρ 2 RLρ 2 (k) × ∆Lc(kc), so that: " −1 #†  −1 h h i i 1 − 1 ∗ 1 − 1 −1 1/2 −1/2 ρ 2\R ρ 2 (k ) − ρ 2\R ρ 2 (k) − ∆L(k) U = O I + ρ RLρ ∆L I L L d (74) h h −1/2 1/2ii −1 # † = I + ∆L ρ RLρ O   I h −\1 1 i ∗ × ρ 2 RLρ 2 [(k ) ∆dL(k)Ob(k) Notice again how this expression is closely related to the (78) analytic continuation of expression (57). In the middle, we recognize property (75), where the Coming back to the Eden & Taylor continuation (68), ρ±1/2 cancel out by commuting with the diagonal ma- let us now establish a relation between the Kapur-Peierls trix. Property (75) thus annuls all non-identity terms, operator R and ∆L. From the definition (4) of the L leaving Eden & Taylor’s generalized unitarity condition Kapur-Peierls operator R , recalling that under Eden L (69) satisfied. & Taylor continuations (68) the energy E from map- ping (1) remains unaltered, and given that the boundary- 0 condition Bc in the L matrix function is real and thus the R-matrix parameters (5) are too, it follows that: Let us also note that the proof required real boundary   conditions Bc ∈ R. Thus, in R-matrix parametrization h i∗ ∆L(k) 0 R−1(ke) −R−1(k) = d (75) (2), real boundary conditions Bc ∈ R are necessary for L L 0 0 the scattering matrix U to be unitarity (and by extension generalized unitary). where we have used the L conjugacy relations (71) to Theorem 4 beholds a strong argument in favor of per- establish that all channels c 6∈ Cb cancel out, and the forming analytic continuation of the R-matrix operators rest yield ∆L (k ). The ∆L thus designates the sub- c∈Cb c d as the physically correct way of prolonging the scattering matrix composed of all the channels c ∈ Cb. Multiplying matrix to complex wavenumbers kc ∈ C. 19

F. Closure of sub-threshold cross sections through Laboratory, where one of the authors, G. Hale, intro- analytic continuation duced the following rotated transmission matrix, defined as:

We finish this article with the key question of how to −iω −iω e TL&Te close sub-threshold channels. Analytically continuing the TH , − (83) scattering matrix below thresholds entails it cannot be 2i identically zero there, since this would entail it is the and whose R-matrix parametrization is thus null function on the entire sheet of the maniforld (unic- ity of analytic continuation). However, we here show     that for massive particles subject to ρ(E) mappings (2) −1  1/2 1/2 −1 H+ − H−  TH = H ρ RLρ H −  (84) or (4) section II.A of [1], adequate definitions and care- +  + 2i  ful consideration will both make the transmission matrix | {z } F evanescent sub-threshold (in a classical case of quantum tunnelling), and annul the sub-threshold cross-section — where H± are defined as in eq.(2.13a)-(2.13b) III.2.b the physically measurable quantity. p.269 [4]: The equations linking the scattering matrix U to the cross section — equations (1.9), (1.10) and (2.4) section H = O eiωc = G + iF +c c c c (85) VIII.1. of [4] pp.291-293 — were only derived for real −iωc H−c = Ice = Gc − iFc positive wavenumbers. Yet, when performing analytic continuation of them to sub-threshold energies, the quan- and for which we refer to Ian J. Thompson’s Chapter tum tunneling effect will naturally make the transmission 33, eq.(33.2.11) in [73], or Abramowitz & Stegun chapter matrix infinitesimal on the physical sheet of mapping (1). 14, p.537 [74]. The partial cross section is then directly Indeed, the transmission matrix, T , is defined in [4] after related to the TH rotated transmission matrix (83) as: eq. (2.3), VIII.2. p.292, as: 0 2 T cc (E) 2iωc H T 0 δ 0 e − U 0 (79) σcc0 (E) = 4πgJ π (86) cc , cc cc c kc(E) where ωc is defined by Lane & Thomas in eq.(2.13c) III.2.b. p.269, and used in eq.(4.5a) III.4.a. p.271 in Theorem 5. Evanescence of sub-threshold . [4], and is the difference ωc = σ` (ηc) − σ0(ηc), where the transmission matrix c For massive particles, analytic continuation of R-matrix Coulomb phase shift, σ`c (ηc) is defined by Ian Thomp- son in eq.(33.2.10) of [73]. Defining the diagonal matrix parametrization (2) makes the sub-threshold transmission
matrix T , defined as (80), evanescent on the physical ω , diag ωc , and using the R-matrix expression (2) for the scattering matrix, the Lane & Thomas transmission sheets of wavenumber-energy ρ(E) mappings (2) or (4) matrix (79) can be expressed with R-matrix parameters section II.A of [1]. In turn, this quantum tunnelling en- as: tails the partial cross sections σcc0 (E) become infinitesi- mal below threshold.    2iω  Proof. The proof is based on noticing that both transmis- −1  I − Oe 1/2 −1 1/2 TL&T −2iO  +ρ RLO ρ  sion matrix expressions (80) and (83) entail their modu- , 2i   lus square is proportional to: | {z } Θ (80) 2 2 1 0 (87) The angle-integrated partial cross sections σ 0 (E) can |Tcc | (E) ∝ cc H (E) then be expressed as eq.(3.2d) VIII.3. p.293 of [4]: + −1   −1  (1)−1 2 This is because RLO = O R − B − ρO , cc0 TL&T(E) which does not diverge below threshold. Asymptotic ex- σcc0 (E) = πgJ π (81) c kc(E) pressions for the behavior of H+(ρ) then yield, for small ρ values: 2J+1 where gJ π is the spin statistical factor c , (2I1+1)(2I2+1) −` ρ `+1 defined eq.(3.2c) VIII.3. p.293. Plugging-in the trans- H+(ρ) ∼ − iC`(η)ρ (88) mission matrix R-matrix parametrization (80) into cross- ρ→0 (2` + 1)C`(η) section expression (81) then yields: [4]: and asymptotic large-ρ behavior:

2 1 2 i(ρ−η ln(2ρ)− `π+σ`(η)) 1 1/2 −1 1/2 H (ρ) ∼ e 2 σ 0 = 4πg π Θ + ρ R O ρ (82) + (89) cc Jc L ρ→∞ Ockc cc0 An alternative, more numerically stable, way of com- Above the threshold, ρ ∈ R is real and thus equation (89) shows how |H+(ρ)| −→ 1. In other terms, the |H+(ρ)| puting the cross section is used at Los Alamos National ρ→∞ 20 term cancels out of the cross section expressions (82) and would see the cross section drop of one order of magni- (86) for open-channels above threshold. tude for a move of less than 10−13m, or a tenth of a Yet, in both wavenumber-energy ρ(E) mappings (2) pico-meter. We are at sub-atomic level of quantum tun- or (4) section II.A of [1], the sub-threshold dimensionless neling: the outgoing wave evanesces into oblivion way wavenumber is purely imaginary: ρ ∈ iR. Since asymp- before reaching the electron cloud... totic form (89) is dominated in modulus by: |H+(ρ)| ∼ Regardless of the evanescence of the transmission ma- ρ→∞ iρ trix, a more general argument on the cross section shows e . Depending on which sheet ρ is continued sub- that analytic continuation of the above-threshold expres- threshold, we can have ρ = ±ix, with x ∈ R. Thus,  sions will automatically close the channels below the on the non-physical sheet E,..., −c,... for the given threshold. channel c of ρc, the transmission matrix (87) experiences exponential decay of 1/ |H+(ρ)| leading to the evanes- Theorem 6. Analytic continuation annuls sub- cence of the cross section (81), or (86). In effect, this threshold cross sections. means that the |Oc(ρc)| term in (82) asymptotically acts For massive particles, analytic continuation of above- like a Heaviside function, being unity for open channels, threshold cross-section expressions to complex wavenum- but closing the channels below threshold. Since ρc = kcrc bers kc ∈ C will automatically close channels for real for the outgoing scattered wave Oc(ρc), the exponential energies E ∈ R below thresholds E − ETc < 0 closure depends on two factors: the distance rc from the Proof. The proof is based on the fact that massive parti- nucleus, and how far from the threshold one is |E − ETc |. cles are subject to mappings (2) or (4) section II.A of [1], This is a classical evanescence behavior of quantum tun- which entail wavenumbers are real above threshold, and neling. purely imaginary sub-threshold: ∀E < ETc , kc ∈ iR. Let What happens when continuing on the physical sheet  ψ(~r) be a general wave function, so that the probability E,..., +c,... , as |H+(ρ)| will now tend to diverge as a density is |ψ|2 (~r). “divide by zero”? The authors have no rigorous answer, For a massive particle subject to a real potential, the de but point to the fact that since E is left unchanged by Broglie non-relativistic Schr¨odingerequation applies, so the choice of the kc sheet, the evanescence result ought that writing the conservation of probability on a control to also stand, despite the apparent divergence. volume, and applying the Green-Ostrogradsky theorem, Note that for photon channels, the semi-classic will yield the following expression for the probability cur- wavenumber-energy ρ(E) mappings (3) of section II.A rent vector: of [1] does not yield this behavior, only the relativistic h i mapping (4) does. ~j ~ = ψ∗∇~ ψ (91) ψ , µ where µ is the reduced mass of the two-particle system We can estimate the orders of magnitude required to (c.f. equations (2.10) and (2.12) section VIII.2.A, p.312 experimentally observe this evanescent quantum tunnel- dσcc0 in [3]). By definition, the differential cross section dΩ ing closure of the cross sections below threshold. At is the ratio of the outgoing current in channel c0 by the distance rc from the center of mass of the nucleus, incoming current from channel c, by unit of solid angle and at wavenumber kc, distant from the threshold as dΩ.

|E − ETc |, the asymptotic behavior or the cross-section Consider the incoming channel c, classically modeled ~ below threshold is: ikc·~rc as a plane wave, ψc(~rc) ∝ e ; and the outgoing chan- 0   nel c , classically modeled as radial wave, ψc0 (rc0 ) ∝ ik r ln σcc0 (kc, rc) ∼ −2rc|kc| e c0 c0 . For arbitrary complex wavenumbers, k , k 0 ∈ , r 0 c c C Ec ≤ ETc (90) c kc → −∞ definition (91) will yield the following probability cur- rents respectively:

Assuming a detector is placed at a distance rc of the h ~ i ~j ∝ ~ = i~k e−2=[kc]·~rc nucleus, the cross section would decay exponentially be- ψc µ c (92) low threshold as the distance ∆Ec = |E − ETc | of E to   −2=[k 0 ]·rc  ~ 1 e c the threshold ET increases. For instance, for a threshold ~j ∝ = ik 0 − ~e c ψc0 c 2 r of 238U target reacting with neutron n channel, evanes- µ rc0 rc0   cence (90) would be of the rate of log10 σcc0 (kc, rc) ∼ One will note these expressions are not the imaginary 16 √ part of an analytic function in the wavenumber, because −3 × 10 rcm ∆EceV. For a detector placed at a mil- −3 of the imaginary part = [kc]. If however we look at real limeter rc ∼ 10 m, this means one order of magnitude is lost for the cross section in ∆E ∼ 10−27eV, evanes- wavenumbers kc, kc0 ∈ R, that is at above-threshold en- c ergies E ≥ E , the probability currents (92) readily sim- cent indeed. Conversely, detecting this quantum tun- Tc neling with a detector sensitive to micro-electronvolts plify to: −6 ∆Ec ∼ 10 eV ∼ 1µeV (200 times more sensitive than ~ h i ~ ~j ∝ < ~k , ~j ∝ < [k 0 ]~e (93) the thermal energy of the cosmic microwave background) ψc µ c ψc0 µ c r 21

These expressions are the real part of analytic functions the scattering matrix U through (41) and (40). The lat- of the wavenumbers. If we analytically continue them ter expressions directly link the R-matrix parameters to to complex wavenumbers, and consider the cases of sub- the poles and residues of the Humblet-Rosenfeld expan- threshold reactions E < ETc , for either the incoming or sion of the scattering matrix, and can be complemented the outgoing channel, the wavenumbers are then exactly by local coefficients {sn}W(E) of the entire part (42), to imaginary, kc, kc0 ∈ iR. The real parts in (93) become untangle the energy dependence of the scattering ma- zero, thereby annulling the cross section σc,c0 (E). This trix into a simple sum of poles and residues (40), which means that for massive particles (not massless photons) is the full Humblet-Rosenfeld expansion of the scatter- subject to real potentials, analytic continuation of the ing matrix. Theorem 3 establishes that under analytic probability currents expressions above threshold (93) will continuation of the R-matrix operators, the poles of the automatically close the sub-threshold channels. This is Kapur-Peierls RL operator (i.e. the Siegert-Humblet ra- true regardless of whether the transmission matrix (79) dioactive poles) are exactly the poles of the scattering is or is not evanescent below threshold. This constitutes matrix U. another major argument in favor of analytic continua- The latter is one of three results we advance to argue tion of open-channels expressions to describe the closed that, contrary to the legacy force-closure of sub-threshold channels. channels presented in Lane & Thomas [4], R-matrix oper- ators ought to be analytically continued for complex mo- Note that for photon channels, the derivations for the menta. Such analytic continuation is necessary to cancel probability current vector (91) do not stand, and the the spurious poles which would otherwise be introduced wavenumber kc is not imaginary below threshold using by the outgoing wavefunctions, as we establish in theo- mapping (2) nor using the relativistic-correction (4) of rem 3. Moreover, we show in theorem 4 that the analytic section II.A of [1]. The fundamental reason why pho- continuation of R-matrix operators in scattering matrix ton treatment is not straightforward is that R-matrix parametrization (2) enforces Eden & Taylor’s generalized theory was constructed on the semi-classical formalism unitarity condition (69). Finally, we argue in theorems 5 of quantum physics, with wavefunctions instead of state and 6 that analytic continuation will still close cross sec- vectors. Though not incorrect, this wave function ap- tions for massive particle channels (not massless photon proach of quantum mechanics does not translate directly channels) below threshold. for photons, though some work has been done to describe We thus conclude that the R-matrix community should photons through wave functions [75, 76]. This is another henceforth come to consensus and agree to set the ana- open area in the field of R-matrix theory, beyond the lytic continuation as the standard way of computing R- scope of this article. matrix operators (in particular the shift Sc(E) and pen- etration Pc(E) functions) when performing nuclear data evaluations. V. CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In this article, we conduct a study and establish novel properties of the Siegert-Humblet pole expansion in ra- This work was partly funded by the Los Alamos Na- dioactive states, which we show links R-matrix theory to tional Laboratory (research position in T-2 division dur- the Humblet-Rosenfeld pole expansions of the scattering ing summer 2017), as well as by the Consortium for Ad- matrix. The Siegert-Humblet parameters are the poles vanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), an E and residue widths {r } of the Kapur-Peierls R j j,c L Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation of operator (4). They are N ≥ N complex, (almost al- L λ Nuclear Reactors under U.S. Department of Energy Con- ways) simple poles, that reside on the Riemann surface of tract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. mapping (1), comprised of 2Nc branches, and for which The first author is profoundly grateful to Prof. Se- one must specify on which sheet they reside, as shown in myon Dyatlov, from MIT and U.C. Berkeley, for his crit- theorem 1. They are intimately interwoven in that not ical contribution in pointing to us towards the Gohberg- any set of complex parameters is physically acceptable: Sigal theory and providing important insights within it. they must be solution to (11). Both E and r j j,c He would also like to thank Haile Owusu for his time in are invariant to changes in boundary conditions {B }. c discussing Hamiltonian degeneracy; as well as Gr´egoire Furthermore, E is invariant to a change in channel j Allaire for his important guidance on the Fredholm alter- radii {a }, and we established in theorem 2 a simple c native and the Perron-Frobenius theorem. Finally, this way of transforming the radioactive widths r under j,c work could not have come to fruition without the lead- a change of channel radius a . Since the Siegert-Humblet c ership of Vladimir Sobes at Oak Ridge National Labora- parameters are the poles and residues of the local Mittag- tory during the summers of 2015, 2016, and 2018, and to Leffler expansion (10) of the Kapur-Peierls operator RL, n o Los Alamos National Laboratory Gerald Hale (author of the set of Siegert-Humblet parameters ETc , ac, Ej, ri,c theorem 4) and Mark Paris, who organized the R-matrix is insufficient to entirely determine the energy behavior of summer workshops (2016 and 2021), which have been 22

platforms to spark and share these findings.

[1] P. Ducru, G. Hale, M. Paris, V. Sobes, and B. Forget, A. R¨ohrmoser,P. Romain, P. Romojaro, D. Roubtsov, Physical Review C (2020), accepted. P. Sauvan, P. Schillebeeckx, K. H. Schmidt, O. Serot, [2] D. A. Brown, M. B. Chadwick, R. Capote, A. C. Kahler, S. Simakov, I. Sirakov, H. Sj¨ostrand, A. Stankovskiy, A. Trkov, M. W. Herman, A. A. Sonzogni, Y. Danon, J. C. Sublet, P. Tamagno, A. Trkov, S. van der Marck, A. D. Carlson, M. Dunn, D. L. Smith, G. M. Hale, F. Alvarez-Velarde,´ R. Villari, T. C. Ware, K. Yokoyama, G. Arbanas, R. Arcilla, C. R. Bates, B. Beck, B. Becker, and G. Zerovnik,´ The European Physical Journal A 56, F. Brown, R. J. Casperson, J. Conlin, D. E. Cullen, 181 (2020). M. A. Descalle, R. Firestone, T. Gaines, K. H. Guber, [12] A. Blokhin, E. Gai, A. Ignatyuk, I. Koba, A. I. Hawari, J. Holmes, T. D. Johnson, T. Kawano, V. Manokhin, and V. Pronyaev, (2016), B. C. Kiedrowski, A. J. Koning, S. Kopecky, L. Leal, https://www.vant.ippe.ru/en/year2016/2/neutron- J. P. Lestone, C. Lubitz, J. I. MA¡rquez˜ DamiA¡n,˜ constants/1150-5.html, C. M. Mattoon, E. A. McCutchan, S. Mughabghab, https://www.vant.ippe.ru/images/pdf/2016/2-5.pdf. P. Navratil, D. Neudecker, G. P. A. Nobre, G. Noguere, [13] K. Shibata, O. Iwamoto, T. Nakagawa, N. Iwamoto, M. Paris, M. T. Pigni, A. J. Plompen, B. Pritychenko, A. Ichihara, S. Kunieda, S. Chiba, K. Furutaka, V. G. Pronyaev, D. Roubtsov, D. Rochman, P. Ro- N. Otuka, T. Ohsawa, T. Murata, H. Matsunobu, mano, P. Schillebeeckx, S. Simakov, M. Sin, I. Sirakov, A. Zukeran, S. Kamada, and J.-i. Katakura, B. Sleaford, V. Sobes, E. S. Soukhovitskii, I. Stetcu, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 48, P. Talou, I. Thompson, S. van der Marck, L. Welser- 1 (2011), publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: Sherrill, D. Wiarda, M. White, J. L. Wormald, R. Q. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711675. Wright, M. Zerkle, G. Aœerovnik,˚ and Y. Zhu, Nuclear [14] Z. Ge, H. Wu, G. Chen, and R. Xu, EPJ Web Data Sheets Special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, of Conferences 146, 02002 (2017), doi: 10.1051/epj- 148, 1 (2018). conf/201714602002. [3] J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, “Theoretical nuclear [15] A. J. Koning and D. Rochman, Nuclear Data Sheets Spe- physics,” (Springer-Verlag, Massachusetts Institute of cial Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, 113, 2841 (2012). Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A., 1952) DOI: [16] A. J. Koning, D. Rochman, J. C. Sublet, N. Dzysiuk, 10.1007/978-1-4612-9959-2. M. Fleming, and S. van der Marck, Nuclear Data Sheets [4] A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, Reviews of Modern Special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, 155, 1 (2019). Physics 30, 257 (1958). [17] P. L. Kapur and R. Peierls, Proceedings of the Royal [5] P. G. Burke, “R-matrix theory of atomistic collisions,” Society 166, 277 (1938), DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0093. (2011) ISSN 1615-5653. [18] E. P. Wigner and L. Eisenbud, Physical Review 72, 29 [6] M. Plummer, J. D. Gorfinkiel, and J. Ten- (1947), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.29. nyson, “Mathematical and computational methods in [19] C. Bloch, Nuclear Physics 4, 503 (1957). R-matrix theory,” (2007) http://www.ccp2.ac.uk/R- [20] F. C. Barker, Australian Journal of Physics 25, 341 matrix booklet 2007.pdf, ISBN 978-0-9556616-3-1. (1972), https://doi.org/10.1071/PH720341. [7] J. Tennyson and L. A. Morgan, Philosophical Transac- [21] C. R. Brune, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044611 (2002). tions of the Royal Society A 357, 1161 (1999), dOI: [22] C. Angulo and P. Descouvemont, Physical Review C 61, 10.1098/rsta.1999.0369. 064611 (2000), publisher: American Physical Society. [8] P. G. Burke and W. D. Robb, “The R- [23] S. Dyatlov and M. Zworski, “Mathematical theory of matrix theory of atomic processes,” (2008) scattering resonances,” (MIT, Massachusetts Institute https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2199(08)60030-5. of Technology, 77, Massachusetts ave. MA 02139, U.S.A.) [9] B. D. Buckley, P. G. Burke, and V. K. Lan, Computer http://math.mit.edu/ dyatlov/res/res final.pdf. Physics Communications 17, 175 (1979). [24] L. Guillop´e, Annales scientifiques de l’Ecole´ [10] L. Quigley and K. Berrington, Journal of Physics B: Normale Sup´erieure, S´erie 4: 22, 137 (1989), Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 29, 4529 (1996). https://doi.org/10.24033/asens.1580. [11] A. J. M. Plompen, O. Cabellos, C. De Saint Jean, [25] A. Csoto and G. Hale, Physical Review C 55, 536 (1997). M. Fleming, A. Algora, M. Angelone, P. Archier, [26] L. Favella and M. T. Reineri, Il Nuovo Cimento XXIII, E. Bauge, O. Bersillon, A. Blokhin, F. Cantargi, A. Cheb- 616 (1962). boubi, C. Diez, H. Duarte, E. Dupont, J. Dyrda, B. Eras- [27] F. A. McDonald and J. Nuttall, Physical Review Letters mus, L. Fiorito, U. Fischer, D. Flammini, D. Foligno, 23, 361 (1969). M. R. Gilbert, J. R. Granada, W. Haeck, F.-J. Hambsch, [28] J. Humblet and L. Rosenfeld, Nuclear Physics 26, 529 P. Helgesson, S. Hilaire, I. Hill, M. Hursin, R. Ichou, (1961). R. Jacqmin, B. Jansky, C. Jouanne, M. A. Kellett, [29] L. Rosenfeld, Nuclear Physics 26, 594 (1961). D. H. Kim, H. I. Kim, I. Kodeli, A. J. Koning, A. Y. [30] J. Humblet, Nuclear Physics 31, 544 (1962). Konobeyev, S. Kopecky, B. Kos, A. Kr´asa,L. C. Leal, [31] J. Humblet, Nuclear Physics 50, 1 (1964). N. Leclaire, P. Leconte, Y. O. Lee, H. Leeb, O. Litaize, [32] J. P. Jeukenne, Nuclear Physics 58, 1 (1965). M. Majerle, J. I. M´arquezDami´an,F. Michel-Sendis, [33] J. Humblet, Nuclear Physics 57, 386 (1964). R. W. Mills, B. Morillon, G. Nogu`ere, M. Pecchia, [34] C. Mahaux, Nuclear Physics 68, 481 (1965). S. Pelloni, P. Pereslavtsev, R. J. Perry, D. Rochman, [35] L. Rosenfeld, Nuclear Physics 70, 1 (1965). 23

[36] R. J. Eden and J. R. Taylor, Physical Review 133, B1575 New York, 2014) Chap. 115, pp. 1–24, (1964). https://www.mat.tuhh.de/forschung/rep/rep164.pdf. [37] G. M. Hale, Nuclear Data Sheets 109, 2812 (2008), [58] P. Ducru, V. Sobes, B. Forget, and K. Smith, in Pro- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2008.11.015. ceedings of PHYSOR 2016 (American Nuclear Society, [38] G. M. Hale and M. W. Paris, Nuclear Data Sheets 123, 555 North Kensington Avenue La Grange Park, Illinois 165 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2014.12.029. 60526 U.S.A., 2016) pp. 2138–2150. [39] N. M. Larson, Updated User’s [59] F. H. Frohner, Evaluation and analysis of nuclear reso- Guide for SAMMY, ORNL (2008), nance data, Tech. Rep. 18 (IAEA, 2000). https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub13056.pdf. [60] P. Ducru, V. Sobes, G. Hale, M. Paris, and B. Forget, [40] R. E. Azuma, E. Uberseder, E. C. Simpson, C. R. Brune, Physical Review C 00, 000 (2019), work-in-progress. H. Costantini, R. J. de Boer, J. G¨orres,M. Heil, P. J. [61] P. Ducru, G. Hale, M. Paris, V. Sobes, and B. Forget, LeBlanc, C. Ugalde, and M. Wiescher, Physical Review Physical Review C (2020), submitted. C 81, 045805 (2010). [62] E. P. Wigner, Physical Review 73, 1002 (1948). [41] G. Mittag-Leffler, Acta Mathematica t.4, 1 (1884). [63] R. J. Eden and P. A. M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal [42] A. E. Taylor, Pacific Journal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical of Mathematics 10, 1049 (1960), Sciences 210, 388 (1952), publisher: Royal Society. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1103038251. [64] T. Teichmann, Some general properties of nuclear reac- [43] A. J. F. Siegert, Physical Review 56, 750 (1939). tions cross-sections and level widths, Phd thesis, Prince- [44] G. Breit, Physical Review 58, 1068 (1940). ton University, Department of Physics (1949). [45] A. Lejeune and C. Mahaux, Nuclear Physics A 145, 613 [65] G. M. Hale, L. S. Brown, and M. W. (1970), https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(70)90445-8. Paris, Physical Review C 89 (2014), [46] J.-M. Li, L. V. Ky, Y.-Z. Qu, P.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Zhou, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.014623. and P. Faucher, Physical Review A 55, 3239 (1997). [66] A. J. Mockel and R. B. Perez, Physical Review C 2, 1179 [47] H. Comisel, C. Hategan, and R. A. Ionescu, Romanian (1970), publisher: American Physical Society. Journal Physics 57, 138 (2012). [67] C. Mahaux, Nuclear Physics 71, 241 (1965). [48] I. Gohberg and E. Sigal, Math. USSR Sbornik 13, 603 [68] J. Humblet, Physical Review C 42, 1582 (1990). (1971). [69] N. Bourbaki, in El´ements´ de Math´ematique, [49] B. Craven, Journal of the Australian Alg`ebre (Hermann, Paris, 1959. N. Bourbaki et Mathematical Society 10, 341 (1969), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007, 1959) Chap. 9, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1446788700007588. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978- [50] J. Cullum and R. Willoughby, “Nondefective Complex 3-540-35339-3.pdf. Symmetric Matrices,” (Birkhauser Boston (1985), 978-1- [70] H. K. Owusu, K. Wagh, and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Journal 4684-9178-4, 1985) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684- of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42 (2009), 9178-4 7. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/42/3/035206. [51] A. Bunse-Gerstner and W. B. Gragg, Journal of Compu- [71] J. Okolowicz and M. Ploszajczak, Physical Review C 80 tational and Applied Mathematics 21, 41 (1988). (2009). [52] N. H. Scott, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. [72] N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, J. Okolowicz, and M. Plosza- Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 441, 625 jczak, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics (1993), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ 37, 064042 (2010). doi/10.1098/rspa.1993.0083. [73] F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. [53] I. Bar-On and V. Ryaboy, SIAM Journal Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, of Scientific Computing 18, 1412 (1997), B. V. Saunders, and eds., “NIST Digital Library of https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827594269056. Mathematical Functions,” (National Institute of Stan- [54] S. Garcia and M. Punitar, Transactions of the Amer- dards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, ican Mathematical Society 358, 1285 (2005), s 0002- 2020) https://dlmf.nist.gov. 9947(05)03742-6. [74] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, in Handbook of Mathe- [55] S. Garcia and M. Punitar, Transactions of the Amer- matical Functions with Formuls, Graphs, and Mathemat- ican Mathematical Society 356, 3913 (2007), s 0002- ical Tables, United States Department of Commerce (Na- 9947(07)04213-4. tional Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics Series, [56] G. M. Hale, R. E. Brown, and N. Jarmie, Physical Re- 1964). view Letters 59, 763 (1987). [75] I. Bialynicki-Birula, Acta Phys- [57] H. Voss, in Handbook of Linear Algebra, 2nd ica Polonica A 86, 97 (1994), edition, Nonlinear Eigenvalue Problems, edited http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/86/a086z1p08.pdf. by L. Hogben (Chapman and Hall/CRC, [76] I. Bialynicki-Birula, Progress in Optics 36, 245 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6638(08)70316-0.