![Arxiv:1706.07668V2 [Nucl-Th] 6 Dec 2017](http://data.docslib.org/img/ab4c0f0247cad4fba48733dc24dc4195-1.webp)
Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of light nuclei with local chiral two- and three-nucleon interactions
J. E. Lynn,1, 2, ∗ I. Tews,3, † J. Carlson,4 S. Gandolfi,4 A. Gezerlis,5 K. E. Schmidt,6 and A. Schwenk1, 2, 7 1Institut f¨urKernphysik, Technische Universit¨atDarmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany 2ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨urSchwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany 3Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1550, USA 4Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA 5Department of Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada 6Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA 7Max-Planck-Institut f¨urKernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany Local chiral effective field theory interactions have recently been developed and used in the con- text of quantum Monte Carlo few- and many-body methods for nuclear physics. In this work, we go over detailed features of local chiral nucleon-nucleon interactions and examine their effect on properties of the deuteron, paying special attention to the perturbativeness of the expansion. We then turn to three-nucleon interactions, focusing on operator ambiguities and their interplay with regulator effects. We then discuss the nuclear Green’s function Monte Carlo method, going over both wave-function correlations and approximations for the two- and three-body propagators. Following this, we present a range of results on light nuclei: Binding energies and distribution functions are contrasted and compared, starting from several different microscopic interactions.
I. INTRODUCTION solve Eq. (1) stochastically by casting it as a path inte- gral and sampling the paths using Monte Carlo methods. Theoretical nuclear physics has undergone a renais- This allows one to extract ground- and low-lying excited- sance in recent decades because of two main develop- state properties of nuclear systems with high accuracy. ments: The increasing reach and precision of nuclear Furthermore, QMC methods are notable because they many-body methods, and the formulation of systematic approach the many-body problem with a correlated nuclear interactions based on chiral effective field the- wave-function–oriented framework. For certain nuclear ory (EFT). systems, e.g., the Hoyle state of 12C, many-body meth- Ab initio many-body methods in nuclear physics ods that rely on basis-set expansions can experience diffi- include the no-core shell model [1], nuclear lattice culties in capturing physics that requires a large number simulations [2], the coupled-cluster method [3,4], of basis states to describe, such as clustering effects. For the in-medium similarity renormalization group (SRG) QMC methods, which rely on a trial wave function to de- method [5], self-consistent Green’s function methods [6, scribe the state of interest, these effects are more straight- 7], and quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods [8]. forward to incorporate. While the GFMC method has an Among these, QMC methods, which are based on the unfavorable scaling behavior with respect to the nucleon imaginary-time evolution of a trial wave function and in- number A, the above-mentioned strengths make QMC clude the Green’s function Monte Carlo (GFMC) method calculations of smaller systems an ideal benchmark for and the auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo (AFDMC) other methods. method, are notable for their high accuracy across vari- Besides the exciting advancements for nuclear many- ous physical systems. body methods, the development of chiral EFT as a tool In a typical calculation, QMC methods reach uncer- for the derivation of systematic nuclear interactions con- tainties of 1%. By design, QMC methods introduce nected to the underlying theory of strong interactions, ∼
arXiv:1706.07668v2 [nucl-th] 6 Dec 2017 only a limited number of approximations that can be quantum chromodynamics (QCD), represents a major controlled and accounted for systematically. Both the step forward in nuclear theory. The idea, first presented GFMC method and the AFDMC method rely on the dif- by Weinberg in the 1990s [9–11], is to write down the fusion equation most general Lagrangian consistent with all the symme- tries of the underlying theory, including the chiral sym- −Hτ lim e ΨT Ψ0 , (1) metry of low-energy QCD, in terms of the relevant de- τ→∞ | i → | i grees of freedom at low energies, i.e., nucleons and pions. where H is the Hamiltonian of the system, τ is imaginary Together with a power counting scheme to order the re- time, and Ψ is a trial state for the system not orthogo- sulting contributions according to their importance, the | T i nal to the ground state Ψ0 . These “diffusion” methods result is a low-energy effective field theory for nuclear | i forces. The idea was further developed by van Kolck et al. in early pioneering work [12–14]. The first “modern” chiral EFT interactions with a χ2/datum around 1 in a ∗ E-mail: [email protected] fit to NN scattering data were introduced in the early † E-mail: [email protected] 2000s by Entem and Machleidt [15] and by Epelbaum et 2 al. [16]. EFT. Then, nuclear interactions can be arranged as The advantages of the chiral EFT approach to nu- clear interactions over commonly used phenomenological (0) (2) (3) VNN = VNN + VNN + VNN + ..., (2) approaches include the ability to systematically deter- mine consistent many-body interactions and electroweak where the superscript denotes the chiral order (the currents, as well as to estimate theoretical uncertain- power of Q p/Λb in the corresponding contributions). ties. The chiral EFT approach, however, is not with- At leading∼ order (LO), Q0, two contributions add to out some open problems. These include, e.g., power the nuclear interaction: the one-pion exchange (OPE) counting schemes, residual cutoff dependences, and asso- and momentum-independent short-range contact inter- ciated regulator artifacts. In the past few years, various actions. At higher orders, two-pion–exchange interac- groups have investigated several aspects involved in con- tions (TPE) and momentum-dependent (derivative) con- structing nuclear forces from chiral EFT, e.g., the fitting tact interactions appear. For more details on chiral EFT, protocol [17, 18], regulators [19, 20], or uncertainty esti- see Refs. [33, 34]. mates [21], with the goal of improving predictions based Because chiral EFT is naturally formulated in momen- on chiral interactions. tum space, it can contain nonlocal parts by construc- For many years, chiral EFT interactions could not be tion. In this section, we review the strategy to remove implemented in QMC methods because these interactions all sources of nonlocality, present selected results for the are derived in momentum space and are typically nonlo- deuteron, show details of the inclusion of 3N interactions cal while QMC methods rely on local interactions. In at N2LO, and discuss several open questions regarding spite of some work to remedy this shortcoming [22], it locality and regularization. remains technically challenging to develop QMC meth- ods that both can use nonlocal interactions and lead to results without large statistical uncertainties; see also Ref. [23] for an alternative approach. A. Locality in chiral EFT In recent years, however, it was realized that all sources of nonlocality can be removed up to next-to-next-to- Chiral EFT interactions, with the exception of early leading order (N2LO) in the standard Weinberg power pioneering work [12], have been developed in momentum counting. This led to the development of local chiral space. We define the incoming (outgoing) single-particle 0 0 interactions and their implementation in QMC meth- momenta in the NN sector as p1, p2 (p1, p2). Then ods [19, 24–27] and has allowed for the first QMC studies the incoming (outgoing) relative momentum p (p0), the of light nuclei, neutron matter, and other light neutron momentum transfer q, and momentum transfer in the systems with chiral EFT interactions at N2LO including exchange channel k are defined as 3N interactions [28–32]. In this paper, we provide details for the calculations of light nuclei and present additional 1 1 p (p p ) , p0 (p0 p0 ) , (3a) results. ≡ 2 1 − 2 ≡ 2 1 − 2 0 0 0 The structure of this paper is as follows. In Sec.II, q p1 p1 = p2 p2 = p p , (3b) we discuss how local chiral EFT interactions have been ≡ − − − 1 0 derived, highlight some interesting features of these local k (p + p ) . (3c) ≡ 2 interactions, and discuss open questions. In Sec.III, we describe the GFMC and AFDMC methods in more detail The Fourier transformation of a function of q leads to a and discuss the necessary changes in order to accommo- local function in coordinate space that depends only on date local chiral EFT interactions. In Sec.IV, we provide the two-particle distance r, whereas a function of k does a summary of results for light nuclei obtained with QMC not. methods and chiral EFT interactions. Finally, we give a Chiral EFT NN interactions depend on two linearly summary in Sec.V. independent momenta out of the four possible momenta (p and p0 or q and k). There are two possible sources of nonlocality (k dependence): II. LOCAL CHIRAL INTERACTIONS 1. The momentum-space regulator functions used to As stated in the introduction, chiral EFT is a system- regulate high-momentum contributions to the in- atic way of organizing nuclear interactions. Based on the teraction and most general Lagrangian consistent with the symmetries of QCD, and combined with a power counting scheme, 2. momentum-dependent higher order contact opera- it is possible to expand nuclear interactions in a series tors. with the expansion parameter p/Λb, where p is a typical low-momentum scale in nuclear systems of the order of We review the method to remove these sources of non- the pion mass mπ, and Λb 500 MeV is the breakdown locality, which was first discussed in Ref. [35] and later scale that determines the∼ range of applicability of the employed in practice in Refs. [24, 25]. 3
0.55 In this work, we choose n = 4. The constant R0 serves as R0 = 1.0 fm a coordinate-space cutoff parameter. The normalization 0.50 R0 = 1.2 fm is chosen such that
0.45 AV18 3 d r δR0(r) = 1 . (7) 0.40 Z For the long-range parts of the interaction, we use a sim- 0.35
) ilar functional form: 3
− 4 0.30 −(r/R0) flong(r) = 1 e . (8)
) (fm − r
( 0.25
0 In Fig.1, we compare the short-range regulator used in R δ the local chiral interactions for two values of the cut- 0.20 off parameter R0 with the short-range part used in the 0.15 Argonne v18 interaction [36]. Specifically, the short- range part of the Argonne v18 interaction is given by 0.10 i i 2 i [PST,NN + µrQST,NN + (µr) RST,NN ]W (r), where µ is 0.05 the average pion mass; P , Q, and R are a set of parame- ters; and W (r) is a Woods-Saxon potential. We display 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 this short-range part of the Argonne v18 interaction in r (fm) the central channel for deuteron-like pairs, i = c (cen- tral), ST = 01, and NN = np, and normalize as in FIG. 1. The (normalized) regulator functions for the short- range contact contributions to the local chiral interactions Eq. (7); see Ref. [36] for details on the values of the pa- rameters P , Q, R, and µ and the Woods-Saxon potential with the typical low (hard, R0 = 1.0 fm) and high (soft, R0 = 1.2 fm) coordinate-space cutoffs. In addition, we show W (r). the Woods-Saxon core for the central part of the Argonne v18 Regarding the range of cutoff parameters, one would interaction for deuteron pairs. (See text for details.) like to take R0 as small as possible in coordinate space to minimize regulator artifacts. However, as has been ar- gued in Ref. [37] in the context of the multiple-scattering 1. Local regulators series, the chiral expansion for the pion-exchange po- tentials breaks down for distances of r 0.8 fm. For ∼ When employing chiral EFT interactions in few- and r & 1.0 fm, the convergence of the multiple-scattering many-body calculations, momentum-dependent regula- series, however, is found to be rather fast. Taking R0 tor functions need to be introduced to cutoff divergences to be arbitrarily large, on the other hand, cuts off long- from high-momentum modes. The typical functional range pion physics that is resolved. We therefore adopt form employed to regulate both the short-range contact the range 1.0–1.2 fm for the cutoff R0. interactions and long-range pion exchanges in nonlocally Although we stress that there is no direct correspon- regulated chiral EFT interactions is dence between coordinate- and momentum-space cutoffs, a possibility of comparing the coordinate-space cutoff R0 f(p2) = exp (p2/Λ2 )n , (4) with typical momentum-space cutoff parameters Λ − NN NN can be obtained by Fourier transforming the coordinate- where ΛNN is the momentum-space cutoff for the NN space regulator function Eq. (6), integrating over all mo- sector of the interaction and n is an integer. Then, the 0 menta, and identifying the result with a sharp cutoff. interaction V (p, p ) is regulated as 2 1/3 This gives ΛNN = ~c[6π δR0(0)] , and thus we iden- V (p, p0) V (p, p0)f(p2)f(p0 2) . (5) tify the corresponding momentum scales 500 MeV → with R = 1.0 fm, and 400 MeV with R∼ = 1.2 fm. 0 ∼ 0 Even when these regulators are applied to a local inter- While a clear translation between coordinate-space and action V (p, p0) = V (q), e.g., a momentum-independent momentum-space cutoffs can only be obtained when contact interaction or the local one-pion-exchange inter- looking at a particular system or channel, we note that action, the regularized interaction becomes nonlocal due the estimated range encompassed by our cutoff choice to the explicit k dependence of the regulator functions. is typical of other nonlocal chiral EFT interactions; see A possible solution is to introduce local short- and also [38] long-range regulators. In our case, we regulate the chi- Regarding the long-range regulator, there are addi- ral interactions directly in coordinate space. Short-range tional advantages in choosing a local regulator function. contact interactions, which Fourier transform to δ func- As has been argued recently [21], the standard regula- tions in coordinate space, are regulated by “smearing tor choice Eq. (4) distorts the analytic structure of the them out,” i.e., partial-wave amplitude near threshold. Since the long-
n range interactions in chiral EFT are local [with the excep- e−(r/R0) (3) r tion of relativistic corrections entering at next-to-next- δ ( ) δR0(r) = 4π 3 3 . (6) 3 → n Γ( n )R0 to-next-to-leading order (N LO)], it is logical to employ 4 a local regulator in coordinate space, which cuts off the of an observable X at N2LO as short-range part of the pion-exchange interactions but 2 leaves the long-range part undisturbed. For this rea- ∆XN LO = max Q4 XLO ,Q2 XNLO XLO , − son, a (different) local long-range regulator function is (9) N2LO NLO also chosen in the semilocal interactions of Epelbaum et Q X X , − al. [21, 39].
To regularize pion loops in the TPE contributions at and correspondingly at lower orders. Furthermore, we NLO and higher orders, we use the framework of spec- require the uncertainties to be at least the size of the tral function regularization (SFR). In SFR, the integrals actual higher order corrections. We define the scale Q over loop momenta in the spectral representation of the as Q = max(p/Λb, mπ/Λb) with p being a typical mo- TPE contributions are cut off at Λ.˜ In the following, we mentum scale of the system. For the work we present use the SFR cutoff Λ˜ = 1000 MeV since only a negligible below, for nuclei, we choose Q = mπ/Λb, whereas for dependence on its choice was found [25, 28]. In particu- our neutron matter results, we take Q from the average lar, increasing the SFR cutoff from 1 to 1.4 GeV lowered momentum in a Fermi gas Q = 3/5kF /Λb, with Fermi 4 momentum k ; see Ref. [29]. This choice is conservative, the He binding energy and the energy per particle of F p pure neutron matter (with only NN interactions in both because typical binding momenta in nuclei are smaller cases) by less than 2%, which is well within the 5% than the pion mass. These uncertainty estimates provide truncation uncertainty∼ at this order. ∼ a quantitative estimate of the effect of truncating the chi- ral expansion at some order ν. A careful statistical anal- ysis using Bayesian procedures has been undertaken in Ref. [40], where it was shown that the prescription we use, 2. Local contact operators first introduced in Ref. [21], results in ν/(ν + 1) 100% degree-of-belief (DOB) intervals. That is, our NLO× and N2LO uncertainty estimates are equivalent to 50% and Choosing local regulators removes the first source of 67% DOB intervals. nonlocality in chiral interactions. The second source of ∼ Further details of the NN interaction, e.g., on the nonlocality originates in the momentum dependence of inclusion of charge-independence and charge-symmetry higher order contact interactions. Up to N2LO, these breaking terms, the values of the fitted low-energy con- can be eliminated by exploiting Fierz ambiguities. At stants (LECs), and phase shifts, are given in Ref. [25]. next-to-leading order (NLO), i.e., Q2 in the chiral ex- pansion, the general set of contact operators consistent with all the symmetries contains 14 different operators. B. Deuteron properties In addition to spin-isospin dependences, these operators 2 2 contain momentum dependences of the form q and k or The deuteron is the lightest nucleus with A > 1 in q k, where the k2 dependences are undesirable for lo- × nature and provides a natural testing ground for the NN cal interactions. One can show using the Pauli principle interaction. In this section, we present some properties that between antisymmetric states only 7 out of the 14 of this simple system using chiral interactions at N2LO. operators are linearly independent. Six linearly indepen- The deuteron wave function can be written in terms of 2 dent operators can be chosen to be local (q dependent) its S-[u(r)] and D-wave [w(r)] components as while the 7th operator can be chosen to be the spin-orbit interaction; see Ref. [25] for more details. u(r) S (ˆr) w(r) χ ψ(MJ )(r) = + 12 MJ , (10) At N3LO, there are an additional 15 linearly indepen- d r √8 r √4π dent contact operators. Only 8 of these are local, while the other 7 operators contain k dependences that can- where χMJ is the spin wave function for the total angu- not be removed. Nevertheless, it is possible to construct lar momentum projection MJ , and Sik(r) = 3σi · ˆrσk · 3 ˆr σ · σ is the tensor operator. The S- and D-wave maximally local N LO interactions that contain, at most, − i k nonlocalities of second order in momentum; see Ref. [26] components are normalized such that for initial work in this direction. To summarize, by choos- ∞ u(r) 2 w(r) 2 ing an appropriate set of contact operators and local reg- drr2 + = 1 . (11) ulator functions, all sources of nonlocality in chiral EFT r r 0 " # can be removed up to N2LO. Z The S- and D-wave components in momentum space are then related by Fourier-Bessel transforms
u˜(q) ∞ u(r) 3. Uncertainty estimates = 4π drr2j (qr) , (12a) q 0 r Z0 w˜(q) ∞ w(r) To estimate the truncation uncertainty of the chiral ex- = 4π drr2j (qr) , (12b) q 2 r pansion, we follow Ref. [21] and estimate the uncertainty Z0 5
0.45 TABLE I. Deuteron properties including the binding energy 2 Eb, asymptotic D/S ratio ηd, quadrupole moment Qd (im- N LO R0 = 1.0 fm pulse approximation), and root-mean-square (rms) matter ra- 0.40 S wave N2LO R = 1.2 fm − 0 dius phr2i. Electromagnetic interaction effects are neglected AV18 d 0.35 here (when included they change the values below only within the uncertainties). The uncertainties for the local chiral inter- )
2 actions represent the discussed truncation error estimate. See /
3 0.30
− text for more details. Experimental values are from Refs. [41–
(fm 44]. 0.25 /r ) r
( R0 = 1.0 fm R0 = 1.2 fm Exp 0.20 E (MeV) 2.21(2) 2.20(3) 2.224575(9) D wave b /r, w
) − r ηd 0.0263(3) 0.0267(6) 0.0256(4)
( 0.15
u 2 Qd (fm ) 0.286(5) 0.289(6) 0.2859(3) 0.10 p 2 hrdi (fm) 1.97(2) 1.97(3) 1.9660(68) 0.05
0.00 1. Momentum distribution 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 r (fm) The deuteron momentum distribution can be written FIG. 2. The deuteron wave functions with L = 0 (S-wave) in terms of the S- and D-wave components as 2 and L = 2 (D-wave) at N LO for R0 = 1.0 fm and R0 = 1.2 fm. Also shown are the deuteron wave functions for the 1 u˜(q) 2 w˜(q) 2 Argonne v18 interaction. n(q) = + , (14) 4π q q " # so that the normalization is (where j (x) is a spherical Bessel function) so that the d3q l n(q) = 1 . (15) normalization is (2π)3 Z In Fig.3, we show the deuteron momentum distribu- ∞ dqq2 u˜(q) 2 w˜(q) 2 tion for our two cutoff choices along with the momen- + = 1 . (13) tum distribution obtained for the Argonne v interac- (2π)3 q q 18 Z0 " # 103 2 N LO R0 = 1.0 fm N2LO R = 1.2 fm We show the S- and D-wave components of the 102 0 deuteron wave function in Fig.2 for chiral interactions AV18 at N2LO with two different cutoff scales along with the 101 deuteron wave function for the Argonne v18 interac- tion. Compared to the hard Argonne v18 interaction, the
) 0 S-wave components of the local chiral interactions are 3 10 softer, reflected in the larger value at vanishing pair sep- ) (fm q aration r. As a result, the D-wave component is pushed ( 1
n 10 away from r = 0. In addition, the D-wave component − 2 at N LO with cutoff R0 = 1.0 fm (R0 = 1.2 fm) has a 2 node at 0.2 fm ( 0.02 fm). This node has no physi- 10− cal consequences∼ for∼ the deuteron structure and for both cutoffs occurs at very short distances, where the uncer- 3 10− tainty coming from the truncation of the chiral expansion is largest. 10 4 −0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 In TableI, we collect a number of properties of the 1 deuteron at N2LO and compare with experiment. The q (fm− ) deuteron binding energy is not used in fits of the LECs FIG. 3. The deuteron momentum distributions at N2LO for and can be used as a check for the local potentials. At the two different cutoff scales we use. Also shown is the 2 N LO, the deuteron binding energy is consistent with deuteron momentum distribution for the Argonne v18 inter- experiment taking into account the uncertainties. action. 6
1.5 1.7 2 − N LO R0 = 1.0 fm R0 = 1.0 fm 2 N LO R0 = 1.2 fm R = 1.2 fm 1.0 0 1.8 AV18 − Exp Exp 0.5 1.9 − 0.0 ) q ( 2.0 20 (MeV)
T −
0.5 E − 2.1 1.0 − −
2.2 1.5 − −
2.0 2.3 − 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 − LO NLO NLO + pert.(2) NLO + pert.(3) N2LO 1 q (fm− ) FIG. 4. The deuteron tensor polarization at N2LO for the FIG. 5. The deuteron energy at LO, NLO, and N2LO for two different cutoff scales we use. The bands correspond to an R0 = 1.0 fm (1.2 fm) in blue (red). The error bars are the estimate for the uncertainty coming from the truncation of the uncertainty estimates coming from the truncation of the chi- chiral expansion as described in the text. Also shown is the ral expansion as described in the text. Also shown, between 2 deuteron tensor polarization for the Argonne v18 interaction. the NLO and N LO results, are second- and third-order per- The experimental data are from Ref. [46]. turbation theory calculations for the N2LO deuteron energies, taking HNLO as the unperturbed Hamiltonian, and treating VN2LO −VNLO as a perturbation. For the perturbation-theory tion. It is interesting to note that the three momen- calculations, we take as the uncertainty the same estimate as for the NLO calculations. The dashed lines serve as guides tum distributions display very similar behavior up to to the eye. The horizontal dotted line is the experimental the respective cutoffs of the two chiral interactions. For binding energy. R = 1.0 fm 500 MeV 2.5 fm−1, the blue curve 0 ∼ ≈ begins to deviate significantly from the Argonne v18 re- −1 sult at momenta 2.5 fm , while for R0 = 1.2 fm 400 MeV 2.0 fm∼−1, the red curve begins to deviate∼ The functions C0 and C2 are in turn written in terms ≈ −1 of the S- and D-wave components of the deuteron wave significantly from the Argonne v18 result at 2.0 fm . However, we also emphasize that momentum∼ distribu- function: tions are necessarily renormalization scale and scheme 2 2 dependent and are thus not observable [45]. u(r) w(r) C (r) = + , (18a) 0 r r u(r) w(r) 1 w(r) 2 2. Tensor polarization C2(r) = √2 + . (18b) r r − 2 r Since momentum distributions are scheme and scale The tensor polarization T20(q) is defined (in the impulse dependent, we now consider the tensor polarization. The approximation) by [47] charge form factors for different MJ states are given by 2 2 0 F (q) F (q) 1 3 0 (MJ ) 0 iq·r C,0 C,1 F (q) = d r ρ (r )e , (16) T20(q) √2 − . (19) C,MJ 2 d ≈ − F 2 (q) + 2F 2 (q) Z C,0 C,1
(MJ ) 0 with the deuteron two-body density ρd (r ) in state We compare the tensor polarization for both cutoffs 0 MJ in terms of the distance r from the center of mass: and for the Argonne v18 interaction with experimental data [46] in Fig.4. The first minimum of T20(q) is exper- imentally known at q 3.5(5) fm−1 [46–48], in agree- ≈ (0) 0 4 0 0 ment with the predictions of all three cases displayed. At ρ (r ) = [C0(2r ) 2C2(2r )P2(cos θ)] , (17a) d π − higher values of q, we expect some disagreement between 4 ρ(±1)(r0) = [C (2r0) + C (2r0)P (cos θ)] . (17b) our calculations and experiment given that we work in d π 0 2 2 the impulse approximation. 7
to the pion-nucleon LECs c1, c3, and c4, corresponds to the long-range S- and P -wave TPE interactions by Fu- jita and Miyazawa. The LECs ci already appear in the subleading TPE interactions at the NN level at the same π π π chiral order, which highlights the consistency of the NN and 3N interactions in chiral EFT. The second diagram,
c1, c3, c4 cD cE proportional to the LEC cD, is an intermediate-range one-pion-exchange–contact interaction, and the third di- FIG. 6. The diagrams contributing to 3N interactions at agram, proportional to the LEC cE, is a 3N contact in- N2LO. Solid lines are nucleons; dashed lines are pions. teraction. The diagrams in Fig.6 give rise to the following momentum-space 3N interactions: 3. Perturbation-theory calculations 2 1 gA (σi · qi)(σj · qj) αβ α β VC = 2 2 2 2 Fijk τi τj , The chiral expansion is meant to be a perturbative 2 2Fπ (qi + mπ)(qj + mπ) πX(ijk) expansion in powers of a small parameter Q p/Λb. (22a) One may well ask if the expected perturbative expansion∼ g c σ · q is evident in the interactions themselves. To investigate A D j j τ · τ σ · q VD = 2 2 2 2 ( i j)( i j) , this, we treat the difference of the N2LO and the NLO −8Fπ Fπ Λχ qj + mπ πX(ijk) interactions as a perturbation (22b) cE 2 τ · τ Vpert VN LO VNLO (20) VE = 4 i j , (22c) 2F Λχ ≡ − π i=6 j and perform first-, second-, and third-order perturbation- X theory calculations for the deuteron binding energy. For example, at first order,
ψ(NLO) H + V ψ(NLO) d NLO pert d π D E = E + ψ(NLO) V ψ(NLO) . (21) σ NLO d pert d D E
These results at second order and above are displayed cD in Fig.5. As is evident from the figure, the softer in- teraction with R0 = 1.2 fm is more perturbative than FIG. 7. The cD-dependent diagram with a fictitious heavy scalar particle σ exchanged between two of the nucleons mak- the harder interaction with R0 = 1.0 fm. In both cases, the perturbative series appears to be converging to the ing the participants in the pion exchange explicit. Solid lines value at N2LO, but the convergence is faster for the are nucleons, the dashed line is a pion, and the dotted line is the fictitious heavy scalar particle. R0 = 1.2 fm cutoff.
where Roman indices refer to nucleon number, Greek C. Three-nucleon interactions at N2LO indices refer to Cartesian coordinates, π(ijk) gives all permutations of the indices, gA is the axial-vector cou- Phenomenological models for 3N interactions, in- pling constant, Fπ is the pion decay constant, Λχ is taken cluding the Urbana [49], Illinois [50], and Tucson- to be a heavy meson scale, and mπ is the pion mass. The αβ Melbourne [51] models, have been very successfully used function Fijk is defined in Ref. [19] and depends on the in QMC calculations of nuclear systems. These models LECs, c1, c3, and c4. The two LECs cD and cE first are based on the 3N TPE interaction that was first pro- appear in the 3N sector at N2LO and have to be fit- posed by Fujita and Miyazawa nearly 60 years ago [52]. ted to A 3 experimental data. We discuss our fitting ≥ Despite their undeniable success, they suffer from sev- procedure further below. eral shortcomings: They do not emerge naturally from the phenomenological NN interactions and they are not systematically improvable. 1. Local 3N interactions In chiral EFT, however, 3N interactions naturally emerge in the expansion and are consistent with the NN The Fourier transformations of Eqs. (22a) to (22c) can interactions. Furthermore, they are systematically im- be found in Ref. [19]. Here, we briefly review some impor- provable. The leading 3N interactions appear at N2LO in tant details from that work and point out additional de- Weinberg power counting and can be visualized in terms tails that arose in the implementation of the coordinate- of the diagrams in Fig.6. The first diagram, proportional space interactions in finite nuclei and neutron matter. 8
In commonly used phenomenological models, any See the Appendix for details. short-range structures which arise in the Fourier transfor- mation of long-range parts of the 3N forces are typically absorbed by other short-range structures (e.g., the scalar short-range structure in the Urbana IX (UIX) 3N inter- action): However, we retain these additional structures explicitly. Our regularization scheme for the 3N interac- tions is consistent with that used in the NN sector, i.e., δ functions denoting contact interactions are replaced 2. Regulator artifacts with Eq. (6), long-range pion-exchange interactions are regulated by applying Eq. (8), and the 3N cutoff parame- ter is taken in the same range as the NN cutoff parameter As was discussed in Refs. [19, 20, 29], the use of local regulators in the 3N sector leads to two kinds of ob- (in the following, we choose R3N = R0 = 1.0 1.2 fm). The full Fourier transformations of Eq. (22a)− are avail- servable regulator artifacts. The first kind of regulator able in Ref. [19], but we note that a compact form of V ijk artifact affects the short-range parts of the interactions C,c3 in Eqs. (22b) and (22c). These parts retain additional and V ijk can be obtained by writing them in the form C,c4 ambiguities at finite cutoff R3N = 0. The first ambiguity of an anticommutator and a commutator of a modified concerns the choice of momentum6 variables in the Fourier coordinate-space pion propagator transformation. Depending on how this choice is made, 4π Eq. (22b) Fourier transforms to one of the following two r r σ · σ ij( ) Xij( ) 2 δR3N(r) i j . (23) equations: X ≡ − mπ
g c m2 8π V = A D π τ · τ X (r )δ (r ) + X (r )δ (r ) σ · σ δ (r )δ (r ) , (24a) D1 96πΛ F 4 i k ik kj R3N ij ik ij R3N kj − m2 i k R3N ij R3N kj χ π cyc π i where Xik(r) = [Sik(r)T (r) + σi · σk]Yik(r) is the The usual choice is τ i · τ j. This Fierz-rearrangement coordinate-space pion propagator, and the tensor and freedom holds as long as the regulator is symmetric under Yukawa functions are defined as T (r) = 1 + 3/(mπr) + individual nucleon permutations. However, in the pres- 2 −mπ r 3/(mπr) and Y (r) = e /r. The sum with i < j < k ence of local regulators, the Fierz-rearrangement freedom runs over all particles 1 to A, and the cyclic sum runs is violated, and different operator choices can lead to dif- over the cyclic permutations of a given triple. It is clear ferent results. Corrections to the violated Fierz rear- that in the limit R3N 0 the two possible VD structures rangement freedom are of higher order in chiral EFT. A are identical, because→ then the δ functions enforce i = j systematic study of these effects in the NN sector is in (k = j) in the first (second) term. The interaction VD preparation [55]. In the following, we have explored three does not distinguish which of the two nucleons in the con- different choices for the contact operator: tact interaction participates in the pion exchange. The term V can also be obtained by imagining a heavy fic- c D2 V = E τ · τ δ (r )δ (r ) , titious scalar particle being exchanged between the two Eτ Λ F 4 i k R3N kj R3N ij χ π cyc nucleons in the contact; see Fig.7. This ambiguity was i 1 1 triples with S = 2 and T = 2 , III. QUANTUM MONTE CARLO METHODS 1 3 σi · σj 3 τ k · τ l , (27) In this section, we provide details on QMC methods P ≡ 36 − − i ΨT = 1 + Uijk (1 + Uij) ΨJ . (29) We now turn to the fitting procedure for the LECs cD | i S | i i 1.4 2 2 1.2 AV18 + UIX N LO R0 = 1.0 fm N LO R0 = 1.2 fm fc uτ ( 5) 1.0 u (×5) σ × ) uστ ( 5) 2 0.8 / × 3 ut ( 5) − u (×5) 0.6 tτ × ) (fm r 0.4 ( p , u 0.2 ) r ( c f 0.0 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.6 − 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 r (fm) r (fm) r (fm) FIG. 8. Correlations of Eqs. (31) and (33) entering the trial wave functions used in the calculations of 4He for the AV18+ UIX 2 2 (left panel), N LO R0 = 1.0 fm, (middle panel), and N LO R0 = 1.2 fm (right panel) interactions. wave function, since in general the Uij do not commute Equation (28) is evaluated by means of Monte Carlo with each other. In Fig.8, we display the two-body integration, correlations fc, and up obtained in the simulation of 4 2 { } † He with the N LO interactions with both cutoffs as dR[Ψa(R)HΨb(R)/Wab(R)]Wab(R) H = a,b , well as those obtained for the Argonne v18 NN inter- † h i R dR[Ψa(R)Ψb(R)/Wab(R)]Wab(R) action supplemented by the UIX 3N interaction. What P a,b (38) can be seen from these correlations, most particularly in R where a andP b stand for a given order of operators in the case of the central correlation f , is the softening of c the product Eq. (30), a complete sum over all spin and the interaction as we take the cutoff from R = 1.0 fm 0 isospin states is assumed, and the integrals are performed to R = 1.2 fm. We find that the spin-orbit correla- 0 as a Monte Carlo integration over the coordinate-space tion has only a minimal effect on the variational energies configurations R = r , r ,..., r . The sums over the we obtain and a relatively high computational cost, and 1 2 A orders a and b are{ also performed} via a Monte Carlo therefore we set u (r ) = 0 in our calculations. b ij sampling as discussed below. The weight function can The three-body correlation operator takes the follow- be taken as ing form: † Wab(R) = Re Ψa(R)Ψb(R) , (39) Uijk = Vijk(¯rij, r¯jk, r¯ik) , (35) | h i | for example. In practice, because of the different orders a wherer ¯ is a scaled relative separation and is a small and b in the left and right wave functions, Eq. (39) is not negative constant. This form is suggested by perturba- guaranteed to be nonzero, and so we add to it an addi- tion theory [49]. In addition to the explicit three-body † tional term proportional to s,t Ψa(R; s, t) Ψb(R; s, t) . correlations of Eq. (35), a central, geometric three-body That is, we add a term proportional| to the sum of the ab-| correlation is wrapped into the two-body correlations, solute value of the overlapsP of the individual spin-isospin components of the wave functions. u˜p(rij) = fijkup(rij) , (36) The symmetrizer in Eqs. (29) and (30) requires, in k=6 i,j principle, the evaluation of all [A(A 1)/2]! possible or- Y derings of the operators. To save computational− cost, the with order of operators is instead sampled. This approxima- tion does not contribute much to the statistical variance r t2 f = 1 t ij exp( t R ) , (37) since all orderings share the same linear (dominant) con- ijk − 1 R − 3 ijk tributions and the differences between different orderings ijk are proportional to u2 . { p} where Rijk = rij + rjk + rik and the ti are variational The Metropolis algorithm is employed and the result parameters. These correlations serve to{ reduce} the repul- is, after sufficient equilibration, a set of configurations sion which arises from the product of certain spin-isospin labeled by the 3A coordinates and the orderings of the correlation operators when any two nucleons come close operators, R, a, b , which are distributed according to together. Reducing this repulsion was found to improve the square{ of the trial} wave function. As the integration variational energies with wave functions of the form of and sum over all orderings is done stochastically, there Eq. (30)[60]. is an error associated with the expectation value of any 11 operator O , given by In general, it is difficult to compute the exact many- h i body imaginary-time propagator for arbitrary imaginary O2 O 2 times. Instead, the properties of the exponential are σO = h i − h i , (40) s N 1 exploited to rewrite the propagation to large imaginary − time as a product of small propagations, where N is the number of statistically independent eval- uations. For more details, see Refs. [8, 59]. N − − With the algorithm described above, the variational e Hτ = e H∆τ , (43) i=1 parameters ci are adjusted to minimize the expectation Y value of the{ Hamiltonian} in Eq. (28). Wave functions so obtained can be used as reasonable approximations to the with ∆τ = τ/N, and N large enough (∆τ small enough) exact ground state (especially in few-body nuclei) and are such that one of several approximations can be used to a necessary starting point for the GFMC method. calculate the short-imaginary-time propagator. In the case of the AFDMC method, for example, a Trotter breakup is used [8], B. Diffusion Monte Carlo −H∆τ −V ∆τ −T ∆τ −V ∆τ 3 e = e ij 2 e e ij 2 + (∆τ ) , O Even with the sophisticated wave functions described i The complete two-body propagator depends on initial In Eq. (50b), the right-most exponential acts upon an and final relative coordinates, the initial and final spin array of initial relative separations, the result is trans- states of the pair, and the isospin of the pair, formed to momentum space using FFT, the exponential of the kinetic energy acts upon that result, which is then 0 α g(r, r ; ∆τ) β transformed back to coordinate space using FFT, where- h | | i (48) 0 0 −H∆τ upon the left-most exponential acts upon the array. This r SMSTMT e rSMSTMT , → h | | i method introduces errors of (δτ 3), is fast, and is easy O where the indices ij as in Eq. (47) are suppressed here to implement. and in what follows for simplicity unless they are ex- An alternative method is to diagonalize the channel plicitly needed for clarity. Reference [62] originally pro- Hamiltonians in momentum space [22]. When the in- posed using fast Fourier transforms (FFT) and the Trot- teraction is nonlocal (no longer diagonal in coordinate ter break up for scalar interactions, and this idea was space), then the advantages of the Trotter breakup van- adapted to realistic nuclear interactions in Ref. [49]. In ish. That is, it is just as difficult to calculate the matrix this method, interactions are first decomposed into par- elements r0 e−V ∆τ r as it is to calculate the original tial waves. The nuclear Hamiltonian commutes with the matrix elementsh | r0| ei−H∆τ r . In order to diagonalize 2 2 2 h | | i operators J , Jz, S , T , and Tz, and, thus, sets them the channel Hamiltonians, we take as an orthonormal as good channel quantum numbers: S = S1 + S2 is the basis the set of spherical Bessel functions which solve the total spin, J = L + S is the total angular momentum, free radial Schr¨odinger equation with a Dirichlet bound- and T = T1 + T2 is the total isospin. Then, the chan- ary condition at some radius R much beyond the range 0 0 −H∆τ nel propagators r JMJ L STMT e rJMJ LST MT of the interaction, are computed andh resummed to| obtain| the two-bodyi propagator: 2 0 0 −H∆τ φnL(r) = jL(knr) , (51) r SMSTMT e rSMSTMT 3 0 2 h | | i sR jL(knR) JM 0 JM ∗ = C 0 0 0 YL0M 0 (Ω )C Y (Ω) SMS L ML L SMS LML LML (49) γ X where kn is the set of discrete momenta for a given L 0 0 −H∆τ { } r JMJ L STMT e rJMJ LST MT . and R. In this basis, the kinetic energy is diagonal, and × h | | i the potential-energy matrix elements can be obtained Here, γ stands for the set of quantum numbers 0 0 with simple matrix multiplications, which perform the JMLL MLML , C is a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient, Y necessary numerical integrals. While this method was {is a spherical harmonic,} and Ω (Ω0) are the angular co- 0 originally developed to calculate two-body propagators ordinates of r (r ). for nonlocal interactions, it works equally well for local Each of the channel propagators is calculated by break- interactions, providing equal accuracy and speed when ing up the (already-small) time step ∆τ into smaller steps compared with the symmetrized Trotter break up with δτ = ∆τ/Nτ , with Nτ large, using the symmetrized Trot- FFT. ter breakup, and FFT: So far, we have discussed only the contribution to the e−H∆τ = (e−Hδτ )Nτ , (50a) many-body propagator coming from NN interactions. −Hδτ −V δτ/2 −T δτ −V δτ/2 3 We include 3N interactions in the propagator as a sym- e = e e e + (δτ ) . (50b) −V3N ∆τ O metric linear approximation to e : ∆τ G (R, R0; ∆τ) = G (R, R0; ∆τ) α 1 V (p)(R) γ αβ 0 − 2 3N p D X E (52) g (r , r0 ; ∆ τ) ij ij ij 1 ∆τ (p) 0 γ 0 δ δ V3N (R ) β , × S g0,ij(rij, rij; ∆τ) − 2 D i where the sums V (p) are over all 3N operators of possible. For example, replacing [1 ∆τ V (p)(R)] p 3N − 2 p 3N Eqs. (A.1a)–(A.1c), one of Eqs. (A.2a) and (A.2b), and with [1 ∆τ V (p)(R)] would capture at least some P p − 2 3N P one of Eqs. (A.3a)–(A.3c). As before, α, β, γ, and (∆τ 2) effects. Another possibility is to include all Q δ are appropriate spin-isospin states and γ and δ are Oparts of the 3N interaction that can be rewritten effec- summed over. This linear approximation is a controlled tively as two-body operators into the two-body propa- approximation that becomes more exact with smaller ∆τ. gator as suggested in Ref. [63] [these include the TPE There are improvements to this linear approximation 13 P -wave anticommutator contribution Eq. (A.1b), the However, in practice, one does not have direct access to TPE S-wave contribution Eq. (A.1a), the VD contri- the propagated wave function, and an evaluation of that butions Eqs. (A.2a) and (A.2b), and two of the three expectation value is cumbersome for spin- and isospin- VE contributions Eqs. (A.3a) and (A.3b)]. However, we dependent operators, and especially for momentum- have found that with the time step we typically use, dependent operators. Thus, what is more commonly used ∆τ = 0.0005 MeV−1, the time-step error introduced by is the mixed expectation value of a given operator (sup- this linear approximation is negligible. pressing the spin-isospin indices), defined as With the imaginary-time propagator so obtained, one would ideally like to calculate expectation values such as O(τ) = hΨ(τ)|O|Ψ(τ)i , with Ψ(τ) defined as h i hΨ(τ)|Ψ(τ)i N−1 Ψ(R ; τ) dR G(R , R ; ∆τ)Ψ (R ) . (53) N ≡ i i+1 i T 0 i=0 Z Y † ΨT O Ψ(τ) dRΨT (RN )OG(RN , RN−1; ∆τ) G(R1, R0; ∆τ)ΨT (R0) O mixed h | | i = † ··· , (54) h i ≡ ΨT Ψ(τ) dRΨ (R )G(R , R − ; ∆τ) G(R , R ; ∆τ)Ψ (R ) h | i R T N N N 1 ··· 1 0 T 0 R with the paths dR N−1 dR , and the total imaginary tor commute. In this case, ≡ i=0 i time τ = N∆τ. The paths are Monte Carlo sampled to −Hτ perform the integrals.Q Note that the operator O must ΨT e H ΨT H(τ) mixed = h | −Hτ | i act on the trial wave function (to the left). h i ΨT e ΨT h | | i Ψ e−Hτ/2He−Hτ/2 Ψ The mixed estimate introduces an explicit dependence T T (57) = h | −Hτ/2 −Hτ/2 | i on the trial wave function. However, if the trial wave ΨT e e ΨT h | | i function is a good approximation, we can write Ψ(τ) H Ψ(τ) = h | | i , Ψ(τ) Ψ(τ) h | i Ψ(τ) = ΨT + δΨ(τ) , (55) such that limτ→∞ H(τ) mixed = E0. In short, for the Hamiltonian, the mixedh estimatei is identical to the nor- mal estimate. where δΨ(τ) is the (small) correction to the trial wave When performing the propagation, one has to employ function introduced by the imaginary-time propagation, another approximation. Nucleons are fermions and their and keep terms only of (δΨ(τ)). Then we have many-body wave functions contain nodal surfaces. As O a consequence, a configuration that crosses a nodal sur- face introduces a sign change in the matrix elements in Ψ(τ) O Ψ(τ) Eq. (54). At large τ, these sign changes contribute to a O(τ) = h | | i decreasing denominator, causing large statistical fluctu- h i Ψ(τ) Ψ(τ) (56) h | i ations (large variance). This is the famous fermion sign O(τ) + O(τ) O , problem. One way to circumvent this problem is the ≈ h imixed h imixed − h iT so-called constrained path algorithm; for a detailed de- scription, see Ref. [63]. In short, the idea is to discard where O T is the variational estimate. Thus, if ΨT is a configurations that in future propagations would only good approximationh i to the exact wave function obtained contribute to the variance. If one knew the exact wave through imaginary-time propagation (as measured by the function, then the overlap of these discarded configura- relative smallness of the difference O(τ) O ) tions with the ground-state wave function would be zero h imixed − h iT when compared with O(τ) mixed, then the mixed es- Ψdiscarded Ψ0 = 0. However, since we do not in gen- timate introduces onlyh a smalli systematic uncertainty. eralh know the| i exact ground-state wave function, the con- Typically we aim for the difference between the mixed straint is imposed on the overlap with the trial wave func- and variational estimates to be no larger than 5% of tion so that the average of the overlaps Ψdiscarded ΨT the mixed estimate. There are other ways to avoid∼ the over the random walk is approximately zero.Thish approx-| i use of mixed estimates, such as computing the observable imation was inspired by the fixed-node approximation in the midpoint of the path [64], but this requires a prop- used in condensed matter systems. agation time twice as long as in the mixed-estimate case. For scalar wave functions (no spin or isospin depen- Note that in the case of the energy expectation value, dence) the fixed-node approximation provides both a H , the Hamiltonian and the imaginary-time propaga- way to tame the sign problem, and results in an upper h i 14 24.0 In this section, we present the main results for light nu- − E0 (Exp) clei that we have obtained with our local chiral EFT NN E(τ) (GFMC) and 3N interactions at N2LO [29]. We emphasize the E(τ ) (GFMC) order-by-order convergence of observables in the A = 3, 4 25.0 → ∞ − nuclei and present a detailed breakdown of the contribu- tions to the energies from various components of the NN 28.2 and 3N interactions. We also show several one-body dis- − 26.0 28.3 tributions and the related longitudinal charge form fac- − − 28.4 tor. − (MeV) 28.5 − E 28.6 27.0 − − 28.7 − 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 A. Energies of light nuclei at LO, NLO, and N2LO 28.0 − At LO, the NN interaction consists simply of the one-pion exchange potential and two contact interac- tions with LECs fit to NN scattering phase shifts. With 29.0 − 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 only the basic pion physics present and little freedom to 1 τ (MeV− ) fit the phase shifts, essentially only the large scattering FIG. 9. Energy of 4He as a function of imaginary time in length plus OPE physics can be reproduced, and the re- constrained-path GFMC calculations. Past τ ∼0.5 MeV−1 sulting potential is excessively attractive in low partial we show the transient estimation. The inset shows the details waves. This can be seen in Fig. 10, where at LO, the of the transient estimation and the region used to extract the ground-state energies of A = 3, 4 nuclei are significantly ground-state energy and uncertainty (light blue band). Note lower than experiment. In fact, the LO NN interaction that each point represents an average over a given (varying) overbinds by as much as 50% ( 30%) for A = 4 imaginary-time interval. The imaginary-time intervals aver- (A = 3). At NLO, the NN∼ interaction∼ is too repul- aged over are shorter at the beginning and end of the propa- sive and leads to underbinding. However, the deviation gation in order to show more detail in these intervals. from experiment decreases to 25% ( 15%) for A = 4 (A = 3). Finally, at N2LO, the∼ 3N interaction∼ with two free LECs enters. We fit c and c directly to the bind- bound to the ground-state energy. However, because of D E ing energy of 4He, (see Sec.IIC) and, since the binding the spin and isospin dependence of the nuclear case, the energies of the A = 3 systems are highly correlated with constrained-path algorithm no longer supplies a strict up- the binding energy of 4He (i.e., the Tjon line [65, 66]), per bound, as has been discussed and demonstrated in the A = 3 binding energies are also well reproduced. Ref. [63]. To overcome this additional difficulty, in cases where the constrained-path algorithm is used, we take a The uncertainties in Fig. 10 contain contributions from the GFMC statistical uncertainties as well as from an number nu of unconstrained steps after convergence of estimate for the theoretical uncertainty coming from the constrained-path calculation. We take nu as large the truncation of the chiral expansion (as discussed in as possible. Typically, nu 20 before the fermion sign problem overwhelms the signal.∼ This “transient estima- Sec.II). The theoretical uncertainties display at least tion” results in significantly improved estimates, intro- three desirable features: (1) They encompass, order by ducing an error, for example, in 6Li of just 0.5%; see order, the cutoff variation in the energy, (2) order by or- Ref. [63]. Figure9 gives an example of a constrained-path∼ der, the experimental energy is within the uncertainty calculation of the ground-state energy of 4He and the sub- bands, and (3) as the chiral order increases, the uncer- sequent transient estimation. Note that the constrained- tainty coming from the truncation of the chiral expan- 3 path propagation overbinds the system, demonstrating sion decreases rapidly. Thus, at N LO, we can expect that for some trial wave functions the constrained-path that while the energies of these systems will not change estimate is not an upper bound. dramatically, the uncertainties will continue to reduce. In addition to Fig. 10, we show more details of var- ious contributions to the A = 3, 4 energies in GFMC IV. ENERGIES AND OTHER RESULTS FOR calculations in TableII, where the softer nature of the A = 3, 4 interaction with R0 = 1.2 fm is evident from the lower kinetic energies compared to the case with R0 = 1.0 fm. The light nuclei with A = 3, 4 are a minimal testing Note, however, that the kinetic energy by itself is not an ground for any nuclear Hamiltonian: The reasonable re- observable. production of binding energies and radii in these nuclei The trend represented in Fig. 10 is also present in the is a basic yardstick against which our local chiral inter- radii of the system: See Fig. 11 and TableIII. Here we actions can be measured. compute the so-called point-proton radii of A = 3, 4 sys- 15 5 4 4 − − 3 − 3 4He He H 15 6 6 − − − 25 − 8 8 − − 35 − 10 10 (MeV) 45 − − E − 12 12 55 − − − 65 14 14 − − − 75 16 16 − LO NLO N2LO − LO NLO N2LO − LO NLO N2LO FIG. 10. Energies as calculated using the GFMC method at LO, NLO, and N2LO for A = 3, 4 nuclei. The uncertainties include an estimate for the uncertainty coming from the truncation of the chiral expansion. In blue (red) are the energies with the cutoff R0 = 1.0 fm (R0 = 1.2 fm). The horizontal lines are the experimental values. 1.8 2.2 1.8 3 4He He 3H 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.4 (fm) 1.2 i 1.4 2 pt r h 1.0 1.2 q 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 LO NLO N2LO LO NLO N2LO LO NLO N2LO FIG. 11. Point-proton radii as calculated using the GFMC method at LO, NLO, and N2LO for A = 3, 4 nuclei. The uncertainties include an estimate for the uncertainty coming from the truncation of the chiral expansion. In blue (red) are the energies with the cutoff R0 = 1.0 fm (R0 = 1.2 fm). The horizontal bands are the experimental values with uncertainties. tems: proton mass. The last term of Eq. (59) is the so-called Darwin-Foldy correction to the proton charge radius [68]. 1 A 1 + τ r2 Ψ z,i r2 Ψ , (58) For larger A, there are also spin-orbit corrections to the pt ≡ 0 Z 2 i 0 i=1 charge radius [69]. The experimental charge radii are D E 4 3 3 X from Ref. [70]( He and He) and Ref. [71]( H). where (1 + τz)/2 is a projection operator onto protons and Z is the number of protons. However, the measured The correlation between the energies and radii of the charge radius includes effects from the charge densities of nuclei are evident in Fig. 11 and TableIII. At LO, as the finite-sized nucleons themselves. The relationship be- the nuclei are significantly overbound, the point-proton tween the point-proton radius and the observable charge radii are significantly smaller than the values extracted radius rc is given by from experiment. At NLO, with the nuclei underbound, the point-proton radii are too large. At N2LO, with rea- N 3 ( c)2 2 2 2 2 ~ sonable reproduction of the nuclear binding energies for rc = rpt + rp + rn + 2 , (59) Z 4 mp the A = 3, 4 systems, the calculated point-proton radii are in good agreement within both the experimental and 2 where rp = 0.8751(61) fm is the root-mean-square theoretical uncertainties. Note that the relatively large 3 (rms) chargeq radius of the proton [67], N is the num- uncertainty quoted in the point-proton radius for H ex- ber of neutrons, r2 = 0.1161(22) fm2 is the mean- tracted from experiment is due to the relatively large n − square charge radius of the neutron [67], and mp is the uncertainty in the charge radius for this nucleus: Com- 16 TABLE II. Kinetic and potential energy contributions to the GFMC energy at LO, NLO, and N2LO for both cutoffs and for a particular choice of 3ND and E operators [Eqs. (A.2b) and (A.3a)]. For R0 = 1.0 fm, cD = 0.0, cE = −0.63, while for R0 = 1.2 fm, cD = 3.5, cE = 0.085 [29]. For comparison, we also show results for the Argonne v18 NN interaction supplemented with the UIX 3N interaction. V3N stands for the sum of all 3N contributions. All energies are in MeV. R0 (fm) KVNN V3N VC,c1 VC,c3 VC,c4 VD2 VEτ 1.0 60.2(2) −74.0(2) LO 1.2 55.5(1) −67.8(1) 1.0 46.3(2) −54.4(2) NLO 1.2 36.9(2) −45.0(2) 3H 1.0 42.7(2) −50.6(2) −1.32(2) −0.08(1) −1.22(2) −0.53(7) 0.0 0.51(1) N2LO 1.2 37.6(1) −45.9(1) −0.87(1) −0.06(1) −0.27(1) −0.35(3) −0.09(1) −0.10(1) AV18+UIX 51.4(2) −59.4(2) −1.23(1) 1.0 60.0(1) −73.0(1) LO 1.2 55.0(1) −67.4(1) 1.0 43.9(3) −51.5(3) NLO 1.2 36.4(2) −44.3(2) 3He 1.0 41.3(3) −50.5(2) −1.27(2) −0.08(1) −1.16(2) −0.53(9) 0.0 0.49(1) N2LO 1.2 36.8(1) −45.1(1) −0.83(1) −0.05(1) −0.26(1) −0.34(3) −0.08(1) −0.09(1) AV18+UIX 50.4(1) −58.4(1) −1.20(1) 1.0 142.0(2) −193.4(2) LO 1.2 132.1(2) −183.5(2) 1.0 90.2(3) −115.9(3) NLO 1.2 73.0(3) −99.4(2) 4He 1.0 90.9(2) −116.1(2) −7.46(4) −0.41(1) −6.74(5) −2.6(2) 0.0 2.34(2) N2LO 1.2 79.9(2) −106.3(2) −5.56(4) −0.30(1) −1.78(3) −1.7(2) −1.24(4) −0.51(1) AV18+UIX 115.8(1) −140.4(1) −6.73(2) TABLE III. Point-proton radii as calculated in Eq. (59) at LO, B. More details on distributions NLO, and N2LO for both cutoffs for the A = 3, 4 nuclei. The theoretical uncertainties are from both the GFMC statistical uncertainties as well as the theoretical uncertainty coming In addition to energies and radii, we have also calcu- from the truncation of the chiral expansion as described in lated one-body distributions. The one-body point distri- Sec.II. Experimental values are from Refs. [67, 68, 70, 71] butions are defined as with uncertainties calculated using standard propagation of uncertainty methods. All radii are in fm. A 1 1 τz,i ρ1,N (r) Ψ0 ± δ(r ri Rcm ) Ψ0 , 3H 3He 4He ≡ 4πr2 2 − | − | i=1 D X E R0 1.0 fm 1.2 fm 1.0 fm 1.2 fm 1.0 fm 1.2 fm (60) LO 1.27(35) 1.27(37) 1.36(56) 1.36(52) 1.02(55) 1.00(53) with N = p (taking the positive sign in the projector 1+τz NLO 1.62(10) 1.64(13) 1.92(16) 1.88(18) 1.57(15) 1.53(18) 2 ) giving the point-proton distribution and N = n 2 1−τz N LO 1.55(4) 1.55(6) 1.77(5) 1.77(6) 1.43(5) 1.42(7) (taking the negative sign in the projector 2 ) giving Exp 1.59(10) 1.78(2) 1.46(1) the point-neutron distribution. When folded with the spatial proton charge distribution, the point proton dis- tribution is promoted to the charge distribution, which is the Fourier transform of the charge form factor measured 3 3 pare rc( He) = 1.973(14) fm with rc( H) = 1.755(86) fm. in electron scattering experiments. The short-distance The experimental uncertainty is roughly a factor of six behavior of the presented point-nucleon distributions are larger for 3H than for 3He. not as well constrained, because the high momentum- 17 0.25 0.16 2 2 N LO NN only R0 = 1.2 fm N = p, N LO R0 = 1.2 fm 2 2 N LO NN + 3NR0 = 1.2 fm 0.14 N = p, N LO R0 = 1.0 fm N2LO NN only R = 1.0 fm 0.20 0 N = p, AV18 + UIX 2 2 N LO NN + 3NR0 = 1.0 fm 0.12 N = n, N LO R0 = 1.2 fm 2 AV18 + UIX N = n, N LO R0 = 1.0 fm N = n, AV18 + UIX 4 ) 0.10 ) r = 1.47(1) fm He p 3 3 0.15 − − 3 rp = 1.42(2) fm He rp = 1.77(1) fm ) (fm 0.08 ) (fm rp = 1.52(1) fm r = 1.77(2) fm r p r ( ( ,p rp = 1.43(2) fm ,N 1 rp = 1.75(2) fm 1 ρ 0.10 rp = 1.42(1) fm ρ 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 r (fm) r (fm) FIG. 12. The one-body proton distribution for 4He at N2LO FIG. 13. The one-body proton and neutron distributions for with and without 3N interactions for the two different cutoffs 3He at N2LO for the two different cutoffs we consider. The we consider. The darker (lighter) points include (exclude) 3N corresponding point-proton radii are shown in a color-coded interactions. The corresponding point-proton radii are shown fashion to the right. The uncertainties quoted for the point- in a color-coded fashion to the right. The uncertainties quoted proton radii include only the GFMC statistical uncertainties. for the point-proton radii include only the GFMC statistical See TableIII for more details on the point-proton radii includ- uncertainties. See TableIII for more details on the point- ing uncertainties from the truncation of the chiral expansion. proton radii including uncertainties from the truncation of the chiral expansion. 4 with the R0 = 1.0 fm cutoff. As is the case for He, only the large-r part of the distributions can be well con- exchange charge form factor is challenging to measure strained, and in this region, both cutoffs agree. We also and to calculate accurately. Nevertheless, the charge ra- show the corresponding point-proton radii with statisti- dius (or point-proton radius) as an integrated quantity cal GFMC uncertainties only, to demonstrate that inte- is well constrained by experiment, and our results re- grated quantities such as the charge radius are essentially produce within uncertainties the point-proton radii ex- cutoff independent for these light systems at this order of tracted from experiment. the chiral expansion. Finally, in Fig. 13, one can see that In Fig. 12, we show the point-proton distribution in the proton distribution is qualitatively twice the neutron 4 2 He for both cutoffs R0 = 1.0, 1.2 fm at N LO with and distribution, but there are quantitative differences due to without the 3N interaction. The corresponding point- the presence of isospin-symmetry-breaking terms in the proton radius is shown in a color-coded way on the right- Hamiltonian. hand side of the figure. Though it is not consistent from The point-proton and point-neutron distributions we the EFT point of view to show the N2LO results without calculate are related to the experimentally observable the 3N interaction, it is nevertheless instructive to see electric charge form factor. In particular, the longitu- the effects of the 3N interaction in this way. One can dinal electric charge form factor is given by see that its effect is to increase the density of protons p 2 n 2 at intermediate distances from the center of mass (r 1 GE(Qel)˜ρp(q) + GE(Qel)˜ρn(q) ∼ FL(q) = , (61) 1.0 fm) while decreasing their density at short distances, Z 2 2 1 + Qel/(4mN ) yielding a peak at about r 0.6 fm. The effect of this shift is to bring the overall∼ point-proton radius into whereρ ˜ are the Fourierp transforms of the point-nucleon n,p better agreement with the number extracted from the distributions defined in Eq. (60), GE are the single nu- experimental charge radius. cleon electric charge form factors for the neutron n and 2 In Fig. 13 we show the one-body point-proton and neu- proton p and Qel is the four-momentum squared: tron distributions for 3He at N2LO for both cutoffs. At short distances from the center of mass, the distributions Q2 = q2 ω2 (62) el − el for the cutoff R0 = 1.2 fm demonstrate a softer char- acter: There is a higher probability of finding either a with neutron or a proton at short distances from the center 2 2 of mass than is the case for the distributions calculated ωel = q + m mA . (63) A − q 18 100 chiral NN and 3N interactions. We discussed deuteron 2 N LO R0 = 1.0 fm properties in detail, employing a soft and a hard local 2 N LO R0 = 1.2 fm chiral interaction. We found that local chiral interactions 1 10− AV18 + UIX give a reasonable description of the deuteron binding en- Exp ergy, rms radius, asymptotic D/S ratio, and quadrupole moment. Furthermore, local chiral interactions repro- 2 10− duce the experimentally known first minimum of the deuteron tensor polarization. | ) q ( 10 3 L − We then performed perturbative calculations for both F | interactions in the deuteron, using the difference of the N2LO and NLO interactions as a perturbation around 4 10− the NLO result. While both perturbative series seem to converge to the N2LO result, we found the softer inter- action to be more perturbative, as expected. 5 10− We then presented additional details on our calcula- tions of radii and binding energies of the light A = 3, 4 6 3 3 4 10− nuclei H, He, and He. For each binding energy and 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 1 radius and for both local chiral interactions, we observed q (fm− ) 4 2 an order-by-order convergence toward the experimental FIG. 14. The He longitudinal charge form factor at N LO value. Finally, we discussed proton and neutron distri- for both cutoffs and for the AV18 + UIX interactions. The butions for 3He and 4He. uncertainty bands include the statistical GFMC uncertainties 2 added in quadrature (for the N LO results) to the uncertainty Together with the results of Ref. [29], we have estab- from the truncation of the chiral expansion as described in the lished QMC methods with local chiral interactions as a text. The data are from an unpublished compilation by Sick based on Refs. [74–78]. versatile tool to study properties of light nuclei and neu- tron matter. Above, mN and mA are the average nucleon mass and the mass of the target nucleus, respectively. For the n,p single-nucleon charge form factors GE , we use the parametrizations of Kelly [72], which enforce the correct 2 2 asymptotic behavior as Qel 0 and Qel . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In Fig. 14, we present the→ longitudinal→ electric ∞ charge form factor for 4He compared with an unpublished com- pilation by Sick [73] of the data from Refs. [74–78]. The We thank S. Bacca, P. Klos, and D. Lonardoni for figure is log scaled as charge form factors are often plot- useful discussions. This work was supported by the ERC ted, but this scaling artificially enhances the apparent Grant No. 307986 STRONGINT, the National Science size of the uncertainties. However, the figure should Foundation Grants No. PHY-1430152 (JINA-CEE) and be read as simply that at N2LO the uncertainty in the No. PHY-1404405, the U.S. DOE under Grants No. DE- location of the first minimum in the 4He charge form AC52-06NA25396 and No. DE-FG02-00ER41132, the factor is roughly 0.6–0.8 fm−1. Note that calculations NUCLEI SciDAC program, the Natural Sciences and are performed without two-body currents, and thus the Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, and poorer comparison with data at higher q is somewhat the LANL LDRD program. Computational resources expected [8]. have been provided by the J¨ulich Supercomputing Cen- ter, the Lichtenberg high performance computer of the TU Darmstadt, and Los Alamos Open Supercomputing. V. SUMMARY We also used resources provided by NERSC, which is supported by the U.S. DOE under Contract No. In this paper, we presented additional details on and DE-AC02-05CH11231. results for QMC calculations of light nuclei with local Appendix: COMPLETE COORDINATE-SPACE EXPRESSIONS FOR THE 3N INTERACTION AT N2LO As noted in Sec.IIC, the TPE parts of the 3 N interaction VC can be compactly written in terms of the standard coordinate-space pion propagator Xij(r) (defined in that section) and a modified coordinate-space pion propagator 19 4π ij(r) Xij(r) 2 δR3N(r)σi · σj. We also define the function U(r) = 1 + 1/(mπr). Then, the complete TPE part X ≡ − mπ of the interaction can be written as g2 m4 c V = A π 1 U(r )Y (r )U(r )Y (r )τ · τ σ · ˆr σ · ˆr , (A.1a) C,c1 16π2F 4 ij ij kj kj i k i ij k kj π cyc i g c m2 8π V = A D π τ · τ X (r )δ (r ) + X (r )δ (r ) σ · σ δ (r )δ (r ) , (A.2a) D1 96πΛ F 4 i k ik kj R3N ij ik ij R3N kj − m2 i k R3N ij R3N kj χ π cyc π i c V = E τ · τ δ (r )δ (r ) , (A.3a) Eτ Λ F 4 i k R3N kj R3N ij χ π cyc i [1] B. R. Barrett, P. Navr´atil, and J. P. Vary, “Ab initio no [7] V. Som`a,A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, P. Navr´atil, and core shell model,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 69, 131–181 T. Duguet, “Chiral two- and three-nucleon forces along (2013). medium-mass isotope chains,” Phys. Rev. C 89, 061301 [2] E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, “Ab (2014). Initio Calculation of the Hoyle State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [8] J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- 106, 192501 (2011). avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, “Quantum [3] G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics,” Rev. Mod. Dean, “Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei,” Phys. 87, 1067–1118 (2015). Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014). [9] S. Weinberg, “Nuclear forces from chiral lagrangians,” [4] G. Hagen, A. Ekstr¨om, C. Forss´en, G. R. Jansen, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288–292 (1990). W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, K. A. Wendt, S. Bacca, [10] S. Weinberg, “Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - N. Barnea, B. Carlsson, et al., “Neutron and weak-charge pion interactions and nuclear forces,” Nucl. Phys. B 363, distributions of the 48Ca nucleus,” Nature Phys. 12, 186– 3–18 (1991). 190 (2016). [11] S. Weinberg, “Three-body interactions among nucleons [5] H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and and pions,” Phys. Lett. B 295, 114–121 (1992). K. Tsukiyama, “The In-Medium Similarity Renormaliza- [12] C. Ord´o˜nez,L. Ray, and U. van Kolck, “Nucleon-nucleon tion Group: A novel ab initio method for nuclei,” Phys. potential from an effective chiral Lagrangian,” Phys. Rev. Rept. 621, 165–222 (2016). Lett. 72, 1982–1985 (1994). [6] A. Carbone, A. Cipollone, C. Barbieri, A. Rios, and [13] U. van Kolck, “Few-nucleon forces from chiral La- A. Polls, “Self-consistent Green’s functions formalism grangians,” Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932–2941 (1994). with three-body interactions,” Phys. Rev. C 88, 054326 [14] C. Ord´o˜nez,L. Ray, and U. van Kolck, “Two-nucleon po- (2013). tential from chiral Lagrangians,” Phys. Rev. C 53, 2086– 20 2105 (1996). [30] P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, H.- [15] D. R. Entem and R. Machleidt, “Accurate charge- W. Hammer, M. Hoferichter, and A. Schwenk, “Quan- dependent nucleon-nucleon potential at fourth order of tum Monte Carlo calculations of two neutrons in finite chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. C 68, 041001 volume,” Phys. Rev. C 94, 054005 (2016). (2003). [31] J.-W. Chen, W. Detmold, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, [16] E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ockle, and U.-G. Meißner, “The “Short Range Correlations and the EMC Effect in Effec- two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading tive Field Theory,” arXiv:1607.03065. order,” Nucl. Phys. A 747, 362–424 (2005). [32] S. Gandolfi, H.-W. Hammer, P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, and [17] A. Ekstr¨om, G. Baardsen, C. Forss´en, G. Ha- A. Schwenk, “Is a Trineutron Resonance Lower in Energy gen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, than a Tetraneutron Resonance?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, W. Nazarewicz, T. Papenbrock, J. Sarich, and S. M. 232501 (2017). Wild, “Optimized Chiral Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction at [33] E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, “Modern theory of nuclear forces,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 192502 (2013). 1773–1825 (2009). [18] A. Ekstr¨om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, [34] R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, “Chiral effective field T. Papenbrock, Carlsson B., C. Forss´en, M. Hjorth- theory and nuclear forces,” Phys. Rep. 503, 1–75 (2011). Jensen, P. Navr´atil, and W. Nazarewicz, “Accurate nu- [35] M. Freunek, Nucleon-nucleon interaction in chiral effec- clear radii and binding energies from a chiral interaction,” tive field theory in configuration space, Diploma thesis, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015). Universit¨atBonn and Forschungszentrum J¨ulich, Bonn, [19] I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, and A. Schwenk, Germany, (2007). “Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of neutron matter [36] R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, “Accu- with chiral three-body forces,” Phys. Rev. C 93, 024305 rate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence (2016). breaking,” Phys. Rev. C 51, 38–51 (1995). [20] A. Dyhdalo, R. J. Furnstahl, K. Hebeler, and I. Tews, [37] V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, C. Hanhart, M. Hoferichter, “Regulator artifacts in uniform matter for chiral interac- A. E. Kudryavtsev, and D. R. Phillips, “The multiple- tions,” Phys. Rev. C 94, 034001 (2016). scattering series in pion-deuteron scattering and the [21] E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, “Improved nucleon-nucleon potential: perspectives from effective chiral nucleon-nucleon potential up to next-to-next-to- field theory,” Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 69 (2012). next-to-leading order,” Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 53 (2015). [38] J. Hoppe, C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, K. Hebeler, and [22] J. E. Lynn and K. E. Schmidt, “Real-space imaginary- A. Schwenk, “Weinberg eigenvalues for chiral nucleon- time propagators for non-local nucleon-nucleon poten- nucleon interactions,” arXiv:1707.06438. tials,” Phys. Rev. C 86, 014324 (2012). [39] E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, “Precision [23] A. Roggero, A. Mukherjee, and F. Pederiva, “Quantum Nucleon-Nucleon Potential at Fifth Order in the Chiral Monte Carlo Calculations of Neutron Matter with Non- Expansion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122301 (2015). local Chiral Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 221103 [40] R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and (2014). S. Wesolowski, “Quantifying truncation errors in effec- [24] A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, tive field theory,” Phys. Rev. C 92, 024005 (2015). K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, “Quantum [41] C. Van Der Leun and C. Alderliesten, “The deuteron Monte Carlo Calculations with Chiral Effective Field binding energy,” Nucl. Phys. A 380, 261–269 (1982). Theory Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 032501 [42] N. L. Rodning and L. D. Knutson, “Asymptotic D-state (2013). to S-state ratio of the deuteron,” Phys. Rev. C 41, 898– [25] A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, M. Freunek, S. Gan- 909 (1990). dolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, “Local chi- [43] D. M. Bishop and L. M. Cheung, “Quadrupole moment ral effective field theory interactions and quantum Monte of the deuteron from a precise calculation of the electric Carlo applications,” Phys. Rev. C 90, 054323 (2014). field gradient in D2,” Phys. Rev. A 20, 381–384 (1979). [26] M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, R. Navarro P´erez, [44] G.G. Simon, Ch. Schmitt, and V.H. Walther, “Elastic J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, “Minimally nonlo- electric and magnetic e-d scattering at low momentum cal nucleon-nucleon potentials with chiral two-pion ex- transfer,” Nucl. Phys. A 364, 285–296 (1981). change including ∆ resonances,” Phys. Rev. C 91, 024003 [45] R. J. Furnstahl and H.-W. Hammer, “Are occupation (2015). numbers observable?” Phys. Lett. B 531, 203–208 (2002). [27] M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- [46] D. Abbott et al. (The Jefferson Lab t20 Collaboration), vato, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, M. Viviani, and R. B. “Phenomenology of the deuteron electromagnetic form Wiringa, “Local chiral potentials with ∆-intermediate factors,” Eur. Phys. J. A 7, 421–427 (2000). states and the structure of light nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C [47] J. L. Forest, V. R. Pandharipande, S. C. Pieper, R. B. 94, 054007 (2016). Wiringa, R. Schiavilla, and A. Arriaga, “Femtometer [28] J. E. Lynn, J. Carlson, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, A. Gez- toroidal structures in nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 54, 646–667 erlis, and A. Schwenk, “Quantum Monte Carlo Calcu- (1996). lations of Light Nuclei Using Chiral Potentials,” Phys. [48] C. Zhang et al. (The BLAST collaboration), “Precise Rev. Lett. 113, 192501 (2014). Measurement of Deuteron Tensor Analyzing Powers with [29] J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, BLAST,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 252501 (2011). K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, “Chiral Three-Nucleon [49] B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S. C. Interactions in Light Nuclei, Neutron-α Scattering, and Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, “Quantum Monte Carlo cal- Neutron Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062501 (2016). culations of nuclei with A ≤ 7,” Phys. Rev. C 56, 1720– 1750 (1997). 21 [50] S. C. Pieper, V. R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and [64] M. H. Kalos, “Stochastic wave function for atomic he- J. Carlson, “Realistic models of pion-exchange three- lium,” J. Comput. Phys. 1, 257–276 (1966). nucleon interactions,” Phys. Rev. C 64, 014001 (2001). [65] J. A. Tjon, “Low-energy nucleon-trinucleon scattering in [51] S. A. Coon and H. K. Han, “Reworking the Tucson- the integral equation approach,” Phys. Lett. B 63, 391– Melbourne Three-Nucleon Potential,” Few Body Syst. 394 (1976). 30, 131–141 (2001). [66] L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, “On the [52] J. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, “Pion Theory of Three-Body correlation between the binding energies of the triton and Forces,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 17, 360–365 (1957). the α-particle,” Phys. Lett. B 607, 254–258 (2005). [53] P. Navr´atil,“Local three-nucleon interaction from chi- [67] C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of ral effective field theory,” Few Body Syst. 41, 117–140 particle physics,” Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016). (2007). [68] J. L. Friar, J. Martorell, and D. W. L. Sprung, “Nuclear [54] E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gl¨ockle, H. Kamada, U.- sizes and the isotope shift,” Phys. Rev. A 56, 4579–4586 G. Meißner, and H. Wita la,“Three-nucleon forces from (1997). chiral effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. C 66, 064001 [69] A. Ong, J. C. Berengut, and V. V. Flambaum, “Effect of (2002). spin-orbit nuclear charge density corrections due to the [55] L. Huth, I. Tews, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, “An- anomalous magnetic moment on halonuclei,” Phys. Rev. alyzing the fierz rearrangement freedom for local chiral C 82, 014320 (2010). two-nucleon potentials,” arXiv:1708.03194. [70] I. Sick, “Zemach moments of 3He and 4He,” Phys. Rev. [56] D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni, and P. Navr´atil,“Three-Nucleon C 90, 064002 (2014). Low-Energy Constants from the Consistency of Inter- [71] A. Amroun, V. Breton, J.-M. Cavedon, B. Frois, actions and Currents in Chiral Effective Field Theory,” D. Goutte, F. P. Juster, Ph. Leconte, J. Martino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 102502 (2009). Y. Mizuno, X.-H. Phan, S. K. Platchkov, I. Sick, and [57] K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, S. Williamson, “3H and 3He electromagnetic form fac- and A. Schwenk, “Improved nuclear matter calculations tors,” Nucl. Phys. A 579, 596–626 (1994). from chiral low-momentum interactions,” Phys. Rev. C [72] J. J. Kelly, “Simple parametrization of nucleon form fac- 83, 031301 (2011). tors,” Phys. Rev. C 70, 068202 (2004). [58] K. M. Nollett, S. C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, J. Carlson, [73] I. Sick, (private communication). and G. M. Hale, “Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations [74] R. F. Frosch, J. S. McCarthy, R. E. Rand, and M. R. of Neutron-α Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 022502 Yearian, “Structure of the He4 nucleus from elastic elec- (2007). tron scattering,” Phys. Rev. 160, 874–879 (1967). [59] R. B. Wiringa, “Variational calculations of few-body nu- [75] U. Erich, H. Frank, D. Haas, and H. Prange, “Elastische clei,” Phys. Rev. C 43, 1585–1598 (1991). Elektronenstreuung an 4He zwischen 30 und 59 MeV,” [60] J. Lomnitz-Adler, V. R. Pandharipande, and R. A. Z. Phys. A 209, 208–218 (1968). Smith, “Monte Carlo calculations of triton and 4He nu- [76] J. S. McCarthy, I. Sick, and R. R. Whitney, “Electro- clei with the Reid potential,” Nucl. Phys. A 361, 399–411 magnetic structure of the helium isotopes,” Phys. Rev. (1981). C 15, 1396–1414 (1977). [61] D. M. Ceperley, “Path integrals in the theory of con- [77] R. G. Arnold, B. T. Chertok, S. Rock, W. P. Sch¨utz, densed helium,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 279–355 (1995). Z. M. Szalata, D. Day, J. S. McCarthy, F. Martin, B. A. [62] K. E. Schmidt and M. A. Lee, “High-accuracy Trotter- Mecking, I. Sick, and G. Tamas, “Elastic Electron Scat- formula method for path integrals,” Phys. Rev. E 51, tering from 3He and 4He at High Momentum Transfer,” 5495–5498 (1995). Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1429–1432 (1978). [63] R. B. Wiringa, S. C. Pieper, J. Carlson, and V. R. Pand- [78] C. R. Ottermann, G. K¨obschall, K. Maurer, K. R¨ohrich, haripande, “Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of A = 8 Ch. Schmitt, and V. H. Walther, “Elastic electron scat- nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 62, 014001 (2000). tering from 3He and 4He,” Nucl. Phys. A 436, 688–698 (1985).