--- author: - 'S. Liebig' - 'V. Baru' - 'F. Ballout' - 'C. Hanhart' - 'A. Nogga' bibliography: - 'lit-database/lit.bib' date: 'Received: date / Revised version: 18.03.2010' title: 'Towards a high precision calculation for the pion-nucleus scattering lengths' --- Introduction {#intro} ============ The probably most fundamental quantities characterizing pion scattering off nucleons are the pion-nucleon ($\pi$-N) scattering lengths. Obviously being low energy observables, one should be able to understand their size based on the effective field theory (EFT) of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), namely Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT). In fact, the impact of symmetries on these quantities is known for a long time @Weinberg:1966kf [@Tomozawa:1966jm] (for a recent review see Ref. @Bernard:2007zu), but for a quantitative analysis of high accuracy it is of utmost importance to understand now in detail the higher order corrections, either isospin symmetric ones or isospin symmetry violating (IV) ones, based on ChPT, for they point directly at QCD dynamics. Despite an on-going effort to learn more on the scattering lengths experimentally, they are still not very accurately known @Gasser:2007zt. This is especially true for the isoscalar scattering length which is so small, that a high control over various other, normally neglected effects, like IV, is necessary for a reliable extraction of $a^{(+)}$ from experiment. On the theoretical side important progress for IV $\pi$-N scattering is reported in Refs. @Hoferichter:2009gn [@Hoferichter:2009ez; @Gasser:2002am]. A first extraction of the leading charge symmetry breaking (a special case of IV interactions) $\pi$-N scattering amplitude is reported in Refs. @vanKolck:2000ip [@Bolton:2009rq; @Filin:2009yh] based on an analysis of the recent observation of the IV forward–backward asymmetry in $pn\to d\pi^0$ @Opper:2003sb. The most promising way to get experimental access to the $\pi$-N scattering lengths is the investigation of pionic atoms, the simplest system being pionic hydrogen. Many efforts have been undertaken to measure energy shift and width of this system, allowing for an extraction of the isoscalar and isovector $\pi$-N scattering lengths $a^{(+)}$ and $a^{(-)}$ assuming that isospin symmetry is exact up to standard Coulomb interactions @Schroder:1999uq [@Schroder:2001rc]. In principle, it appears to be possible to extract both the isoscalar and the isovector scattering length from pionic hydrogen data, for the measurement provides two independent observables, namely the level shift compared to the QED value induced by the strong interaction as well as the width, where the transition $\pi^- p \to \pi^0 n$ gives a significant, known contribution. However, in order to improve the extraction accuracy and to better control systematics, an additional source of $a^{(+)}$ is desireable. In this context, it is important to study more complex systems, like pionic deuterium, $^3$He, or $^4$He, for the wave functions for those nuclei can be calculated with high accuracy. It is easy to see that the pion-nucleus scattering length $a_{\pi -A}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} a_{\pi -A}& = & \left(\frac{1+\frac{m_\pi}{m_N}}{1+\frac{m_\pi}{A\,m_N}}\right)\left(Aa^{\left(+\right)}-Q_\pi\, a^{\left(-\right)} 2T_3\right) \cr && \hspace{3cm} +\mbox{few-nucleon corrections}\cr && \hspace{3cm} + \mbox{IV corrections} \label{eq:piA-scattering} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $A$ denotes the mass number of the nucleus, $T_{3}$ the third component of its isospin, $m_{\pi}$ and $Q_{\pi}$ the mass and charge of the pion and $m_{N}$ the nucleon mass. We will not further discuss the IV corrections here, instead we refer to Refs. @Meissner:2005ne [@Gasser:2007zt] for a review on the current status of IV in pion-nucleus scattering. Especially, the isospin $T=0$ nuclei $^2$H and $^4$He yield important new information since contributions from $a^{(-)}$ are suppressed and the contribution of $a^{(+)}$ is more prominent. From Eq. (\[eq:piA-scattering\]) it becomes clear that an understanding of these more complex systems requires to understand with a high accuracy the few-nucleon contributions to the scattering length. For $\pi$-$^2$H scattering they have been studied for decades within potential multiple scattering theory, see e.g. Refs.@Baru:1997xf [@Ericson:2000md; @Doring:2004kt] and references therein. A first attempt to calculate few-body effects systematically and model-independently, i.e. within ChPT, was done by Weinberg @Weinberg:1992yk. He proposed to organize the transition operator as an expansion in $m_{\pi}/\Lambda$ with $\Lambda$ being the chiral symmetry breaking scale of the order of 1 GeV. This transition operator was then convoluted in Ref. @Weinberg:1992yk with phenomenological models for the nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction. This work has been refined in Ref. @Beane:1997yg. The explicit calculations showed that part of the few-nucleon corrections seem to be suppressed. Maybe even more troublesome for the extraction of $\pi$-N scattering lengths is the observation that the few-nucleon corrections were somewhat larger than naive dimensional analysis predicted. Such issues were addressed in @Beane:2002wk. Here a refined power counting, the so-called $Q$–counting, was proposed that takes the small binding energy of $^2$H explicitly into account. Assuming that typical momenta of the nucleons are given by the binding momentum $\gamma=\sqrt{E_dm_N}$, with $E_d$ denoting the deuteron binding energy, it was found that the estimated magnitudes of various few-body corrections changed drastically and thus the series needed to be reorganized compared to the original power counting used in @Weinberg:1992yk. Obviously, it is important to investigate the validity of this assumption, before extending the approach to even more complex systems or towards higher orders. As mentioned above, the second issue of the first calculations of two-nucleon corrections to $\pi$-$^2$H scattering is the relatively large size of the leading few-nucleon terms. Recently, higher order contributions to this class of diagrams have been investigated in Ref. @Beane:2002wk and Refs. @Lensky:2006wd [@Baru:2007wf]. Especially, the results of the latter references indicate that the small scale $\gamma$ does not play a role in the higher order terms studied in Refs. @Lensky:2006wd [@Baru:2007wf]. It is however not clear at this point, whether the hierarchy of two-, three- and four-nucleon contributions is as expected by the power counting. An understanding of the systematics of such higher order corrections is mandatory when analyzing data on $^3$He and $^4$He. In this paper, we study the presumably leading two-, three- and four-nucleon contributions explicitly. In Sec. \[sec:powercount\], we will discuss the implications of using the different power countings in more detail. In Sec. \[sec:fewncontr\], we repeat the well-known expressions for two-nucleon operators, derive a complete set of leading three-nucleon operators and give expressions for the probably most relevant example of a four-nucleon operator. The contribution to the scattering length based on these expressions requires the evaluation of high dimensional integrals involving the operators and few-nucleon wave functions. Such a problem will also appear in other applications. Therefore, we explain our numerical method for such calculations in detail in Sec. \[sec:nummeth\]. In Sec. \[sec:testcount\], we turn to $^2$H and study the dependence of the leading two-nucleon contributions on the binding energy based on an unphysically over- or underbound $^2$H. The results will shed light on the validity of $Q$–counting. We then introduce the input into our calculations for the required few-nucleon wave functions in more detail in Sec. \[sec:wavefu\]. This is a prerequisite for our further studies. Sec. \[sec:3nres\] is devoted to $^3$He where the scattering length of $\pi$-$^3$He system is calculated. For the first time, we give explicit results for the contribution of three-nucleon corrections to pion-nucleus scattering. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:4nres\], we estimate four-nucleon contributions to $\pi$-$^4$He scattering based on an explicit calculation. We then summarize our findings and conclude in Sec. \[sec:concl\]. More technical aspects of this work are deferred to the appendices. Power-counting schemes for pion-nucleus scattering {#sec:powercount} ================================================== The central goal of this work is to provide the calculations necessary to extract the isoscalar scattering length from data on the pion-nucleus scattering length. The basis for this is a reliable power counting which allows one to identify the relevant operators and provides a framework to estimate the diagrams not included. To reach maximal predictive power we include in each channel all diagrams that contribute up to one order lower than the contribution of the leading, unknown counter term. Especially the estimate of higher order operators requires some care. We here estimate the contributions from higher order operators, not calculated explicitly, by two methods: - We demonstrate that all $N$-nucleon diagrams included can be organized in a series in powers of some parameter $\chi$. Thus, a calculation performed up to order $\chi^n$ is expected to have an uncertainty of order $\chi^{(n+1)}$. - Using a set of wave functions generated for regulators varying over a large range of values, we investigate quantitatively the regulator dependence of the various matrix elements. This regulator dependence should be absorbed into a pertinent counter term. Therefore, we get access to the possible counter term contribution. As we will see, for isoscalar nuclei both methods give consistent results supporting our claim that the scattering of pions off isoscalar targets at threshold can be calculated with an uncertainty of the order of 5 % of the leading two-nucleon contributions: <span>$1 \times 10^{-3} \ m_\pi^{-1}$</span> for $\pi$-$^2$H and <span>$2 \times 10^{-3} \ m_\pi^{-1}$</span> for $\pi$-$^4$He scattering. For isovector nuclei the contribution of the leading contact term is estimated via scaling of the leading isoscalar contribution. This allows us to estimate the accuracy of the calculation for $\pi$-$^3$He scattering to be of the order of 10%. It should also be stressed that up to now we are not able to identify a power counting that allows one to relate operators with different numbers of active nucleons, say one-nucleon with two- or three-nucleon operators. However, although we do not quantitatively understand the reasons for successive suppression of operators with an increasing number of active nucleons, the suppression observed numerically is quantitatively sufficiently large to allow for controlled results. In addition, it turns out that the successive suppression observed between $N$- and $\left(N+1\right)$-nucleon operators is the same for $N=1, \ 2, \ 3$, which is important for controlled uncertainty estimates. We also demonstrate that it is indeed possible to estimate reliably the relative importance of various $N$-nucleon operators. What we need to carry out this program is a reliable power counting. There are two scales relevant for pion-nucleus scattering at threshold, namely the pion mass, $m_\pi$, and the nucleus binding momentum, $\gamma$, which may either be evaluated via $$\gamma = \sqrt{2\mu \epsilon} \ , \label{gammarel}$$ with $\mu$ for the reduced mass of a single nucleon with respect to the remainder and $\epsilon$ for the binding energy with respect to the first break-up channel, or via $$\tilde \gamma = \sqrt{2m_N (E/A)} \ ,$$ with $(E/A)$ for the binding energy per nucleon. For the nuclei of relevance here — $^2$H, $^3$He, and $^4$He — both formulas give similar answers, namely $46$ and $46$ MeV, $82$ and $69$ MeV, and $167$ and $115$ MeV for $\gamma$ and $\tilde \gamma$ for the three nuclei in order. In the following we will therefore only use the quantity $\gamma$ for the binding momentum. Let $q$ denote some generic momentum. There are two different power-counting schemes proposed for pion-nucleus teresa37@example.org. These differ in how $q$ is treated relative to $m_\pi$ and $\gamma$. In Ref. @Weinberg:1992yk, referred to as Weinberg counting, the assignment $$q \sim m_\pi \label{weincount}$$ is proposed while in Ref. @Beane:2002wk, in the following called $Q$–counting, $$q \sim \gamma \ll m_\pi \label{beancount}$$ is used. In @Beane:2002wk the authors argue that the latter assignment is to be preferred, since, for $\pi$-$^2$H scattering, $i)$ it naturally explains why the contribution of Diagram $(a)$ of Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\] is more than an order of magnitude larger than those of $(b)$ and $(c)$; $ii)$ it quantitatively explains the magnitude of the contribution of the diagram of Fig. \[fig:2N-triple\]; and $iii)$ it quantitatively explains the contribution of the boost correction — this term emerges as a recoil correction to the leading isoscalar $\pi$-N scattering amplitude. As in the $\pi$N sector, chiral symmetry enforces that operators that are odd under the exchange of the external pions — isovector operators — appear with at least one derivative acting on the pion field, while those that are even — isoscalar — have at least two derivatives or one insertion of the quark mass matrix. As a consequence, isoscalar operators are one order in $m_\pi/m_N$ suppressed compared to their isovector counter parts. This is another argument in favour of using isoscalar targets to get high accuracy information on the $\pi$-N scattering lengths: since the contribution of the leading order counter term sets the limit for the accuracy for the extraction of the $\pi$-N scattering lengths, the analysis of the scattering off isovector nuclei provides values for the scattering lengths about an order of magnitude less accurate. The pertinent few-body corrections can now be classified in terms of $q$ and $m_{\pi}$. Because of the arguments above, the leading isoscalar 4N$\pi \pi$ counter term contributes to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length at order $(m_\pi/m_N)^2$, where for simplicity we identified the chiral symmetry breaking scale with the nucleon mass, while the leading two-nucleon correction — Diagram $(a)$ of Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\] — scales as $(m_\pi/q)^2$. Explicit calculation gives that the leading two-nucleon diagram contributes about 20$\times 10^{-3}\, m_\pi^{-1}$ to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length. Thus in the Weinberg scheme we estimate about 1$\times 10^{-3}\, m_\pi^{-1}$ for the leading counter term contribution while in $Q$–counting the leading counter term is expected to contribute only 0.1$\times 10^{-3}\, m_\pi^{-1}$, since the leading two-nucleon term benefits from an enhancement of order $(m_\pi/q)^2\simeq (m_\pi/\gamma)^2$ in $Q$–counting. Thus again, if we aim at a reliable estimate of the accuracy of the calculations performed we need to understand which one of the power-counting schemes describes the hierarchy of diagrams for pion-nucleus teresa37@example.org. This will be done in Sec. \[sec:lamdep\]. It turns out that Weinberg and $Q$–counting predict a very different binding energy dependence of ratios of few-body corrections. These relations can be tested empirically: the NN potential at leading order of the chiral expansion comprises 1$\pi$–exchange and two counter terms. One of them can be adjusted such that any given (physical or unphysical) deuteron binding energy can be reproduced. This has been done to investigate the binding energy dependence of the relevant ratios of few-nucleon contributions. The main conclusion of Sec. \[sec:enerdep\] will be that the binding energy dependence of these ratios is in accordance with the prediction from Weinberg — up to logarithmic corrections — and in strong disagreement to the prediction from $Q$–counting. In addition to providing some explanation for the apparent suppression of $a_{\pi -A}^{(1bc)}$ vs. $a_{\pi -A}^{(1a)}$, in Ref. @Beane:2002wk it was argued that boosted $\pi$-N amplitudes give a significant contribution (number $iii)$ in the list given above), in discrepancy to what is expected from Weinberg counting. On the other hand, since the corresponding operator is proportional to the square of the nucleon momentum, this would imply an observable effect of the nucleon kinetic energy inside the deuteron, which is in conflict with general properties of field theories. In Ref. @Baru:2007wf both problems were solved: once the $\Delta$–isobar is included as an explicit degree of freedom, simultaneously the residual boost contribution becomes sufficiently small to be in line with Weinberg counting and appears at an order where there is also a counter term. Finally, we analyze the contribution of the triple scattering diagram of Fig. \[fig:2N-triple\] in Sec. \[i0int\]. In Weinberg counting this diagram is estimated to contribute only at order $(m_\pi/m_N)^2$ relative to the leading two-nucleon operator. On the other hand numerical studies revealed that its actual value exceeds this estimate by about an order of magnitude. In Sec. \[i0int\] we will demonstrate that this enhancement is not due to the smallness of the deuteron binding energy, contrary to the claim in Ref. @Beane:2002wk, but due to an integrable singularity in the corresponding expression that produces an enhancement by a factor of $\pi^2$. In view of this, also item $ii)$ of the list that was used to argue in favour of $Q$–counting does not apply anymore. We are led to conclude that Weinberg counting gives a more reliable power counting scheme than $Q$–counting. With these remarks, we now want to look at the possible few-nucleon contributions in more detail. Few-nucleon contributions {#sec:fewncontr} ========================= Our main concern here are the few-nucleon corrections. For an evaluation of such contributions, expectation values of the basic pion–few-nucleon ($\pi$-$A$) amplitudes with the few-nucleon wave functions need to be calculated. Such wave functions can be obtained using standard methods to solve the few-nucleon Schrödinger equation based on nucleon-nucleon (NN) interactions @Carlson:1997qn. Whereas in the first attempts to understand such contributions, wave functions based on phenomenological NN interactions were used @Weinberg:1992yk [@Beane:1997yg], it is by now standard to also employ wave functions generated with nuclear interactions based on ChPT. The basic idea is to use naive dimensional analysis for a potential, which is then used to solve a Schrödinger equation @Weinberg:1990rz [@Weinberg:1991um]. Several groups have developed NN interactions based on this approach @Ordonez:1995rz [@Entem:2003ft; @Epelbaum:2004fk] and also three- (3N) and four-nucleon (4N) interactions have been formulated @vanKolck:1994yi [@Bernard:2007sp] and employed @Epelbaum:2005pn, see also Ref. @Epelbaum:2008ga for a recent review. Obviously, employing chiral interactions is preferable to calculate the pion-nucleus scattering length since nuclear interactions and $\pi$-$A$ amplitudes will be consistent. In this work, we will present results on both kinds of interactions. We still show results based on phenomenological interactions, namely AV18 @Wiringa:1994wb, Nijmegen 93 @Stoks:1994wp, and CD-Bonn @Machleidt:2000ge. For $^3$He and $^4$He, we augment the nuclear Hamiltonian by a 3N interaction, so that the binding energies of these nuclei are reasonably well reproduced @Nogga:2001cz. These results may serve as benchmark and might give indications on the size of the model-dependence of older calculations. We also employ wave functions based on chiral nuclear interactions between the leading order (LO, order 0 in the chiral expansion) and next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^2$LO, order 3 in the chiral expansion). Chiral interactions require a regularization scheme in order to obtain a well-defined Schrödinger equation. Most realizations use a momentum cutoff of the order of 500 MeV to this aim. For the leading order, at least when restricting oneself to $S$-wave interactions, it is possible to obtain fits for a much larger range of cutoffs @Nogga:2005hy. These attempts have triggered a controversy in the community @Hammer:2006qj. It should be noted that an inconsistency becomes apparent for large cutoffs, when higher order NN interactions are used @Epelbaum:2009sd. Here, we use a wide range of cutoffs only for LO interactions, so that also this inconsistency does not apply. This allows us to use results for a wide range of cutoffs to estimate the size of leading counter terms. Parameter sets for the $S$-wave contact interactions are given in Tables \[tab:potlampara\], \[tab:potbepara\], and \[tab:potcomplpara\]. Since these calculations are by no means high precision ones, we have neglected the minor contribution of higher partial waves in this case. For the higher order chiral forces, we have employed order 2 (NLO) and order 3 (N$^2$LO) ones of Ref. @Epelbaum:2004fk. In the N$^2$LO case, we added, as required by power counting, 3N forces, which were tuned to reproduce the $^3$He binding energy and N-$^2$H scattering lengths. Since we restrict ourselves to leading, tree-level $\pi$-$A$ operators, we may derive them using Feynman diagrams as done below. The reduction from four-dimensional quantities to three-dimensional ones can be easily performed using the on-shell energies of nucleons and pions. The pertinent integrals involving the wave functions and operators will be given below since their form depends on the number of nucleons involved. Leading two-nucleon contributions {#sec:2ncontr} --------------------------------- \[t\] ![image](figures/2N-ops_psfrag.eps) The leading two-nucleon contributions are known for many years @Weinberg:1992yk [@Beane:1997yg; @Beane:2002wk]. In the following, we call the numerically most important contribution, depicted in Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\](a), "Coulombian" because of its $ {1 \over {\vec q}^2}$ pion propagator. The explicit expression for the amplitude is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:m2a} i\mathcal{M}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-ops}a}\right)} & = & i\frac{m_\pi^2}{4f_\pi^4\;\vec{q}^{\,2}}\big\{2\delta^{ab}\left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_2\right)-\tau_1^b\tau_2^a-\tau_1^a\tau_2^b\big\} \end{aligned}$$ where $\vec q$ is the momentum transfer between the nucleons, the $\vec{\tau}_{i}$ are usual Pauli matrices acting in the isospin space of nucleon $i$ and $f_{\pi}$ the pion decay constant. Throughout this work, we employ $f_{\pi}=92.4$ MeV. The small latin letters refer to isospin indices of the pions as given in the figure. The amplitudes of Figs. \[fig:2N-ops\](b) and \[fig:2N-ops\](c) are individually dependent on the parametrization of the pion field. The sum of both, however, is independent of this choice as it should. Therefore, we will only show results for the sum of both contributions for which the amplitude reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:m2bc} i\mathcal{M}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-ops}b+\ref{fig:2N-ops}c}\right)} & = & -i\frac{g_A^2m_\pi^2}{4f_\pi^4}\frac{1}{\left(\vec{q}^{\,2}+m_\pi^2\right)^2}\left(\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}\right)\left(\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}\right)\nonumber\\ & &\quad \times\big\{\delta^{ab}\left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_2\right)-\left(\tau_1^a\tau_2^b+\tau_1^b\tau_2^a\right)\big\} . \end{aligned}$$ Here, we additionally encounter $\vec{\sigma}_{i}$, the Pauli matrices acting in the spin space of nucleon $i$. Since the propagators contain an additional pion mass, we will refer to this contribution as "non-Coulombian". ![Triple scattering two-nucleon diagram.<span data-label="fig:2N-triple"></span>](figures/triangle-2b.eps) In addition, in Ref. @Beane:2002wk, the diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:2N-triple\] was identified as numerically important, although in Weinberg counting it appears only at order N$^2$LO as compared to the leading order diagrams of Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\]. This observation was taken as a support for the modified power counting, $Q$–counting, as discussed in the previous section. As we will show in section \[i0int\], a part of this amplitude is indeed enhanced, however, not parametrically but as a consequence of the special topology of the diagram. Therefore we also include this triple scattering diagram, although this is not supported by a power counting yet. Straightforward evaluation of its most dominant part gives $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:m2triple}\nonumber i\mathcal{M}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-triple}}\right)} & = & -2i\left(\frac{m_\pi}{2f_\pi^2}\right)^3\frac1{8|\vec{q}|} \\ & & \times \left\{\tau_1^b\tau_2^a+\tau_1^a\tau_2^b+\frac{i}{2}\epsilon^{abe}\left(\tau_1^e+\tau_2^e\right)\right\} . \end{aligned}$$ For a discussion of the full expression for the amplitude we refer to Sec. \[i0int\]. It is important to note that, although the triple scattering diagram is enhanced compared to what is expected from dimensional analysis, this enhancement is not sufficient to fully overcome the parametric suppression as provided by chiral symmetry. Comparing the double scattering contribution, Eq. (\[eq:m2a\]), to the triple scattering contribution, Eq. (\[eq:m2triple\]), we still find a relative suppression[^1] of order $$m_\pi^2/(16f_\pi^2)\sim 0.14 \ ,$$ which is close to the ratio found from the exact evaluation of the matrix elements. Thus, there is a suppression by an order of magnitude between the two contributions. We conjecture that the related diagram with four $\pi$N interactions will be suppressed by yet another order of magnitude and is therefore irrelevant for this study. Note, however, in case of $K$-nucleus scattering a resummation of the multiple scattering series is unavoidable @Kamalov:2000iy [@Meissner:2006gx; @Baru:2009tx]. Also in Ref. @Baru:2009tx, it was argued that a resummation needs to be done including nucleon recoil effects in the propagators, for the nucleon recoil in multiple scattering diagrams induces potentially important corrections of the order of $\sqrt{m_K/m_N}$, with $m_K$ being the kaon mass, as compared to the static contributions. As was argued above, all diagrams that contribute to lower orders than the first counter term should be included in this study. In addition to the diagrams discussed so far, there are potentially also those that are enhanced due to the presence of either two-nucleon or $\pi$NN–cuts. Moreover, there are also contributions from the $\Delta$–isobar. The effect of the $\pi$NN–cuts was discussed in detail in Ref. @Baru:2004kw, see also Ref. @Lensky:2005hb for a related discussion. It was shown in Ref. @Baru:2004kw that, although formally enhanced, the contributions of the $\pi$NN–cuts to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length nearly vanish as a result of a cancellation of different two-nucleon diagrams enforced by the Pauli principle. The same argument also applies to the scattering off $^4$He. In Ref. @Lensky:2006wd and @Baru:2007wf it was shown that diagrams with an NN–cut, often called dispersive terms [^2], and those with an intermediate $\Delta$ start to contribute at the same order. Although individually sizable, the two groups of diagrams cancel each other nearly exactly. This cancellation should also appear in heavier nuclei whenever pions get scattered off an isoscalar NN pair. The analogous diagrams for isovector NN pairs were not studied yet, however, their contribution is intimately connected to the reaction $pp\to pp\pi^0$. The total cross section near threshold in this pion production channel, which is the relevant quantity to estimate the contributions from the NN–cuts, is more than an order of magnitude smaller than that of $pp\to pn\pi^+$ @Hanhart:2003pg. In addition, the $\Delta$–isobar is a lot less important in that channel compared to the deuteron channel @Hanhart:1998za. In total, we therefore expect a negligible contribution from intermediate $\Delta$'s and NN–cuts to pion-nucleus scattering. In Ref. @Beane:2002wk also corrections that arise through the boost of the $\pi$N interaction were identified as numerically significant. However, in a formalism that includes the $\Delta$ as explicit degree of freedom this is no longer the case @Baru:2007wf — see also discussion at the end of Sec. \[sec:powercount\]. Therefore, we may assume that the contributions listed in Eqs. (\[eq:m2a\]) to (\[eq:m2triple\]) are all two-nucleon contributions that need to be included in this calculation. With the help of Feynman diagrams, we have obtained the amplitude on two free nucleons. Following Weinberg, the amplitude resulting for nucleons bound can be obtained calculating the expectation value of the free amplitude using the $A$-nucleon bound state wave function. E.g. for $A=3$, the wave function $\psi_{\alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3\right)$ in momentum space depends on the two momenta $\vec p_{12}$ and $\vec p_{3}$, which are Jacobi momenta defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:jacobi} \vec{p}_{12}\:\; & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(\vec{k}_1-\vec{k}_2\right)\nonumber\\ \vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(\vec{k}_1^{\,\prime}-\vec{k}_2^{\,\prime}\right)\nonumber\\ \vec{p}_3\;\: & = & \frac{2}{3}\vec{k}_3\:-\:\frac{1}{3}\:\left(\vec{k}_1\:+\:\vec{k}_2\right)\nonumber\\ \vec{p}_3^{\,\prime} & = & \frac{2}{3}\vec{k}_3^{\,\prime}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\vec{k}_1^{\,\prime}+\vec{k}_2^{\,\prime}\right) \ . \end{aligned}$$ Here $\vec{k}_i$ and $\vec{k}_i^{\,\prime}$ are the momenta of the nucleons before and after scattering of the pion. $\alpha$ denotes an index labeling the different spin and isospin states of the three nucleons. For the two-nucleon contribution, making use of the conservation of momentum of the third nucleon, we obtain in this way $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:2bexp} & &\langle\hat O^{2-nucleon} \rangle = {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha^\prime} {d^3p_{12}^{\prime} \over (2\pi)^3 } {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha} d^3p_{12}\; d^3p_3\; \cr &&\cr & &\hspace{0.5cm}\times\;\psi_{\alpha'}^\ast\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_3\right) \mathcal{M}_{\alpha' \alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_{12}\right)\psi_{\alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3\right) \end{aligned}$$ where the amplitude has also been expressed in terms of Jacobi momenta $\vec{p}_{12}$ using the definitions of Eq. (\[eq:jacobi\]). We note that the factors $(2\pi)^3$ take into account that we normalize momentum eigenstates to $\delta^3(\vec p - \vec p ')$ ($(2\pi)^3\, \delta^3(\vec p - \vec p ')$) for the wave functions (operators) throughout this work. Eq. (\[eq:2bexp\]) is easily generalized to $A=4$ and higher. The corresponding contribution to the scattering length can in general be determined via $$\begin{aligned} &&a_{\pi\scriptsize{-} A}^{N{-}nucleon}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left({A}\atop{N}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{m_\pi}{A\,m_N}}\right)\langle \hat O^{N{-}nucleon}\rangle \ . \cr & & \label{eq:scattlength} \end{aligned}$$ The binomial coefficient in front is introduced to take into account the number of nucleon–$N$-tupel in an $A$-nucleon system. This factor is three for two-nucleon operators in $^3$He. Leading three-nucleon contributions {#sec:3ncontr} ----------------------------------- ![Coulombian three-nucleon contribution to $\pi$-$A$ scattering.<span data-label="fig:3N-coulcontr"></span>](figures/3N-ops-h.eps){width="5cm"} One aim of this work is to study the relative importance of one-, two-, three-nucleon, etc. contributions explicitly. Therefore, we now look at three-nucleon contributions to pion-nucleus scattering. Based on Weinberg's original power counting, it is easy to identify the leading ones, which are shown in Figs. \[fig:3N-coulcontr\] and \[fig:3N-contralpha\]. Note that we have omitted diagrams that vanish in leading order due to threshold kinematics. Naively, these diagrams are suppressed by $(m_\pi / m_{N})^2$ compared to the leading two-nucleon ones. A closer look reveals that the diagram of Fig. \[fig:3N-coulcontr\] is individually independent of the parametrization of the pion field. The resulting amplitude reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:m3coul} i\mathcal{M}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:3N-coulcontr}}\right)} & = & \left(\frac{m_\pi}{2f_\pi^2}\right)^3\frac{1}{\vec{q}_1^{\,2}\;\vec{q}_3^{\,2}}\;\nonumber \\[5pt] &\times& \big\{\epsilon^{abe}\left[\left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_2\right)\tau_3^e+\left(\vec{\tau}_2\cdot\vec{\tau}_3\right)\tau_1^e\right]\big\} \end{aligned}$$ Again, the propagators resemble Coulombian ones. We therefore will refer to this amplitude as "Coulombian" three-nucleon contribution. The definition of the momentum transfers and pion isospin indices can be read off from the figure. Note that due to the isovector structure of this operator it will not contribute to pion scattering on isoscalar nuclei. Additionally to this Coulombian contribution, we found a set of seven further diagrams, which are individually dependent on the parametrization of the pion field. The sum of these diagrams is however parametrization-independent as is outlined in Appendix \[app:alphadep\], and the explicit expressions are given in Appendix \[app:halfcoul3n\]. They all have in common that at most one of the propagators is Coulombian. In the following, we will therefore refer to these diagrams as half-Coulombian. For the three-nucleon contribution, the momentum of the third nucleon is not conserved anymore. Therefore, the calculation of the expectation value with respect to the $A=3$ wave function reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:3bexp} & &\langle\hat O^{3-nucleon} \rangle = \ {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha^\prime} {d^3p_{12}^{\prime}\over (2\pi)^3} \; {d^3p_3^{\prime}\over (2\pi)^3} \; {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha} d^3p_{12}\; d^3p_3\; \cr &&\cr & &\hspace{0.5cm}\times\;\psi_{\alpha'}^\ast\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_3^{\, \prime}\right) \mathcal{M}_{\alpha' \alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime}\vec{p}_{3}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_{12}\vec{p}_{3}\right)\psi_{\alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3\right) \ . \cr & & \end{aligned}$$ Again, the amplitude has been expressed in terms of Jacobi momenta. The contribution to the scattering length due to the three-nucleon diagrams is then again found by inserting Eq. (\[eq:3bexp\]) into Eq. (\[eq:scattlength\]). Leading four-nucleon contribution {#sec:4ncontr} --------------------------------- ![Coulombian four-nucleon contribution to $\pi$-$A$ scattering.<span data-label="fig:4N-contr"></span>](figures/4N-op.eps){width="5cm"} In order to also confirm our conclusions on the relative importance of higher-body $\pi$-$A$ amplitudes, we also need a four-nucleon contribution which, of course, can only be relevant for scattering on nuclei with $A \ge 4$. The probably most important contribution is Coulombian and shown in Fig. \[fig:4N-contr\]. Based on Weinberg's original power counting, this contribution is suppressed by $(m_{\pi}/m_{N})^4$ compared to the leading two-nucleon contributions. Again, it is independent of the parametrization of the pion field. Note that this diagram is not a complete set of leading four-nucleon terms. We will only evaluate its contribution to have an estimate of possible higher order contributions to $\pi$-$A$ scattering. It is an easy exercise to find the corresponding amplitude $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:m4coul} i\mathcal{M}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:4N-contr}}\right)} & = & i \left(\frac{m_\pi}{2f_\pi^2}\right)^4\frac{1}{\vec{q}_1^{\,2}\;\vec{q}_2^{\,2}\;\vec{q}_3^{\,2}} \cr & \times & \big\{ 2 \delta^{ab} \left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_2\right) \left(\vec{\tau}_3\cdot\vec{\tau}_4\right) \cr & & + \left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_4\right) \left(\vec{\tau}_2^{a} \vec{\tau}_3 ^{b} + \vec{\tau}_2^{b} \vec{\tau}_3 ^{a} \right) \cr & & - \left(\vec{\tau}_3\cdot\vec{\tau}_4\right) \left(\vec{\tau}_1^{a} \vec{\tau}_2 ^{b} + \vec{\tau}_1^{b} \vec{\tau}_2 ^{a} \right) \cr & & - \left(\vec{\tau}_1\cdot\vec{\tau}_2\right) \left(\vec{\tau}_3^{a} \vec{\tau}_4 ^{b} + \vec{\tau}_3^{b} \vec{\tau}_4 ^{a} \right) \big\} \ . \end{aligned}$$ This amplitude then enters the evaluation of the expectation value analogously to Eqs. (\[eq:2bexp\]) and (\[eq:3bexp\]) for the two- and three-nucleon operators $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:4bexp} & &\langle\hat O^{4-nucleon} \rangle = \ \nonumber \\[5pt] & & \hspace{0.5cm} {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha^\prime} {d^3p_{12}^{\prime}\over (2\pi)^3} \; {d^3p_3^{\prime}\over (2\pi)^3}\; {d^3q_4^{\prime}\over (2\pi)^3}\; {\makebox[0cm][l]{$\, \sum$} \int}_{\alpha} d^3p_{12}\; d^3p_3\; d^3q_4\; \cr &&\cr & &\hspace{0.5cm}\times\;\psi_{\alpha'}^\ast\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_3^{\, \prime},\vec{q}_4^{\, \prime}\right) \mathcal{M}_{\alpha' \alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime}\vec{p}_{3}^{\,\prime}\vec{q}_{4}^{\,\prime}, \vec{p}_{12}\vec{p}_{3}\vec{q}_{4}\right) \cr & & \hspace{0.5cm} \times \; \psi_{\alpha}\left(\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3,\vec{q}_4\right) \ . \end{aligned}$$ Here, we express the $^4$He wave function $\psi$ in terms of Jacobi momenta. $\vec p_{12}$ and $\vec p_{3}$ are the same as in the three-nucleon case. $\vec q_{4}$ is the relative momentum of nucleon 4 and the cluster of nucleons 1, 2 and 3. For details of the representation of the wave functions, we refer to @Nogga:2001cz. Numerical method {#sec:nummeth} ================ In this section, we want to introduce briefly the numerical method used for the evaluation of the pertinent integrals. Whereas expectation values for $^2$H can be easily obtained using standard methods of integration or using a partial wave decomposition, this becomes more and more tedious for more and more complex nuclei. One aim of this work was to establish a scheme to evaluate expectation values in momentum space based on Monte Carlo (MC) integration without performing a partial wave decomposition. In this way, we were able to generate the numerical expressions of the amplitude reliably with the help of a <span>*Mathematica*</span> script. The resulting FORTRAN code lines could be included in a FORTRAN code evaluating the high dimensional integrals given above. For the evaluation, it turned out that simple MC integration requires a large number of trial points to obtain acceptably small standard deviations. In our tests, we found that most trial points consisted of momenta for which the wave functions are nearly zero. Therefore, obviously, an importance sampling similar to the Metropolis algorithm @Metropolis:1953am is required to keep the computational needs small and increase the accuracy. Usually such an importance sampling is guided by the square of the wave function. In configuration space, this quantity is perfectly suited as a weight function for the Metropolis algorithm since the weight function is then automatically normalized to one at least as long as the operators are local. For momentum space, the structure is more complicated, since the integrals require weight functions with higher dimensionality as in configuration space. This implies that a simple square of the wave function is not useful for the importance sampling anymore. This problem could be solved by performing part of the integrals using standard methods as has been successfully done in @Wiringa:2008dn. We found this approach less practical in our case, since the three- and four-nucleon operators would require to perform high dimensional integrations using standard integration methods. Our solution was to give up weight functions based on the wave functions of the system, but choose a rational ansatz instead. The parameters of the ansatz were then adjusted so that the standard deviation in test cases was minimized. In this way, we were able to improve the accuracy sufficiently. At the same time, the weight function could be analytically normalized to one so that the calculations became feasible. E.g. we choose for the importance sampling for integrals of the form of Eq. (\[eq:3bexp\]) a weight function depending on the four integration variables $\vec p_{i} = \vec p_{12}$, $\vec p_{3}$, $\vec p_{12}^{\, \prime}$ and $\vec p_{3}^{\, \prime}$ $$\begin{aligned} & & w\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_3^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3\right) \equiv w\left(p_{12}^\prime,p_3^\prime,p_{12},p_3\right)\cr & & \quad = \prod_{i}\frac{ \left( r-3 \right) \left( r-2 \right) \left( r-1 \right) } {8\pi} \: \frac{ C_{p_i}^{ \left(r-3\right)}}{ \left(p_i+C_{p_i}\right)^r }\cr && \label{eq:weight-function} \end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, the ansatz only depends on the magnitude of the momenta. With the parameters $C_{p_{i}}$ and $r$ the shape of the weight functions can be influenced. The ansatz guarantees (for large enough $r$) that the weight function is normalized to $$\begin{aligned} \int d^3p_{12}^{\prime} d^3p_3^{\prime} \int d^3p_{12} d^3p_3 \, w\left(\vec{p}_{12}^{\,\prime},\vec{p}_3^{\, \prime},\vec{p}_{12},\vec{p}_3\right) = 1 . \label{eq:weight-function-norm}\end{aligned}$$ <span>llll</span> $\Lambda$\[fm$^{-1}$\] & r & $C_{p_{12}}$\[fm$^{-1}$\] & $C_{p_{3}}$\[fm$^{-1}$\]\ 2.0 & 7.6 & 1.25 &1.0\ 3.0 & 7.6 & 1.25 &1.0\ 4.0 & 7.4 & 2.75 &1.25\ 5.0 & 7.4 & 2.75 &1.25\ 10.0 & 8.5 & 5.2 & 3.25\ 20.0 & 9.7 & 8.75 & 6.0\ AV18 & 7.6 & 3.0 & 1.25\ CD-Bonn & 7.6 & 3.0 & 1.25\ A detailed description of our tests of this method can be found in @Liebig:2009mth. Here we only summarize the resulting parameters in Table \[tab:wpara\]. For the more simple integral Eq. (\[eq:2bexp\]), the weight function was simplified in the obvious way just dropping terms depending on $\vec {p'_{3}}$. We used the same parameters in both cases. Still, the size of the integrand is driven by the size of the wave functions. This is reflected in a strong dependence of the parameters on the wave function used. In the table, we give our choice for the leading order chiral wave functions with different cutoffs $\Lambda$ and the wave functions obtained based on AV18 and CD-Bonn. For the higher order chiral wave functions, we used the same parameters as for the leading order $\Lambda=2$ fm$^{-1}$ wave functions, since the momentum dependence is similar in this case. <span>lllllll</span> $\Lambda$\[fm$^{-1}$\] & & &\ & PW & MC & PW & MC & PW & MC\ 3.0 & -21.37 & -21.16(22) & -0.666 & -0.6658(4) & 2.43 & 2.433(3)\ 4.0 & -20.02 & -19.65(9) & -0.902 & -0.9017(7) & 1.77 & 1.767(2)\ 5.0 & -19.75 & -20.13(35) & -0.889 & -0.8904(6) & 1.61 & 1.613(3)\ 10.0 & -20.72 & -22.68(136)& -0.824 & -0.8232(14) & 2.35 & 2.345(7)\ 20.0 & -20.78 & -20.60(52) & -0.867 & -0.8729(40) & 2.49 & 2.459(29)\ AV18 & -19.62 & -19.45(13) & -0.749 & -0.7493(6) & 1.63 & 1.631(3)\ Nijm93 & -19.84 & -19.40(11) & -0.743 & -0.7425(3) & 1.72 & 1.724(3)\ CD-Bonn & -20.20 & -19.99(8) & -0.553 & -0.5521(4) & 1.92 & 1.924(2)\ CD-Bonn @Beane:2002wk & -20.20 & — & -0.55 & — & — & —\ As a first test, we compare results for $^2$H obtained with a traditional partial wave (PW) decomposition and with the MC method. The partial wave decomposed amplitudes are listed in Appendix \[app:2Npw\]. In Table \[tab:partialmonte\], the results are compared. One can see that the MC results agree well with the PW values and that these agree well with the previously obtained values of @Beane:2002wk. We note that $2/3$ of the MC results are within 1$\sigma$ of the PW result. We found a few values with more than 2$\sigma$ deviation. These outliers are generally expected for a MC calculation and indicate that the probability distribution is not normal, but has more extended shoulders. Note, as usual the numerical accuracy of the MC calculation can easily be enhanced by increasing the number of runs — we stopped our evaluations as soon as the numerical accuracy was higher than the theoretical accuracy of the calculation, which is of the order of a few percent as discussed below. Testing the counting schemes {#sec:testcount} ============================ Cutoff dependence and estimate of the leading counter term {#sec:lamdep} ---------------------------------------------------------- As was argued in the introduction, from the regulator dependence of the contributions from the various diagrams it is possible to estimate the size of the leading 4N$\pi\pi$ counter term contribution. Since the estimated contribution of this term differs drastically between $Q$–counting and Weinberg counting, a study of the cutoff dependence provides a non-trivial test of the counting schemes. The leading chiral NN interaction is given by $$\label{eq:lopot} V(\vec p^{\, \prime},\vec p) = - \ \left( { g_A \over 2 f_\pi} \right)^2 \vec \tau_1 \cdot \vec \tau_2 \ { \vec q \cdot \sigma_1 \ \vec q \cdot \sigma_2 \over (\vec q)^2 + m_\pi^2 } +C_{S}+C_{T} \, \vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec \sigma_2 \ .$$ In order to obtain a meaningful Schrödinger equation, it is necessary to introduce a regulator. We here perform regularization by a smooth cutoff function given by $$f(\vec p) = \exp \left( - \left( { p \over \Lambda } \right)^4 \right)$$ which depends on a cutoff parameter $\Lambda$. The potential is then replaced by $$V(\vec p^{\, \prime},\vec p) \longrightarrow f(\vec p^{\, \prime} ) \ V(\vec p^{\, \prime},\vec p) \ f(\vec p)$$ In this section, we used $g_{A}=1.2834$, $m_{\pi}=139.57$ MeV, and $f_{\pi}=92.4$ MeV for the leading order potential and the pion scattering amplitudes which is close to the parameters used in @Beane:2002wk. Note that we use slightly different parameters for studying $^3$He and $^4$He below. Since we are only interested in the $^3$S$_{1}$–$^3$D$_{1}$ partial wave, the deuteron channel, we arbitrarily set $C_{T}=0$ and fit $C_{S}$ so that the deuteron binding energy is fixed to a experimental value for a given value of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$. The fit results are given in Table \[tab:potlampara\]. ![Contribution $a_{\pi{\rm -}^2 \rm H}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-ops}a}\right)}$ due to amplitude Eq. (\[eq:m2a\]) to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length depending on the cutoff $\Lambda$ of the LO potential. The result for the Nijmegen 93 is also shown "(+)". It is independent of $\Lambda$ and is positioned arbitrarily on the plot. <span data-label="fig:lamdepm2a"></span>](figures/lamdepm2a.eps) ![Contribution $a_{\pi- ^2 \rm H}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-ops}bc}\right)}$ due to amplitude Eq. (\[eq:m2bc\]) to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length depending on the cutoff $\Lambda$ of the LO potential. The result for the Nijmegen 93 is also shown "(+)". <span data-label="fig:lamdepm2bc"></span>](figures/lamdepm2bc.eps) ![Contribution $a_{\pi- ^2 \rm H}^{\left(\mbox{\scriptsize \ref{fig:2N-triple}}\right)}$ due to amplitude Eq. (\[eq:m2triple\]) to the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length depending on the cutoff $\Lambda$ of the LO potential. The result for the Nijmegen 93 is also shown "(+)". <span data-label="fig:lamdepm2triple"></span>](figures/lamdepm2double.eps) We are now in the position to study the $\Lambda$ dependence of the scattering length contributions due to Eqs. (\[eq:m2a\]), (\[eq:m2bc\]), and (\[eq:m2triple\]) based on the LO potential. For this, we have adjusted the potential so that the deuteron binding energy is close to the experimental one. For the Coulombian diagram, the cutoff dependence has already been studied in @Nogga:2005fv in momentum space. This diagram and the triple scattering diagram, as given in Fig. \[fig:2N-triple\], have also been investigated in Refs. @Platter:2006pt [@PavonValderrama:2006np] with the result that, for wave functions based on the 1$\pi$–exchange interaction, the results become independent of the cutoff in the limit of large $\Lambda$. In Figs. \[fig:lamdepm2a\], \[fig:lamdepm2bc\], and \[fig:lamdepm2triple\], this result is seen once more. Note that the scales are entirely different in these figures. Additionally, we observe that the same is true for the contribution due to Eq. (\[eq:m2bc\]). We observe a mild oscillation of the result, the amplitude of which is approximately 5 % of the respective contribution — $1 \times 10^{-3} \, m_{\pi}^{-1}$ in absolute terms. From the comparison in Table \[tab:partialmonte\], we observe that the leading order results are in good agreement with the previous potential model results. This is also true for the amplitude in Eq. (\[eq:m2triple\]). From this we conclude that a theoretical accuracy of $1 \times 10^{-3} \, m_{\pi}^{-1}$ can be reached at most from a study of pion-nucleus scattering, which means that a 5% accuracy can be reached. As was already argued in Sec. \[sec:powercount\], the dependence of the few-body operators on the regulator used for the deuteron wave function can give us an idea on the numerical size of the leading counter term contribution. In Weinberg counting the leading isoscalar counter term is expected to be suppressed by a factor $(m_\pi/m_N)^2 \sim 2 \%$ compared to the numerically leading double scattering term. This is fully in line with the observed amount of $\Lambda$ dependence, as described in the previous paragraph, but in gross disagreement to the expectations of $Q$–counting, where a counter term contribution of the order of $0.2$ % would be expected. Thus, from the study of the cutoff dependence we conclude that Weinberg counting provides the more accurate estimate for the leading counter term contribution. <span>lr</span> $\Lambda$\[fm$^{-1}$\] & $C_{S}$\[GeV$^{-2}$\]\ 3.0 & -34.2225\ 4.0 & 48.1751\ 5.0 & 562.089\ 10.0 & -50.9683\ 20.0 & -92.1179\ Dependence of the $\pi$-$^2$H scattering length on the deuteron binding energy {#sec:enerdep} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Following up on the discussion in Sec. \[sec:powercount\], we now study the energy dependence of the ratios of few-nucleon contributions. If $Q$–counting were operative, the relative scaling of Diagrams Figs. \[fig:2N-ops\](a) and \[fig:2N-ops\](b)+\[fig:2N-ops\](c) would strongly depend on the binding momentum. A straightforward analysis of Eqs. (\[eq:m2a\]) and (\[eq:m2bc\]) shows that Diagram $(a)$ of Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\] scales as $$a_{\pi A}^{(1a)} \sim m_\pi^2/q^2 \ ,$$ while the sum of Diagram $(b)$ and $(c)$ scales as $$a_{\pi A}^{(1bc)} \sim q^2/m_\pi^2 \ .$$ Thus, for the binding energy dependence of the ratio of these two contributions we find $$\frac{a_{\pi A}^{(1bc)}}{a_{\pi A}^{(1a)}} \propto \left\{{\mbox{const. \ (Weinberg)}}\atop {\hspace{0.5cm} {E_{d}}^2 \hspace{0.6cm} \mbox{($Q$--counting)}} \right. \ , \label{epsdepestimates1}$$ where we used the $Q$–counting relation $q\sim \gamma$ together with Eq. (\[gammarel\]). Analogously one gets $$\frac{a_{\pi A}^{(2)}}{a_{\pi A}^{(1a)}} \propto \left\{{\mbox{const. \ (Weinberg)}}\atop {\hspace{0.5cm} \sqrt{E_{d}} \hspace{0.6cm} \mbox{($Q$--counting)}} \right. \ , \label{epsdepestimates2}$$ using the explicit expression for the contributions of the individual diagrams. We have studied the binding energy dependence of both classes of diagrams based on the leading chiral NN interaction. To this aim, we have adjusted the contact interaction acting in the deuteron channel so that the deuteron was bound with unphysically large and small binding energy (see Table \[tab:potbepara\]). It was then an easy exercise to calculate the contributions of Figs. \[fig:2N-ops\](a), \[fig:2N-ops\](b)+\[fig:2N-ops\](c) and \[fig:2N-triple\] to the scattering length depending on the binding energy and explicitly compare to the expectations from $Q$– and Weinberg counting. <span>lr</span> $E_{d}$\[MeV\] & $C_{S}$\[GeV$^{-2}$\]\ 0.002 & -71.7689\ 0.005 & -72.1400\ 0.01 & -72.5574\ 0.02 & -73.1460\ 0.05 & -74.3088\ 0.1 & -75.6126\ 0.2 & -77.4471\ 0.5 & -81.0703\ 1.0 & -85.1564\ 5.0 & -103.225\ 10.0 & -118.793\ 20.0 & -147.032\ 30.0 & -178.149\ 40.0 & -217.147\ 50.0 & -271.056\ \[t\] ![image](figures/enerdepm2a.eps) ![image](figures/enerdepm2bc.eps) ![image](figures/enerdepm2double.eps) ![image](figures/ratiom2a.eps) Based on this observation, we are now in the position to look in more detail at the dependence of the various contributions on the binding energy. For this, we arbitrarily choose $\Lambda=20$ fm$^{-1}$, which is in the region where the results are almost independent of the cutoff. We start displaying the binding energy dependence of the individual contributions to the scattering length in Fig. \[fig:enerdepm2\]. We observe that, independent of the binding energy, the contribution of the Coulombian diagram is the most important two-nucleon contribution. In contrast to the naive power counting estimates, the amplitude of Eq. (\[eq:m2triple\]) — the triple scattering diagram, depicted in Fig. \[fig:2N-triple\] — is the next important one. Still, it is suppressed by one order of magnitude compared to the leading Coulombian two-nucleon diagram. The contribution of this diagram will be discussed in detail in Sec. \[i0int\]. The amplitude Eq. (\[eq:m2bc\]) — shown in Fig. \[fig:2N-ops\](b)+\[fig:2N-ops\](c) — gives an extraordinarily small shift of the scattering length. From the observation that this suppression is not strongly depending on the binding energy, we conclude that this suppression is unrelated to the binding momentum as suggested in Ref. @Beane:2002wk, but probably accidental. In order to be more quantitative on the relative suppression of these contributions, we show in Fig. \[fig:enerdepm2\](d) the ratios of the shifts of the scattering lengths due to Eqs. (\[eq:m2bc\]) and (\[eq:m2triple\]) and the one due to Eq. (\[eq:m2a\]). Based on $Q$–counting, the ratio for Eq. (\[eq:m2bc\]) should scale like $E_{d}^2$ (c.f. Eqs. (\[epsdepestimates1\]) for small energies, the one for Eq. (\[eq:m2triple\]) should scale like $\sqrt{{E_{d}}}$ (c.f. Eqs. (\[epsdepestimates2\])). Our explicit calculation, however, shows a much weaker dependence on the binding energy. This is in strong contrast to the expectation from $Q$–counting. Therefore, we conclude that $Q$–counting is not realized for pion scattering on light nuclei, i.e. $^2$H. \[t\] \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>contact</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>Hulthén</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>$\Lambda=4$ fm$^{-1}$</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>$\Lambda=10$ fm$^{-1}$</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>$\Lambda=20$ fm$^{-1}$</span> ![image](hulthen/compare-hulthen.ephys.eps) \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>contact</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>Hulthén</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>$\Lambda=20$ fm$^{-1}$</span> ![image](hulthen/compare-hulthen.e=0.01.eps) It is instructive to investigate further the source of the residual binding energy dependence reported above. From this we will find that the ratios of contributions to the scattering length has a logarithmic and not a power law dependence. In addition, we will be able to show that the physical deuteron binding energy is already beyond the range of applicability of heavy pion effective field theory. To this aim, we study the ratios within an analytical model of the deuteron wave function. To get there we start from pionless EFT to obtain the deuteron based on a zero range approximation of the NN interaction. However, from different investigations it became clear that the binding momentum cannot be the only scale affecting the wave functions of the deuteron in a model independent way: $\pi$-$^2$H scattering at threshold was studied based on the perturbative treatment of pions in @Borasoy:2003gf and using heavy pion EFT in Refs. @Beane:2002aw [@Meissner:2005bz] with the result that a counter term is required in leading order where two-nucleon diagrams contribute. In practice, this would imply that an extraction of $a^{(+)}$ is unfeasible based on $\pi$-$^2$H atoms. However, it was realized that this problem is tamed once pions are treated non-perturbatively @Nogga:2005fv [@Platter:2006pt; @PavonValderrama:2006np; @PavonValderrama:2005gu]. In this case, the short distance $^2$H wave function is affected by 1$\pi$–exchange in such a way, that counter terms are not required to obtain cutoff independent results. No contradiction to the naive power counting of Weinberg is observed. Obviously, the pion introduced scales into the wave function beyond the binding momentum. Therefore, we add a range factor to the vertex function, so that we are able to introduce the intrinsic non-perturbative scale that enters through pion exchange. In momentum space, the wave function then reads $$\Psi (p) = N(\gamma,\beta)\frac{1}{\vec p\, ^2 + \beta^2}\frac{1}{\vec p\, ^2 + \gamma^2} \ , \label{eq:hulthen}$$ where the normalization factor $N$ is fixed to $$N(\gamma,\beta)^2 = 8\pi \gamma \beta (\gamma + \beta)^{3}$$ by the normalization condition for the deuteron wave function. This is a wave function of the Hulthén type @Hulthen:1957hb. In Refs. @PavonValderrama:2005gu [@Nogga:2005fv; @Valderrama:2007ja], it was shown that for radii larger than 0.6 fm the LO chiral wave functions are basically independent of the regulator used for their construction. We therefore fix $\beta$ by fitting to the tail of the wave function at $E_{d}=0.01$ MeV. This way we find $$\beta = 1.7 m_\pi \ . \label{eq:betavalue}$$ It is reassuring that $\beta$ turns out to be of the order of the pion mass. If the proposed picture is correct, the scale $\beta$ should be independent of the deuteron binding energy. We confirmed that this is indeed the case as long as we do not go to very large binding energies above the physical one. Fig. \[fig:deutwf\] shows the $S$-wave deuteron wave functions compared to the Hulthén ansatz. For both binding energies, we use the same $\beta$. As one can see, the Hulthén and chiral wave functions nicely agree for larger distances. In Fig. \[fig:deutwf\](a) one can also see that this long range part is independent of the cutoff used. The limit of a point like vertex is achieved by the limit $\beta\to \infty$. In this limit the wave function of Eq. (\[eq:hulthen\]) becomes identical to the one used in theories with perturbative pions @Borasoy:2003gf as well as the one used when treating the pion as heavy field @Beane:2002aw [@Meissner:2005bz]. For completeness, we also show this wave function in Fig. \[fig:deutwf\](a). It is obvious that such a simplistic wave function is not a good approximation to complete chiral wave functions. The most important effect is a reduction of the long range part, which becomes necessary to insure the correct normalization of the wave function. \[t\] \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>Hulthén</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>LO (only $S$-wave)</span> \[cr\]\[rr\]<span>$E_{d}$ \[MeV\]</span> ![image](hulthen/ratio.eps) \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>Hulthén</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>expansion of Hulthén</span> \[cr\]\[cr\]<span>LO (only $S$-wave)</span> \[cr\]\[rr\]<span>$E_{d}$ \[MeV\]</span> ![image](hulthen/aa.eps) The wave function of Eq. (\[eq:hulthen\]) is still sufficiently simple that analytic calculations can be performed for the various matrix elements discussed in this section. In particular we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:aaanalyt} a_{\pi -^2{\rm H}}^{(1a)}= \kappa \, x \, \frac{(1+x)}{(1-x)^2} \ln \left(\frac{4x}{(1+x)^2}\right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the dimensionless parameter $x=\gamma/\beta$ and $$\kappa = \beta\frac{1}{8\pi^2\left(1+m_\pi/2m_N\right)}\frac{m_\pi^2}{f_\pi^4} \ .$$ In addition, we find $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \label{eq:abcanalyt} a_{\pi -^2{\rm H}}^{(1bc)}&=& \kappa \, x \, \frac{(1+x)}{(1-x)^2}\frac{g_A^2}{12} \\ \nonumber &\times& \left\{ \ln \left(\frac{(1+x+\bar m_\pi)^2}{(2x+\bar m_\pi)(2+\bar m_\pi)}\right) \right. \\ & & \left.- \frac{\bar m_\pi (1-x)^2}{(1+x+\bar m_\pi)(2x+\bar m_\pi)(2+\bar m_\pi)} \right\} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar m_\pi=m_\pi/\beta$ and $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \label{eq:a2analytb} a_{\pi -^2{\rm H}}^{(2)}&=& \kappa \,
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1003'}