Erratum: Coarse-grained potential analysis of neutron-proton and proton-proton scattering below the pion production threshold [Phys. Rev. C88, 064002 (2013)]

Abstract

In our recent paper, we presented a fit to neutron-proton and proton-proton scattering data below the pion production threshold. A new data selection process was used to obtain the largest mutually consistent database from all data reported during the years 1950-2013. However, the provided information was not enough to reconstruct the full database.In Tables II and III we list the total measurements n i and the final number o f measurements actually used in the fit «2 for pp and np data, respectively. For some sets of data in the table, n\ > ri2 due to the rejection of individual outliers, but the specific data were not given. Below we give the outliers not provided in the paper. This information should provide the reader with the full information needed to reconstruct the complete database used in our analysis.We list in Tables I and II below the outliers specifically not considered in the final fit. These tables together with the original cited papers provide complete information on our analysis.The results and conclusion of the article are not affected.

Matching Pion-Nucleon Roy-Steiner Equations to Chiral Perturbation Theory

“…[22]. In the past, several strategies have been pursued: extractions from πN scattering data, either in terms of phase shifts [11,23] or cross sections [24], determinations from N N observables [25,26], or a combination of both [27]. Moreover, in [9] the matching with a reconstructed dispersive πN amplitude was performed in the subthreshold region where ChPT is expected to converge best, but the extrapolation from the physical region still required input from πN data (similarly, while starting from the subthreshold region, the LECs are determined from fits to phase shifts in [13]).…”

The Falsification of Nuclear Forces

“…2 This self-consistency condition, which can only be checked a posteriori and entitles legitimate error propagation, has usually been overlooked in the NN literature. In [22] a few of these tests are reviewed along with a recently proposed Tail-Sensitive test [23] and it was found that the three potentials DS-OPE [17], DS-χTPE [24] and Gauss-OPE [22] have standard normal residuals. The three more recent potentials DS-Born, Gauss-χTPE and Gauss-Born also were found to have normally distributed residuals [25].…”

“…The fit requires a total of 46 parameters and yields χ 2 /d.o.f. = 1.04 to the self-consistent data base [17,19].…”

“…However, this method identifies only inconsistencies between individual data sets and a model trying to describe the complete database. To improve on this method, so that inconsistencies between each data set and the rest of the database can be found, the 3σ criterion was applied iteratively to the complete database and the potential parameters were refitted to the accepted data sets until no more data are excluded or recovered [17]. The self-consistent data base obtained with this procedure contains 6713 experimental points and recovers 300 of initially discarded data with the usual 3σ EPJ Web of Conferences 04021-p.2 criterion [18].…”

Low energy peripheral scaling in nucleon–nucleon scattering and uncertainty quantification

“…The most recent analysis [11,12] accomplished a 3σ -selfconsistent selected pp+np database involving 6713 data and normalizations in the LAB energy range between 1 eV for np and 338 KeV for pp and a maximum of 350 MeV for both np and pp 1 . This has lead to the new 6 Granada potentials denoted as DS-OPE [11,12], DS-χTPE [13,14], SOG-OPE [15], SOG-χTPE, DS-∆BO and SOG-∆BO [16].…”