the structure , properties and reactions of nuclei and nuclear matter depend on the dynamics of the nucleons  @xcite .
this is the reason why the derivation of the nuclear forces is probably the most important problem of nuclear physics .
after the discovery of quantum chromodynamics ( qcd )  the fundamental theory of strong interactions  a solid theoretical understanding of the nuclear force should be grounded on qcd , either directly or indirectly .
lattice qcd represents the direct , computational derivation : the interaction of quarks and gluons is not analytically solvable at the distances that are characteristic for nuclear physics but it is numerically solvable at the expense of huge computational resources .
recent progress in this front is exciting  @xcite .
the indirect derivation requires to explain the nuclear interaction without explicitly solving qcd . yet
qcd must enter indirectly in the picture .
otherwise we will end up with a phenomenological description instead of a theoretical explanation .
physics as a science depends to a great extent on the existence of scale separation in nature .
one can describe the properties of atoms without explicit knowledge of the composite nature and internal structure of the nuclei within .
the nucleus is indeed much smaller than the atom containing it , i.e. there is an excellent separation of scales .
analogously , one can describe the dynamics of nucleons and pions without knowing the details of the strong interaction of the quarks and gluons inside them .
however the average distance of nucleons in a nucleus  about @xmath0  is not that different from the size of the nucleon or the wavelength of the quarks and gluons inside , maybe @xmath1 . without a clear separation of scales the development of satisfactory theoretical explanations to physical phenomena
becomes more difficult . as a consequence
the description of nuclei is less clear and more involved than that of atoms .
effective field theories ( efts ) are the standard theoretical tool to exploit the separation of scales of a physical system with the intention of building the most general description of it at low energies  @xcite .
if we call the low energy scale @xmath2 and the high energy scale @xmath3 , an eft provides a power expansion in terms of @xmath4 of all the physical quantities of a system . for
that one considers first all the possible interaction terms in the lagrangian that are compatible with the low energy symmetries of the system .
then one orders the infinite feynman diagrams obtained in the previous step according to their expected size .
the method by which we estimate the size of the diagrams is called power counting . while writing the diagrams is trivial , their power counting is not .
the connection of the eft to the fundamental theory at the scale @xmath3 is provided by renormalization , the core idea of eft . in its standard formulation renormalization deals with ultraviolet ( uv ) divergences in the feynman diagrams of the eft . to remove the divergences one includes an uv cut - off and allows the couplings in the lagrangian to depend on the cut - off .
if the calculation of the observable quantities of the eft is independent of the cut - off then the eft is renormalizable .
power counting is decided according to how we have to arrange calculations to remove the divergences at each order in the expansion .
wilsonian renormalization  @xcite provides an alternative but equivalent formulation . here
the starting point is the independence of observables with respect to the cut - off . in this case
it is the calculation of the couplings under the assumption of cut - off independence that leads to the size of these couplings at low energies and to their power counting  @xcite .
this is referred to as renormalization group : the focus is on the evolution of the couplings as the cut - off changes , not on the divergences . in wilsonian
renormalization the cut - off runs from the high to the low energy scale , from @xmath3 to @xmath2 .
this is counterintuitive from the standard point of view , where the cut - off runs from @xmath2 to @xmath3 with the purpose of finding out whether there are uv divergences .
yet they are equivalent .
the cut - off can either run to the ultraviolet or the infrared ( ir ) .
as far as the observables are independent of the cut - off we end up with identical power countings .
the starting point in wilsonian renormalization can be either an eft or the fundamental theory .
the advantage in the first case is that power counting can be determined without a complete order - by - order calculation of observables . in the second case
there is the possibility of evolving a fundamental theory from @xmath3 to @xmath2 , which amounts to uncovering the eft by means of a concrete calculation .
of course this is only possible in the few cases where the fundamental theory is known or easily solvable ( a nice example can be found in ref .  ) .
this manuscript is dedicated to wilsonian renormalization in nuclear eft  @xcite : even though it is less well - known than the standard idea of removing divergences , it can provide a clearer interpretation of power counting and the role of the cut - off in eft .    in nuclear physics
the eft usually contains nucleon and pion fields   that are constrained by chiral symmetry , a low energy symmetry of qcd that is exact in the limit of massless @xmath5 , @xmath6 and sometimes @xmath7 quarks .
the problem is that historically renormalization has been only well understood in the case of systems that are perturbative  @xcite .
this is the case in hadron physics for processes involving at most one baryon , where chiral perturbation theory ( chpt )  @xcite , the standard eft for low energy hadronic processes , is used .
but in nuclear physics the existence of the deuteron and the virtual state ( the @xmath8 singlet ) , not to mention the few thousand known nuclei , indicates that the nuclear force is non - perturbative .
besides there is the additional problem that eft entails nuclear forces that are strongly divergent at short distances .
thus it is not a surprise that progress in nuclear eft has been full of unexpected turns and controversies .
recently we have begun to have a solid grasp of the non - perturbative renormalization of the eft potentials  @xcite and how to organize the power counting in this situation  @xcite , but even these advances have been the subject of debate  @xcite .
here we will review power counting from the perspective of the renormalization group .
historically events have unfolded in a zig - zag pattern .
weinberg made the first proposal for a nuclear eft  @xcite , which includes the iteration of the eft potential ( at least at lowest order ) .
this serves to capture the non - perturbative character of nuclear interactions but in exchange requires non - perturbative renormalization .
as previously said , this has been the source of a few surprises .
kaplan , savage and wise ( ksw ) discovered a subtle but nonetheless serious inconsistency with the weinberg proposal  @xcite .
these authors also developed a new formulation of nuclear eft , the ksw counting  @xcite , which is free from that inconsistency .
however the convergence of the ksw counting in the triplet partial waves happened to be unsatisfying to say the least  @xcite .
the community turned back to the weinberg proposal in search for phenomenological success  @xcite .
but later nogga , timmermans and van kolck  @xcite discovered that the weinberg proposal contains a new , more conspicuous inconsistency at the lowest order : it is not renormalizable in some p- and d - waves  .
new developments about renormalizability followed  @xcite that made finally possible a consistent nuclear eft with good convergence properties  @xcite . despite these advancements ,
there is an ongoing debate about whether these problems are relevant and whether it would be simply more sensible to reinterpret renormalizability for non - perturbative problems in a different way  @xcite .
we will not discuss these new developments , except for a brief comment .
here we are mostly concerned about the derivation of eft power counting from a specific set of renormalization tools , which happen to be more than enough to make nuclear eft work at the theoretical level . from this perspective the previous ideas , though interesting , do not appear to be totally necessary .
this manuscript is organized as follows : in sect .
ii we introduce wilsonian renormalization for the particular case of non - relativistic scattering of two particles .
part of it is general and part of it is specific to nuclear physics .
we also discuss the relationship of power counting with the anomalous dimension of couplings and the relationship between wilsonian renormalization and the more standard approach of removing ultraviolet divergences . in sect .
iii we extend the results beyond the two - nucleon system , in particular to the deuteron electroweak reactions and to the three - body problem .
finally we summarize our conclusions .
we also include an appendix discussing the derivation of a particular equation in this manuscript .
here we illustrate how wilsonian renormalization works for non - relativistic s - wave scattering  @xcite .
the starting point is a `` fundamental theory '' . for a non - relativistic two - body system
the equivalent of a fundamental theory is the non - relativistic potential @xmath9 . to obtain the scattering amplitudes
we solve the schrdinger equation at finite momentum @xmath10 @xmath11 where @xmath12 is the reduced wave function , @xmath13 the reduced mass , @xmath10 the center of mass momentum and @xmath14 the underlying potential , which we assume to be known at all distances . as we are considering s - wave scattering
there is no centrifugal term .
we solve this equation with the regular boundary condition at the origin @xmath15 finally the phase shift can be extracted from the asymptotic wave function @xmath16    wilsonian renormalization works as follows . in a first step
we include a cut - off @xmath17 as a separation scale @xmath18 we will consider that the physics at distances shorter than the cut - off @xmath19 is unknown .
of course if we cut the potential for @xmath19 the physical observables will change .
we want to prevent this from happening . in a second step
we include a new piece in the potential that counteracts the loss of information from having a cut - off and keeps the observables unchanged .
this extra piece is the contact - range potential , which can take many parametrizations . for simplicity
we choose the following form for the contacts @xmath20 that is , an energy - dependent delta shell potential .
now we solve the schrdinger equation with the `` renormalized '' potential @xmath21 for distances below @xmath17 we have a free schrdinger equation @xmath22 with the regular solution @xmath23 for distances above @xmath17 we have the original schrdinger equation , i.e. eq .  ( [ eq : schro - fundamental ] ) .
finally at @xmath24 the delta - shell potential @xmath25 generates a discontinuity in the first derivative of the wave function that takes the form @xmath26 where @xmath27 refers to @xmath28 , with @xmath29
. a derivation can be found in [ app : delta ] .
this is the renormalization group equation ( rge ) for the contact - range coupling @xmath30 .
the rge we have written above is exact : the starting point is the full potential @xmath9 and we want to check what type of contact interaction we have to include to account for the existence of a cut - off radius @xmath17 . for @xmath31
we have the boundary condition @xmath32 : we know the potential at all distances and there is no need for the contact - range couplings .
as we increase the cut - off radius , we will need non - vanishing @xmath33 couplings to account for the missing physics .
the reason we are interested in wilsonian renormalization is because we want to know how physics looks like at large distances in general .
we want to describe phenomena at low energies regardless of which is the fundamental theory at high energies . with wilsonian renormalization
we can build a theory for distances larger than the cut - off ( @xmath34 ) that is equivalent to the fundamental theory for momenta @xmath35 . in this context
it is useful to define the soft and hard scales @xmath2 and @xmath3 .
the soft scale @xmath2 is the characteristic momentum of the low energy physics we want to describe , while the hard scale @xmath3 is the natural momentum scale of the fundamental theory . if we solve the rge for @xmath36 we will be able to derive the kind of generic low energy theory we are interested in .    to solve the rge and obtain the contact range couplings we simply have to make an ansatz for the wave function @xmath12 .
the simplest case is provided by a theory in which the underlying potential has a finite range set by the hard scale @xmath3 @xmath37 with this is mind we see that the wave functions for @xmath38 are given by @xmath39 where @xmath40 is the phase shift of the fundamental potential @xmath9 .
therefore the solution of the rge for @xmath41 is @xmath42 for finding the running of the individual @xmath33 couplings we expand the rge in powers of @xmath43 .
we first take into account that @xmath9 is a finite - range potential and the effective range expansion applies ( for @xmath44 ) @xmath45 where @xmath46 is the scattering length , @xmath47 the effective range and @xmath48 the shape coefficients .
now we expand and get the set of equations @xmath49 plus analogous equations for the higher order couplings . in the equations above @xmath50 and @xmath51
are polynomials of the cut - off @xmath17 and the effective range coefficients .
they are easy to calculate but they are not included here because their exact form is inconsequential for the analysis that follows .
the previous equations are generic solutions for an arbitrary finite range potential @xmath9 .
however the counting of the couplings @xmath33 as @xmath52 depends on which is the size of the effective range coefficients and in particular the scattering length . in general the size of the effective range coefficients
is known to scale according to the range of the potential ( therefore the name ) : @xmath53 the exception is the scattering length @xmath46 that can take any value , more so if there is non - perturbative physics .
thus we distinguish two possibilities : @xmath54 the first one is a scattering length of natural size and the second an unnaturally large scattering length , which is what happens for instance if there is a bound state near the threshold .
if the scattering length is of order @xmath55 we are entitled to expand in powers of @xmath56 because @xmath41 .
we obtain @xmath57 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] that is , @xmath58 scales as @xmath59 .
if we analyze now the subleading couplings @xmath33 , we find for @xmath60 @xmath61 + c_2^r(r_c ; a_0 ) \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] that is , @xmath62 scales as @xmath63 . in the equation above @xmath64
is a `` redundant '' piece of the coupling @xmath60 that does not contain information about a the effective range @xmath47 .
the function of @xmath64 is to absorb the cut - off dependence that the @xmath65 coupling generates at finite energy .
the @xmath64 piece of @xmath60 is inessential for power counting .
for @xmath66 we have @xmath67 + c_4^r(r_c ; a_0 , r_0 ) \
, , \end{aligned}\ ] ] which scales as @xmath68 and where @xmath69 is analogous to @xmath64 , only that it absorbs the residual cut - off dependence of @xmath65 and @xmath60 . for the higher order couplings we have @xmath70 .
the other possibility is that the scattering length is large : @xmath71 .
now the cut - off and the scattering length can have the same size and we are not allowed to expand in powers of @xmath56 . if we solve the rge for @xmath65 we obtain @xmath72 which means @xmath73 , an enhancement of one power of @xmath74 . for the @xmath62 coupling
we get @xmath75 which entails @xmath76 , an enhancement of two powers of @xmath74 . for the @xmath77 coupling
we find @xmath78 and in general for the @xmath30 we have @xmath79 which implies a @xmath80 enhancement over the natural case .
the first implementation of this type of rg analysis of the couplings in nuclear eft is due to birse , mcgovern and richardson  @xcite , who formulated the rges in momentum space . instead of imposing the invariance of the phase shifts with respect to the regulator
, their analysis requires the invariance of the full off - shell t - matrix . for contact - range interactions both conditions
are equivalent : on - shell renormalization implies off - shell renormalization .
probably this is the case too for finite - range potentials ( it has been proved for potentials that have power - law divergences near the origin  @xcite ) .
the analysis of the rges in momentum space is pretty convoluted though .
the analysis of the coordinate space rges of ref .   is simpler as it only depends on the schrdinger equation and its solutions .
it connects the rges with the cut - off dependence of the observables after an arbitrary number of contact - range operators are included .
but at the same time it neglects how the rges relate to the power counting of the couplings .
the purpose of this section has been to close this gap and to translate the rg analysis of ref .   from momentum to coordinate space , attempting to make its interpretation clearer in the way .
the question we wanted to answer is : what kind of low energy theory does one derive from the rges ?
the answer involves two ingredients .
the first is a non - relativistic potential for the low energy theory , the effective potential : @xmath81 that is , the contact - range potential that compensates the cut - off dependence .
the fundamental potential @xmath9 does not enter into the effective potential for the simple reason that it vanishes at large distances ( @xmath38 ) .
the second ingredient is the size of the couplings , that we have already calculated from the rges . as a consequence of the scaling properties of the couplings we can write the effective potential as a power series in @xmath4 .
let us consider the example of a theory with a natural scattering length , for which we have @xmath82 if we take into account the typical factors of @xmath83 and the reduced mass that are common in non - relativistic scattering , the previous scaling allows to rewrite the @xmath30 couplings as @xmath84 where @xmath85 is a number of @xmath86 .
now we plug this expression into the effective potential .
we arrive to @xmath87 that is , a power series in @xmath4 . for large scattering length
we have instead @xmath88 with @xmath89 and @xmath90 for @xmath91 . in this case
the expansion of the potential reads @xmath92 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] independently of the power counting of the couplings we end up with a series that converges for @xmath93 .
this idea of arranging the effective potential as a power series extends to every physical quantity we can think of .
it is a fundamental concept in eft , the reason why calculations are systematic .
we can predict observable quantities up to a given degree of accuracy , that is , up to a given power of the expansion parameter @xmath94 .
the calculations are organized as to only include the operators that contribute within the accuracy goals we have set up in the first place .
we can illustrate this concept with the phase shift . in perturbation theory the phase shift is expanded as @xmath95 \
, , \end{aligned}\ ] ] i.e. the born approximation followed by second and higher order perturbation theory .
that is , we have written a coordinate space version of the lippmann - schwinger equation . in the expression above @xmath96 is a green function , which we can take to be @xmath97 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] if the scattering length is natural , the size of the born and second order term are @xmath98 \ , , \\
\frac{2 \mu}{k}\,\langle v g_0 v \rangle & = & { \left(\frac{q}{m } \right)}^2\,f_2(k r_c)\ , { \left [ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty } c_{2n}(r_c)\ , { \left ( \frac{q}{m } \right)}^{2n } \right]}^2 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath99 , @xmath100 is simply a compact notation for the first and second order of the perturbative series and @xmath101 , @xmath102 are functions that encode the cut - off dependence .
if we continue we will find that for higher order perturbations we have @xmath103}^r \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath104 refers to the number of insertions of the potential @xmath9 .
the eft expansion for the phase shift starts at @xmath4  leading order ( lo ) from now on  and second order perturbation theory carries an additional factor of @xmath4 over the born approximation .
analogously each additional iteration of the potential involves an extra power of @xmath4 .
putting all the pieces together , the @xmath105 calculation only contains @xmath65 at tree level , the next - to - leading order ( @xmath106 ) calculation requires to include two iterations of @xmath65 , the next - to - next - to - leading order ( @xmath107 ) calculation contains @xmath60 at tree level and three iterations of @xmath65 .
higher orders calculations are set up in a similar fashion .    for the large scattering length case the evaluation of the perturbative series for the tangent of the phase shift leads to @xmath108 \
, , \\ \frac{2 \mu}{k}\,\langle v g_0 v \rangle & = & f_2'(k r_c)\ , { \left [ c_0(r_c ) + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty } c_{2n}(r_c)\ , { \left ( \frac{q}{m } \right)}^{2n } \right]}^2 \ , , \\
\frac{2 \mu}{k}\,\underbrace{\langle v g_0 \dots g_0 v \rangle}_{\mbox{$r$ iterations of $ v$ } }   & = & f_r'(k r_c)\ , { \left [ c_0(r_c ) +   \sum_{n=1}^{\infty } c_{2n}(r_c)\ , { \left ( \frac{q}{m } \right)}^{2n } \right]}^r \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] now the eft expansion of the phase shift begins at order @xmath109 , which is the @xmath105 for this power counting ( i.e. the @xmath105 is defined differently for each scaling of the couplings ) . it is also apparent that the @xmath105 calculation contains all the iterations of the @xmath65 coupling .
that is , @xmath65 is non - perturbative at @xmath105 .
however all the other couplings are perturbative : @xmath60 enters at tree level at @xmath106 , @xmath77 at @xmath110 and @xmath30 at @xmath111 . a systematic exposition of the diagrams involved in the calculation of the amplitudes ( for natural and unnatural scattering length ) can be found in ref .  .
the previous analysis can be extended to the possibility that the potential can be separated into a short and long range piece @xmath112 the range of @xmath113 scales as @xmath3 , while the range of @xmath114 as @xmath2 . to determine the effect of a long range potential on the power counting we follow the previous steps :
introduce a cut - off and include a contact - range potential to keep physics unchanged .
the couplings @xmath30 of the contact - range potential can be calculated from the rge , i.e. eq .
( [ eq : rge ] ) . for @xmath41
the short - range potential vanishes and the wave functions that enter into the rge are solutions of @xmath115 with the boundary conditions @xmath116 with @xmath40 the phase shift of the full potential @xmath117 .
we are interested in the wave functions in the distance range @xmath118 .
the condition @xmath38 is necessary if we use a wave function that is a solution of the long range potential @xmath114 . a soft cut - off  let s say @xmath119
 is perfectly acceptable .
but a excessively soft cut - off of the order of @xmath120 is not : for this choice of the cut - off the long range potential @xmath114 vanishes and we end up with the power counting of a pure short range potential .
everything that is left is to calculate the wave functions for the long range potential . in general the form of the solution of the wave function
will take the form @xmath121 where @xmath122 and @xmath123 are two linearly independent solutions of @xmath114 and @xmath124 a coefficient that selects the particular linear combination .
if we expand the solutions in powers of @xmath43 @xmath125 and the coefficient @xmath124 as @xmath126 we end up with the following expressions for the running of the @xmath30 couplings @xmath127 plus analogous expressions for the higher order couplings , where the wave functions and their derivatives are understood to be evaluated at @xmath24 . in the expression above
, @xmath128 is a polynomial of @xmath129 and @xmath130 , @xmath131 and its derivatives that encodes the residual cut - off dependence .
a few general comments might be of help at this point .
first : the coefficient @xmath124 can be thought of as the analogous of the ere in the presence of a long range potential .
what this means is that the set of coefficients @xmath132 , @xmath133 , etc .
, will scale according to inverse powers of @xmath3 .
the exception is @xmath129 , which could take any value if @xmath113 is non - perturbative .
second : if the long range potential is perturbative , the wave functions will coincide with the free wave functions at tree level in perturbation theory .
the couplings will also accept a perturbative expansion , but at tree level will coincide with the couplings of the short - range case .
thus the power counting does not change if the long range potential is perturbative .    in nuclear physics
the longest range piece of the interaction is the one pion exchange ( ope ) potential .
this potential can be written as @xmath134 \
, \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot \vec{\tau}_2 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath135 and @xmath136 are the spin and isospin operators acting on the nucleon 1(2 ) , @xmath137 is the pion mass , @xmath138 the nucleon mass and @xmath139 is a mass scale that characterizes the strength of the ope potential ( its value is of the order of @xmath140 ) .
the tensor operator is defined as @xmath141 , while @xmath142 and @xmath143 refer to the spin - spin and tensor components of the potential @xmath144 we will ignore the complications coming from the tensor operator and will concentrate on the fundamentals : ( i ) @xmath145 vanishes in the singlet and ( ii ) @xmath142 and @xmath143 behave as a @xmath146 and a @xmath147 potential respectively .    before analyzing the power counting with ope it will be helpful to comment on the role of @xmath139 .
notice that we have written the ope potential as @xmath148 where @xmath149 is a polynomial that contains a @xmath150 , @xmath151 and @xmath147 term , where all the terms have three powers of @xmath152 .
the analogy with the contact - range potential is clear , more so if we write @xmath25 as @xmath153 where we can appreciate that the @xmath154 factor in @xmath155 plays the same role as the @xmath65 coupling in @xmath156 .
that is , if we count @xmath139 as @xmath3 the ope potential will be perturbative  @xcite . on the contrary if we count @xmath139 as @xmath2 the ope potential will be non - perturbative  @xcite .
we are interested in the later case : as we have already pointed out , if ope is perturbative the counting is the same as that of a pure short - range potential .
the bottom line is that non - perturbative ope goes along with the assumption that @xmath139 is a light scale .
the idea that non - perturbative ope requires the existence of an additional light scale ( besides the obvious choices such as the external momenta , the pion mass or the inverse of the scattering length ) was probably _ explicitly _ realized in ref .
for the first time . in ref .
one can see how to include this scale in the rg equations and what kind of consequence it has for the power counting .
the @xmath146 potential , which corresponds to the ope potential in the @xmath8 singlet , is the easiest to analyze .
here we are not going to enter into the specific details of how to do the detailed analysis .
we merely comment that the power counting is unchanged with respect to the case where there is no long range potential  @xcite .
that is , there are two possible arrangements of the power counting : a natural one , in which the couplings scale as @xmath70 and an unnatural one , in which the couplings scale as @xmath157 and @xmath158 .
the reason for that is that the @xmath146 potential is not strong enough as to modify the behaviour of the wave functions in the distance window @xmath159 .
even if the strength of the potential is such as to generate a low lying bound state , the wave functions are only substantially modified for @xmath160 . however this cut - off range is not of interest for power counting because we are already making the assumption that @xmath161 .    for the @xmath162 triplet the potential behaves as an attractive @xmath147 for @xmath163 , which induces important changes in the scaling of the couplings
triplet is a coupled channel and the ope is a matrix : the tensor operator contains an attractive and repulsive eigenvalue , and the attractive one happens to have a bigger impact on power counting . ] .
the first thing to notice is that there is not anymore a natural and unnatural power counting .
the solutions of the wave function are all equally fine - tuned : there is not a more natural or preferred solution ( see ref .
for a different conclusion though ) .
the reason is that the attractive @xmath147 potential has no unique solution in quantum mechanics : the choice of the solution inherently depends on the existence of short range physics , which is the only responsible for fixing the wave function .
every linear combination of independent wave functions is equally acceptable . for @xmath163
the wave function can be written as  @xcite @xmath164 \ , , \label{eq : uk_lo}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath165 is a dimensionless number and @xmath166 is a phase  the semiclassical phase  that characterizes the particular solution we are dealing with .
the value of @xmath166 depends on the short - range physics .
the changes in the counting are the following : @xmath167 this result requires a careful examination of the scaling properties of @xmath166 , which are not trivial ( the derivation is not contained here but will be included in a future publication ) . as a matter of fact the counting with an attractive tensor force
is more similar to nda than to that of a short range potential with large scattering length .    for a repulsive singular potential
the analysis is analogous with the exception of a few details .
the wave function is @xmath168 \nonumber \\ & \times & \left [ 1 + \mathcal{o}(\sqrt{\lambda_{\rm nn } r } , \,k^2 r^2\ , , m r ) \right ] \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath169 a coefficient that depends on the short - range physics .
it is expected to be small and as happened with @xmath170 its scaling properties are important in the detailed analysis , yet they are not trivial .
the scaling of the coupling now is @xmath171 that is , the only difference with the attractive case is the scaling of the @xmath65 coupling .
however the previous scaling properties are difficult to interpret .
it is sensible to expect that the importance of short - range physics within eft depends on the long - range dynamics .
the attractive @xmath147 potential complies with this expectation : as a consequence of the strong attraction the wave function is enhanced at short distances , which in turn enhances the short - range couplings . for the repulsive @xmath147 potential
we expect the contrary to happen , that the size of the @xmath30 couplings diminishes .
what happens is precisely the contrary , which is puzzling to say the least .    with this
we have finished the discussion of power counting for the moment .
the types of power counting and the physical situations to which they correspond are summarized in table  [ tab : counting ] .
of course they are not the only types of power counting that can be built , but they are for sure the most relevant ones for nuclear eft .
now i will try to show how to rederive these counting rules with other methods .
in particular i will consider the calculation of anomalous dimensions , ultraviolet renormalizability and residual cut - off dependence .
summary of the power counting for s - wave two - body scattering .
the table indicates when the coupling enters as a power of @xmath2 ( and the relative order in parenthesis ) . in the text we have considered the case of a pionless and a pionful eft . for pionless
the scaling of the couplings depends on the size of the scattering length . for pionful
the scaling is identical to the pionless case if either one of these conditions is met : ( i ) pion exchanges are perturbative ( ii ) pion exchanges are non - perturbative but there is only the central piece .
if the tensor piece is non - perturbative the scaling of the couplings will be modified with respect to the previous cases .
we show this in the table by indicating whether the long - range potential is zero ( @xmath172 ) , perturbative ( @xmath173 ) or non - perturbative ( @xmath174 ) and then the type of long - range potential ( @xmath146 or @xmath147 ) .
finally in the last row we indicate the size of a perturbation of @xmath65 , which determines whether the power counting is infrared stable or unstable ( see discussion around eq .
[ eq : dc0 ] )    [ tab : counting ]      there is a very interesting simplification in the above calculations : it is enough to take into account the cutoff dependence of @xmath30 to guess its scaling  @xcite .
more specifically we refer to the cut - off dependence for @xmath175 ( @xmath176 ) , a condition that will remarkably simplify the discussion below . if we consider a two - body system with natural scattering length the cut - off dependence of the @xmath30 couplings is trivial @xmath177 \ , , \\
c_{2n}(r_c ) & = & \frac{2\pi}{\mu}\,a_0 ^ 2\,v_n \,\times\ ,   \left[1 + \mathcal{o}(\frac{r_c}{a_0 } ) \right ] \ , , \quad \mbox{for $ n \geq 1$,}\end{aligned}\ ] ] while for a system with a large scattering length we have @xmath178 \ , , \\
c_{2n}(r_c ) & = & \frac{2\pi}{\mu}\,r_c^2\,v_n \ , \times \ , \left [ 1 + \mathcal{o}(\frac{r_c}{a_0 } ) \right ] \quad \mbox{for $ n \geq 1$,}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where to simplify the notation we have taken @xmath179 . that is
, the power - law dependence on the cut - off matches the enhancement of the coupling .
the rule is simple : if @xmath180 for @xmath181 the size of @xmath30 for @xmath52 is @xmath182 , a @xmath183 enhancement .
equivalently , in momentum space , if @xmath184 for @xmath185 the size of @xmath30 for @xmath186 is @xmath182 .
why is that so ? actually the idea can be better explained with a momentum space cut - off .
if the couplings scale as @xmath187 with respect to the radial cut - off @xmath17 , in momentum space they will scale as   or @xmath188 . ]
@xmath189 which simply amounts to take into account that @xmath190 .
this scaling property implies that the couplings follow a rge of the type @xmath191 = 0 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the dots refer to corrections involving smaller powers of @xmath188 . for the moment
we will assume that this rge is valid in the cut - off window @xmath192 .
if we ignore the dots the solution is straightforward @xmath193 with @xmath194 and @xmath195 two arbitrary cut - offs . therefore with a boundary condition we can get the running of the couplings for arbitrary @xmath188
this boundary condition is the value of the couplings at @xmath196 . at this scale
we expect the couplings to scale with @xmath3 ( we do not expect @xmath2 to play a role at high energies , which means that @xmath3 is the only relevant scale ) , which implies @xmath197 as a consequence @xmath198 which is the expected enhancement for @xmath30 . in short ,
the scaling of the coupling decides the power counting .
this idea is not new and has appeared in different contexts . in the ksw counting  @xcite the hard scale can be deduced from the running of the @xmath199 coupling : the scaling of @xmath199 changes when @xmath188 approaches @xmath139 , which happens to be the hard scale in ksw   instead of @xmath188 .
it is also worth noticing that ksw does not use a cut - off regularization , but a variant of dimensional regularization . ] .
recently it has been applied in nuclear eft for the analysis of reactions on the deuteron  @xcite .
there is the issue of where the rge of the @xmath30 couplings comes from , which is related to the calculation of the power @xmath200 that appears in it .
the starting point in wilsonian renormalization is to include a cut - off and then require observable quantities to be independent of the cut - off @xmath201 where @xmath202 is the wave function and @xmath203 an operator corresponding to an observable .
notice that here we are demanding the matrix element to be independent of the cut - off .
actually this condition is too strong  observables are the square modulus of matrix elements  but in most situations it will work  .
if we are in the cut - off window @xmath192 we can substitute the wave function and the operator by the corresponding ones in the eft @xmath204 moreover the operator @xmath205 can be divided into a contact- and finite - range piece @xmath206 now we can rewrite @xmath207 which tell us that the contact - range piece has two functions : to absorb the cut - off dependence of the finite - range piece and to directly contribute to the matrix element . had we used the full wave function @xmath202 and the full operator @xmath203 instead of the eft ones , the contact would have only been there to absorb the cut - off dependence ( the contacts vanish for @xmath208 ) .
but within the eft description the contacts must have a non - trivial contribution to the observables regardless of the cut - off .
the reason is that the finite - range piece of the eft potential / wave function / operator does not correspond to the fundamental potential / wave function / operator .
the bottom line is that for the contact - range operators we can distinguish between a piece that directly contributes to observables and a piece that absorbs cut - off dependence @xmath209 where the superscript @xmath210 and @xmath211 stand for `` direct '' and `` residual '' .
this distinction is analogous to the one that we made previously for the running of the @xmath30 in short - range theories .
each of these pieces follows a different rge @xmath212 corresponding to their different roles within eft .
notice that we are assuming that the distinction between @xmath213 and @xmath214 exists .
this is not clear ( if we want the definitions to be unambiguous ) , but we are only using this distinction to simplify the arguments here .
we can write a contact - range operator @xmath215 as a coupling times a polynomial involving the light scales in momentum space @xmath216 where @xmath217 is the coupling and @xmath218 is the polynomial , which can be regularized ( hence the subscript @xmath188 ) .
if we include this general form in the rge for the `` direct '' piece we arrive to @xmath219 & = & 0 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] what is left is to determine the cut - off dependence of the matrix element of the polynomial , which in general will take the form @xmath220 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the form of the corrections follow from the assumption that the rge are valid in the region @xmath221 , that is , from the analyticity of the rge which in turn implies that we can write a power series on @xmath222 and @xmath223 .
the previous discussion is rather general and concerns any observable that receives a direct , linear contribution from a contact - range operator . in the case of two - body scattering the matrix element
we are interested in is the t - matrix @xmath224 which is not receiving a linear contribution from the contact - range physics , at least at first sight .
the t - matrix is the solution of the lippmann - schwinger equation @xmath225 which is a convenient way of rewriting the schrdinger equation for a scattering problem . in eft
we can expand the t - matrix and the potential as power series @xmath226 or more concisely as @xmath227 that is , a lo contribution plus a subleading correction .
the interesting thing here is that the subleading correction to the t - matrix is perturbative and is given by @xmath228 \\ & = & \langle \psi_{\rm lo } | \delta\,v_{\rm eft } | \psi_{\rm lo } \rangle + \mathcal{o}\left [ { \left(\delta\,v_{\rm eft}\right)}^2 \right ] \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where in the second line @xmath229 is the lo wave function ( @xmath230 ) . if we ignore the iteration of @xmath231 , make the separations @xmath232 and follow the steps previously described , we end up with the rge @xmath233    the solution of this rge depends on the evaluation of the matrix element of the contact - range potential .
the details depend on the particular representation for the contacts . for a delta - shell representation in coordinate space @xmath234
the evaluation is trivial @xmath235 with @xmath12 the @xmath236 reduced wave function .
we can concentrate on the evaluation of a particular coupling @xmath30 , in which case we obtain @xmath237 where @xmath238 is the zero - energy @xmath236 reduced wave function .
the rge for the coupling @xmath30 reads @xmath239 = 0 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] which means that the running is determined by the power - law dependence of the wave function for @xmath240 .    in a purely short - range theory
the running of the @xmath30 couplings is easy to compute .
the zero - energy wave function is @xmath241 where @xmath242 is a normalization factor that is arbitrary ( it does not affect the running of @xmath30 ) .
we remind the reader that we are interested in the region @xmath243 . if the scattering length is natural ( @xmath244 )
, we can take @xmath245 and rewrite the wave function as @xmath246 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] therefore the rge for the couplings is @xmath247 = 0 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] as a consequence @xmath248 , in agreement with the previous determination .
if the scattering length is large ( @xmath71 ) , we set the normalization to @xmath249 to express the wave function as @xmath250 which leads to the rge @xmath251 = 0 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] that is , the couplings scale as @xmath252 .
there is a point of explain here : the counting of @xmath65 can not always be determined with this method .
the reason is that we are calculating the scaling of the perturbative piece of the potential . if @xmath65 is perturbative in the first place we will obtain the correct scaling
this is the case in a short - range theory with natural scattering length , where we get @xmath253 . on the contrary
if @xmath65 is non - perturbative the ideas presented here do not apply .
we know that @xmath65 is enhanced by @xmath254 if the scattering length is large .
yet the application of this method to @xmath65 is not useless : it gives us information about the scaling of a small , perturbative change of @xmath65 @xmath255 where @xmath256 is enhanced as @xmath80 .
that is , the perturbation @xmath256 is of lower order than the original unperturbed coupling @xmath65 .
how is that so ?
the meaning of this enhancement for @xmath257 is that systems with large scattering lengths are fine - tuned  @xcite .
a minor change in @xmath65 generates a large change in the scattering length .
in particular @xmath258 which entails @xmath259 . from the rg flow perspective the natural solution represents a stable fixed point of the rg equations and the large scattering length solution an unstable fixed point  @xcite .
that is , the running of the @xmath65 coupling eventually behaves as a constant as @xmath260 .
but if the scattering length is large @xmath65 will scale as @xmath261 only as far as @xmath262 .
the scaling of @xmath256 for the different cases that we are considering can be consulted in table [ tab : counting ] .
the extension to the pionful eft is trivial but requires a case - by - case discussion .
if pion exchanges are perturbative ( i.e. subleading ) , the power counting is exactly the same as in the short - range case .
the reason is that the @xmath105 wave functions are identical to the short - range case .
if pion exchanges are non - perturbative ( i.e. leading ) , the power counting depends on whether the potential is @xmath146 ( central ) or @xmath147 ( tensor ) . for central ope
the power counting is again as for a short - range potential because the wave functions behave either as @xmath263 or as @xmath104 for @xmath240 .
however for attractive tensor ope the power counting changes . using the wave function written in eq .
[ eq : uk_lo ] we find @xmath264 } + \dots \right ] = 0 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the dots account for power - law corrections , which are at least of order @xmath265 ( @xmath266 ) .
it is worth noting that the corrections to the wave function were computed in ref .   for the @xmath267 triplet .
it can be checked that they do not affect the counting .
the conclusion is that the @xmath30 are bigger than expected by a factor of @xmath268 .
the title of this section makes mention of the _ anomalous dimension_. what is that ?
the concept is easy to understand .
let us assume that we have a physical quantity ( operator , coupling , observable ) @xmath269 where @xmath270 depends on the light scale @xmath2 , on the cut - off @xmath188 and the hard scale @xmath3 .
we can define several types of dimensions for @xmath270 .
the most obvious one is the canonical dimension @xmath6 , which can be related to the rescaling @xmath271 that is , the canonical dimension refers to how @xmath270 changes with a change of physical units .
another type of dimension we can define is the power counting dimension , which refers to a rescaling of @xmath2 ( and @xmath272 only @xmath273 it is important to notice that while the canonical dimension of a physical quantity is unique , the power counting dimension is not .
rather a physical quantity is a superposition of contributions with different power counting dimensions @xmath274 the inclusion of @xmath188 among the things we rescale for the power counting dimension seems counter - intuitive at first , but it is natural once we consider the argument about the rg evolution of cut - off dependent quantities from @xmath196 to @xmath275 .
finally the anomalous dimension can be defined as @xmath276 which is exactly the kind of power - law dependence on the cut - off that we have been studying along this section .
thus we can restate that the anomalous dimension of a coupling is what determines its power counting .
wilsonian renormalization is not the most popular or widely understood method of analyzing power counting in efts .
this honor corresponds to ultraviolet ( uv ) renormalizability , in which contact - range couplings are included to absorb divergences in feynman diagrams .
quantum electrodynamics ( qed ) provides a good illustration of this idea for a quantum field theory ( qft ) that only contains marginal or relevant operators   for @xmath277 , while for a marginal operator the coupling runs either as a constant , as @xmath278 or more generally as something that is not power - law .
] , i.e. what is traditionally known as a _ renormalizable _ qft . at this point
it is important to mention that nowadays  after the discovery of efts  renormalizability is understood in a broader sense . yet for efts the application of this principle is simple : we begin by considering the matrix element of an eft operator between eft wave functions @xmath279 the operator contains a finite- and a contact - range piece . for the moment we will ignore the contact - range piece because we want to use these operators to remove divergences in the finite - range piece .
thus we consider @xmath280 now we expand this matrix element in powers of @xmath94 as before . to simplify the analysis we only take into account the @xmath105 wave functions @xmath281-th order contribution , include a cut - off @xmath188 and check whether the matrix element @xmath282 is finite for @xmath208 .
if not , we include contact - range contributions until the matrix element @xmath283 , the contact is counted as being of this order .
we can illustrate the idea in non - relativistic scattering , where the relevant matrix element is @xmath284 where @xmath285 represents the @xmath105 reduced wave function and @xmath17 ( @xmath286 ) is the radial cut - off . in the formula above a contribution to the finite - range potential
is said to be of order @xmath287 when it contains @xmath287 powers of the light scales in the momentum space representation @xmath288 where @xmath2 includes @xmath289 , @xmath290 , the pion mass @xmath137 in pionful nuclear eft and/or other scales depending on the particular eft we are dealing with .
the expression @xmath291 refers to an arbitrary ratio of light scales ( for instance , @xmath292 and @xmath293 in nuclear eft ) and @xmath294 is a non - polynomial function that we must compute from the eft lagrangian , but which exact form is not important at this point . if we fourier - transform this expression into coordinate space ( and assume for simplicity that the potential is local ) , we find @xmath295 where @xmath291 refers to @xmath296 in nuclear physics .
the point is that we know the uv behaviour of the eft potential .
provided we have the @xmath105 wave functions we can analyze the matrix element @xmath297 for divergences and decide which contacts to include .
the complete analysis can be found in refs .  .
here we merely comment on the results .
if the @xmath105 wave function comes from the @xmath146 potential , perturbative and wilsonian renormalization lead to identical power countings .
this is also true if the @xmath105 wave function comes from a purely contact - range potential . on the contrary
if the @xmath105 potential is of the @xmath147 type and attractive there is a small , yet significant difference between perturbative and wilsonian renormalization . removing the divergences only requires the @xmath30 to enter at order @xmath298 , in contrast with @xmath299 from rge .
the apparent scaling of the couplings is thus @xmath300 , i.e. an extra suppression of @xmath301 with respect to the wilsonian renormalization value @xmath302 .
if the @xmath105 @xmath147 potential is repulsive the matrix elements for scattering are always finite and no contact interaction is required .
however we will not discuss this problem here .
back to the attractive @xmath147 potential the reason for the mismatch probably has to do with the @xmath43 expansion of the @xmath105 wave function , which induces a contamination of @xmath303 into the @xmath30 coupling .
in fact the @xmath43 expansion of the @xmath105 wave function reads @xmath304\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath165 , @xmath129 , @xmath132 , @xmath133 , etc .
numerical coefficients and where @xmath170 now is independent of energy   wave functions for the rg equations we included an energy - dependent semiclassical phase ( see eq .
[ eq : uk_lo ] ) , instead of an energy - independent one like here .
the reason is that here we are writing the @xmath105 wave functions , in which only the energy - independent @xmath65 operator contributes , while there we were writing the generic solution of the @xmath147 potential with arbitrary short - range physics . ] .
we can see that each two powers of @xmath10 imply half a power of @xmath139 as a consequence the couplings that make the matrix element of the potential finite are not the standard @xmath30 s but implicitly contain @xmath305 half integer powers of @xmath139 .
that is , they have a different operator structure : @xmath306 instead of @xmath307 . in the same way that it is useful to make the distinction @xmath308 we can also write @xmath309 to make the different structure of these couplings explicit . in this notation the @xmath310 s happen to be enhanced by @xmath311 , just as the @xmath30 s .
however the drawback of this explanation is that unlike the @xmath312 coupling , the proposed @xmath310 couplings do not have a clear interpretation at the lagrangian level .
the analysis of the residual cut - off dependence of the matrix elements is another method for determining the power counting  @xcite .
first we will review the theoretical basis for this idea : for that we consider a matrix element for which all uv divergences have been removed at the arbitrary order @xmath13 .
the matrix element still contains a residual cut - off dependence that vanishes for @xmath313 : @xmath314 where @xmath315 refers to the contact - range potential that renormalizes the order @xmath13 calculation , while @xmath316 and @xmath317 are coefficients .
the point is that the residual cut - off dependence indicates that the next new higher - order coupling of the contact - range potential enters at order @xmath318 .
what is the reason for that ?
let us assume that the next divergence indeed enters at order @xmath318 .
the softest divergence that we are expected to find in the matrix elements of the potential is logarithmic , thus @xmath319 where the previous matrix element is the one for the finite - range potential at order @xmath318 plus the number of contact - range couplings that is expected at order @xmath13 .
notice that the value of these couplings change order - by - order , but their number only changes at the order at which a new @xmath30 coupling is included : we have written @xmath320 with a prime to indicate this fact . as the divergence of the finite - range potential is @xmath321 ,
it is not difficult to infer that going one order down translates into a residual cut - off dependence of @xmath17 while going one order up gives rise to a @xmath322 divergence .
equivalently , if we move @xmath323 orders down the expansion the residual cut - off dependence will be @xmath324 , from which the previous conclusion about power counting follows .    after this
an example might be the best way to illustrate the method .
the easiest one is that of a contact - range theory with a large scattering length .
if we solve @xmath325 at @xmath105 for the delta - shell short - range potential that we have been using , we obtain the result @xmath326\ , k^2 +   \mathcal{o}(k^4 ) \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the residual cut - off dependence if of order @xmath17 .
the conclusion is that the next counterterm is one order below @xmath65 .
that is , @xmath60 enter at @xmath327 .
if we now proceed to compute @xmath325 at @xmath106 we find   calculation includes @xmath60 at first order perturbation theory .
otherwise the residual cut - off dependence will be different . ]
@xmath328\ , k^4 + \mathcal{o}(k^6 ) \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] the residual cut - off dependence is now of order @xmath261 : @xmath77 enters two orders below @xmath60 , that is @xmath110 . strictly speaking residual cut - off dependence
is a constructive process and we can use it to determine the location of only the next coupling that enters in the theory , but not more . if we want to find the order of @xmath329 we must first compute the @xmath110 amplitudes that contain @xmath77 and from this extract the residual cut - off dependence .
alternatively , we can always rely on the natural expectation that @xmath329 should enter two orders below @xmath77 .
finally it is interesting to check the predictions of this idea for the tensor force . on general grounds we expect the cut - off dependence of a @xmath236 calculation of the phase shift with attractive tensor ope to be  @xcite
@xmath330 which after integration leads to a residual dependence of @xmath331 .
this indicates that @xmath60 enters at @xmath332 in agreement with the previous determinations .
the central point of this section has been to review how we can derive power counting in wilsonian renormalization .
the application of renormalization group analysis ( rga ) to nuclear eft , though sometimes considered a bit arcane , can lead to interesting insights .
to illustrate the idea we have taken non - relativistic s - wave scattering as an example and shown in detail how to derive well - known facts about power counting in the two - body sector that we review in table [ tab : counting ] .
we have used two equivalent rg formulations .
the first is the standard one in which the starting point is a `` fundamental theory '' : we include a cut - off in the theory and then evolve it from the ultraviolet to the infrared . as a result
we find a physical theory  the eft  that is equivalent to the fundamental theory at low energies .
the eft incorporates the familiar counting rules that we already know , for instance the enhancement of the couplings when the scattering length is large .
the second is a more streamlined formulation in which we do not directly evolve the eft from the fundamental theory and instead use a convenient shortcut to determine the size of the effective couplings .
this shortcut is the calculation of the anomalous dimension of the couplings , which turns out to be relatively easy , at least in the two - body case .
as we will see , this is also the case for reactions of external probes on two - body states and for the three - body problem in pionless .
other important point is the relationship between rga and more standard techniques of determining the power counting . by more standard techniques we refer to ultraviolet renormalization and residual cut - off dependence . in principle
we expect all derivations to be equivalent . in practice
this equivalence has to be shown by means of concrete calculations .
the results indicate the direct equivalence with rge in the absence of singular pion exchanges , i.e. in the absence of the tensor force .
if the tensor force is present there is an apparent contradiction though : the @xmath30 couplings seem to be more demoted in ultraviolet renormalization than in rga or in residual cut - off dependence .
this disagreement can be explained as a contamination of the @xmath30 couplings with the @xmath139 scale . in other words , what we call @xmath30 in ultraviolet renormalization
is not really the @xmath30 coupling , but rather a coupling with the structure @xmath333 instead of the expected @xmath334 .
this distinction is in fact analogous to the one that is usually made between @xmath65 and @xmath335 .
there are a few open problems that we have not addressed though .
the most obvious example is the power counting of the triplet channels where the ope potential is a repulsive @xmath147 .
the rg evolution of the couplings indicates that , with the exception of @xmath65 , the scaling of the couplings is identical to that of the attractive @xmath147 potential .
this conclusion agrees with a previous rga of the ope potential  @xcite , but it is counterintuitive to say the least . if the long - range physics is repulsive we expect that the short - range physics will play a lesser role at low energies because the repulsive long - range physics acts as a potential barrier .
that is why some authors prefer to use naive dimensional analysis in this case  @xcite .
other problem that is related to the previous one is what happens with coupled channels such as the @xmath267 deuteron channel . in this latter case
three different countings have been proposed  @xcite .    even in the attractive triplet channels
there are two proposals about the scaling of the @xmath65 coupling : does it enter at @xmath236 ( @xmath336 ) or at @xmath337 ( @xmath338 ) ?
the rga of birse  @xcite assumes that @xmath65 is @xmath337 in the attractive triplet channels .
but here we have taken the view that @xmath65 is @xmath236 : it has to be there because the @xmath236 wave function of a non - perturbative attractive triplet is not well defined without the inclusion of short - range physics .
we find it worth noticing that the perturbation @xmath256 of this coupling is @xmath337(@xmath338 ) , which is where @xmath65 is predicted to be by birse s rga  @xcite .
that is , the cause of the disagreement seems to be that ref .
overlooks the presence of short - range physics in the @xmath236 wave functions : the @xmath65 coupling is implicit in the choice of a semiclassical phase , i.e. the choice of @xmath170 in eq .
( [ eq : uk_lo ] ) .
one last problem is the scaling of the @xmath30 couplings in the @xmath8 singlet .
the standard counting  @xcite is that the piece of @xmath30 that carries physical information enters at @xmath339 : @xmath60 at @xmath327 , @xmath77 at @xmath340 , @xmath329 at @xmath341 , etc .
long and yang  @xcite get to a different conclusion instead : the @xmath30 s enter at @xmath342 : @xmath60 at @xmath327 , @xmath77 at @xmath343 , @xmath329 at @xmath340 , etc .
the conclusion is a bit puzzling : according to ref .
, dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction leads to a stronger enhancement of the @xmath30 couplings than cut - off regularization    other aspect to discuss is the interpretation of the cut - off in eft .
the rg equations use a cut - off in the region @xmath192 .
this raises the question of whether the cut - off should stay below the breakdown scale , as happens in the rga .
the answer is _ not necessarily_. the rg equations are formulated with the limits @xmath344 and @xmath345 in mind to uncover the scaling of the couplings this is a formal requirement to make the analysis easier , not a practical requirement in eft calculations .
efts are rg - invariant : the cut - off does not appear in the observable quantities that we compute , only in the intermediate calculations leading to the eft predictions .
that is , the cut - off is kept low in rga with the intention of making the scaling of the contact - range couplings as obvious as possible .
once the rga is done the only constraints about the size of the cut - off are practical ones .
one of these constraints is the existence of residual cut - off independence . in most eft calculations
we do not include all the couplings that are required to achieve exact rg independence .
we only include the couplings that carry physical information at the order we are considering .
there are two reasons for doing this : first , exact rg independence is not well - defined if we are making calculations in an eft at a given order .
the systematic eft error is always present and rg independence must be understood within this error .
the second reason is that exact rg independence requires the inclusion of what we have called here the redundant couplings , i.e. the @xmath346 piece of the couplings in the rg equations .
these redundant operators can be calculated and included explicitly in a few specific cases : the ksw counting  @xcite and pionless eft with pds  @xcite .
but on more general cases this is unpractical and not really necessary .
it is easier to keep the residual cut - off dependence under control by a judicious choice of the cut - off . for this condition to be true
it is usually enough for @xmath188 to be of the order of the hard scale , though the exact details will depend on the regulator .
other important thing is to stress that a power counting is merely an ideal organization of the size of the interactions of a theory .
they are derived under the assumption that the scale separation is large and that we can clearly classify all scales either as soft ( @xmath2 ) or hard ( @xmath3 ) .
however the real physical world is not necessarily like that .
what do we do if we have a two - body system with a scattering length that is neither small nor large ?
the point is that what we obtain with rga is just an approximation to a more complex reality . in particular
other power countings are possible beyond the ones we have discussed here .
for instance in ref .
van kolck developed a counting for two - body systems in which the scattering length is tiny .
other possibility is when both the scattering length and the effective range are large , a case which can be useful for the description of low lying s - wave resonances or even for the @xmath8 singlet to improve the convergence  @xcite .
that means that we are entitled to curb the counting rules in view of practical physical information of the system .
the limit is theoretical consistency : the eft must be equivalent to the fundamental theory at low energies , which means that renormalizability must be respected .
the principles of renormalization work in the same way for operators different than the two - body potential .
the advantage of calculating the anomalous dimension is that we can extend the idea seamlessly to any other problem .
the point is to have a coupling and a polynomial contact - range operator , to evaluate their matrix element and to demand rg invariance at the end , @xmath347 actually the whole process amounts to nothing more than following a recipe .
the only thing we have to do is to choose the wave functions and the operators that are appropriate for the particular physical process we are studying .
let us consider the case of a reaction involving a external probe and the deuteron ( or more generally the two - nucleon system ) .
in this case the contact - range operators of the theory involve two nucleons and one ( or more ) external fields .
the external fields we are interested in are pions , photons and neutrinos . in principle
the initial and final wave functions are the product of a two - nucleon wave function and the wave function of zero , one or more external probes @xmath348 where @xmath349 refers to the probes , with the index @xmath350 .
the contact - range operator involves a coupling and a polynomial of the momenta of the nucleons and the external probes . in the plane wave basis
it reads @xmath351 where @xmath352 ( @xmath353 ) is the center - of - mass momentum of the initial ( final ) two - nucleon system and @xmath354(@xmath355 ) the momenta of all the incoming ( outgoing ) probes involved in the operator . in general
the polynomial @xmath356 will involve spin and isospin degrees of freedom , but for the moment we will ignore them .
how does one evaluate the matrix elements ? if we consider that the wave functions of the external probes are plane waves , the evaluation of the contact - range operator yields latexmath:[\ ] ] with @xmath478 a small positive number .
the evaluation of the following pieces is direct @xmath479 while the two remaining pieces vanish in the @xmath29 limit @xmath480 the reason being that the integrand is bounded in the region around @xmath17 .
we can see that while @xmath12 is continuous at @xmath24 , @xmath481 develops a discontinuity .
putting the pieces together for @xmath29 we arrive at @xmath482 finally , expanding @xmath483 in powers of @xmath43 we obtain eq .
( [ eq : rge ] ) .
nplqcd collaboration ( s.  r. beane , e.  chang , w.  detmold , h.  w. lin , t.  c. luu , k.  orginos , a.  parreno , m.  j. savage , a.  torok and a.  walker - loud ) , _ phys .
* d85 * ( 2012 ) 054511 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2889[arxiv:1109.2889 [ hep - lat ] ] .
nplqcd collaboration ( s.  r. beane , e.  chang , s.  d. cohen , w.  detmold , h.  w. lin , t.  c. luu , k.  orginos , a.  parreno , m.  j. savage and a.  walker - loud ) , _ phys .
_ * d87 * ( 2013 ) 034506 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5219[arxiv:1206.5219 [ hep - lat ] ] .
hal qcd collaboration ( s.  aoki , t.  doi , t.  hatsuda , y.  ikeda , t.  inoue , n.  ishii , k.  murano , h.  nemura and k.  sasaki ) , _ ptep _ * 2012 * ( 2012 ) 01a105 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5088[arxiv:1206.5088 [ hep - lat ] ] .
j.  polchinski , effective field theory and the fermi surface , in _ theoretical advanced study institute ( tasi 92 ) : from black holes and strings to particles boulder , colorado , june 3 - 28 , 1992 _ , ( 1992 ) .
[ arxiv : hep - th/9210046 [ hep - th ] ] .
t.  s. park , l.  e. marcucci , r.  schiavilla , m.  viviani , a.  kievsky , s.  rosati , k.  kubodera , d.  p. min and m.  rho , _ phys .
* c67 * ( 2003 ) 055206 , http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0208055 [ arxiv : nucl - th/0208055 [ nucl - th ] ] .