format: text

text:
# Variants of the Andrews-Gordon Identities

## 1. Introduction

The celebrated Rogers-Ramanujan identities are given analytically as follows

$`{\displaystyle \underset{t0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{t^2+at}}{(q)_t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q)_{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{q^{j(10j+1+2a)}q^{(2j+1)(5j+2a)}\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q^{1+a},q^5)_{\mathrm{}}(q^{4a},q^5)_{\mathrm{}}}},`$ (1.1)
where $`a=0,1`$ and the $`q`$-shifted factorials $`(z;q)_t`$ are defined as usual as

$$(z;q)_t=(z)_t=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{j=0}^{t1}(1zq^j),\hfill & \text{if }t_{>0},\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }t=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
It is well known that these identities have polynomial analogs. In particular, building on the work of Schur and MacMahon, Andrews  has shown that for $`L_0`$

$$\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q=e_L(q)$$
(1.3)
and

$$\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2+t}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt1}{t}\right]_q=d_L(q),$$
(1.4)
where

$$e_L(q)=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{q^{j(10j+1)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{L}{2}5j}\right]_qq^{(2j+1)(5j+2)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{L4}{2}5j}\right]_q\right\}$$
(1.5)
and

$$d_L(q)=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{q^{j(10j+3)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{L1}{2}5j}\right]_qq^{(2j+1)(5j+1)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{L3}{2}5j}\right]_q\right\}.$$
(1.6)
As usual, $`x`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$ and $`q`$-binomial coefficients are defined as follows

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(q^{n+1})_m}{(q)_m},\hfill & \text{if }m_0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.7)
Both polynomial sequences $`(e_L)`$ and $`(d_L)`$ satisfy the recurrence

$$c_L(q)=c_{L1}(q)+q^{L1}c_{L2}(q),L2.$$
(1.8)
The above equation along with the initial conditions

$$d_0(q)=0,e_0(q)=e_1(q)=d_1(q)=1$$
(1.9)
specifies these sequences uniquely. Moreover, one can read (1.8) backward to define $`(e_L)`$, $`(d_L)`$ for negative subindices; i.e., for $`L1`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}e_L(q)=(1)^Lq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{2}\right)}d_{L1}(\frac{1}{q}),\hfill & \\ d_L(q)=(1)^{L+1}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{2}\right)}e_{L1}(\frac{1}{q}).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1.10)
Despite the long history of the Rogers-Ramanujan identities, the following variants found by Garrett et al.

$$\underset{t0}{}\frac{q^{t^2+mt}}{(q)_t}=\frac{(1)^mq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)}d_{m1}(q)}{(q,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}(q^4,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}}+\frac{(1)^{m+1}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)}e_{m1}(q)}{(q^2,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}(q^3,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}},m0$$
(1.11)
appeared to be new, even though closely related results were derived before in  and .

Actually, (1.11) can be extended to negative $`m`$ with the aid of (1.10) as

$$\underset{t0}{}\frac{q^{t^2Mt}}{(q)_t}=\frac{e_M(\frac{1}{q})}{(q,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}(q^4,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}}+\frac{d_M(\frac{1}{q})}{(q^2,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}(q^3,q^5)_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(1.12)
with $`M_0`$. The authors of  gave two proofs of (1.11). In the first proof they evaluated a certain integral involving $`q`$-Hermite polynomials in two different ways and equated the results. Their second proof made essential use of Schur’s involution. A very different approach was taken by Andrews et al. in , where identity (1.12) appeared as a limiting case of the much stronger identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{t0}{}}q^{t^2+mt}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}}\right]_q`$ $`=(1)^mq^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)}d_{m1}(q)e_{L+m}(q)`$
$`+(1)^{m+1}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)}e_{m1}(q)d_{L+m}(q),(L,m0),`$ (1.13)
which was proven recursively. It is trivial to verify that in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ (1.13) turns into (1.11). It was pointed out in  that (1.13) may be viewed as a $`q`$-analog of a famous Euler-Cassini’s identity for Fibonacci numbers. We remark that a new approach to identities of $`q`$-Euler-Cassini type has been given in .

Once again, we may employ (1.10) to extend (1.13) to negative $`m`$. The result is

$$\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2Mt}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q=e_M(\frac{1}{q})e_{LM}(q)+d_M(\frac{1}{q})d_{LM}(q),M0.$$
(1.14)
Remarkably, this reformulation of (1.13) enables us to reduce it to (1.3), (1.4) in an elementary combinatorial fashion. This is done in Section 2. In Section 3, we briefly discuss a polynomial version of the Andrews-Gordon identities and then, move on to our main results (3.22)–(3.24): variants of the Andrews-Gordon identities, which are straightforward multisum generalizations of (1.14). In Section 4, some problems for further investigation motivated by this work are indicated. Finally, certain technical details pertaining to the recurrences for multisums are relegated to the Appendix.

## 2. Combinatorial analysis of (1.14)

We start by recalling a well-known fact.

###### Lemma.

For $`L2t0`$, $`q^{t^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q`$ is the generating function for partitions into exactly $`t`$ parts with difference at least $`2`$ between parts, such that each part $`<L`$.

We wish to describe this generating function in “path” language. To this end we define an admissible sequence of integers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as an ordered sequence $`(\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1},\mathrm{},\sigma _{f1},\sigma _f)`$ such that $`\sigma _l\{0,1\}`$ for $`ilf`$ and $`\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1}=0`$ for $`ijf1`$. Given $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we can construct an admissible lattice path $`P(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by connecting points $`(j;\sigma _j)`$ and $`(j+1;\sigma _{j+1})`$ by the straight line segments. Thus, any admissible path is made out of three basic segments:

Note that a horizontal segment is always of height $`0`$. On such a path we distinguish points $`(j;\sigma _j=1)`$ with $`ij`$ and $`if`$, which we call peaks. Clearly, the distance between two peaks is at least $`2`$, as can be seen from Figure 1.

Let us denote the space of all admissible paths $`P(\sigma _i=s,\sigma _{i+1},\mathrm{},\sigma _f=b)`$ with exactly $`t`$ peaks and fixed end points $`(i;s),(f;b)`$ as $`𝐏_{s,b}^t(i,f)`$. For a given path $`𝐏_{0,0}^t(0,L)`$ we can identify the corresponding $`j`$-coordinates of its peaks with parts of partitions described in the Lemma (see Figure 1).

Hence, we can reformulate this Lemma as

$$q^{t^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q=\underset{𝐏_{0,0}^t(0,L)}{}q^{_{j=1}^{L1}j\sigma _j},$$
(2.1)
where the symbol $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐏_{s,b}^t(i,f)}`$ denotes the sum over all admissible paths $`𝐏_{s,b}^t(i,f)`$. The advantage of the path interpretation is that while partitions always have non-negative parts (by definition), $`j`$-coordinates of peaks in general may take on negative values.

If we move $`𝐏_{0,0}^t(0,L)`$ to the left by $`M`$ units, then the resulting path space $`𝐏_{0,0}^t(M,LM)`$ can be used to prove that

$$q^{t^2Mt}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q=\underset{𝐏_{0,0}^t(M,LM)}{}q^{_{j=1M}^{LM1}j\sigma _j}.$$
(2.2)
Indeed, using (2.1) we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏_{0,0}^t(M,LM)}{}}q^{_{j=1M}^{LM1}j\sigma _j}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐏_{0,0}^t(0,L)}{}}q^{_{j=1}^{L1}(jM)\sigma _j}=q^{Mt}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐏_{0,0}^t(0,L)}{}}q^{_{j=1}^{L1}j\sigma _j}`$
$`=q^{t^2Mt}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}}\right]_q.`$ (2.3)
And so,

$$\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2Mt}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{t}\right]_q=\underset{𝐏_{0,0}(M,LM)}{}q^{_{j=1M}^{LM1}j\sigma _j},$$
(2.4)
where $`𝐏_{s,b}(i,f)`$ is defined the same way as $`𝐏_{s,b}^t(i,f)`$, except that we no longer require that the number of peaks is exactly $`t`$.

More generally, one can easily show that for $`s,b\{0,1\}`$

$$f_{s,b}(L,M,q)=C_{s,b}(M,LM,q)$$
(2.5)
with

$$f_{s,b}(L,M,q):=\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2+stMt}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Ltsb}{t}\right]_q$$
(2.6)
and

$$C_{s,b}(i,f,q):=\underset{𝐏_{s,b}(i,f)}{}q^{_{j=i+1}^{f1}j\sigma _j}.$$
(2.7)
Next, for $`0ML`$ every admissible path $`𝐏_{s,b}(M,LM)`$ consists of two pieces joined together at point $`(0;s^{}=0,1)`$. The first piece belongs to $`𝐏_{s,s^{}}(M,0)`$ and the second one to $`𝐏_{s^{},b}(0,LM)`$. This observation is equivalent to

$$C_{s,b}(M,LM,q)=\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}C_{s,s^{}}(M,0,q)C_{s^{},b}(0,LM,q).$$
(2.8)
Now, because

$$\underset{𝐏_{s,s^{}}(M,0)}{}q^{_{j=1M}^1j\sigma _j}=\underset{𝐏_{s^{},s}(0,M)}{}(\frac{1}{q})^{_{j=1}^{M1}j\sigma _j}$$
(2.9)
we infer that

$$C_{s,s^{}}(M,0,q)=C_{s^{},s}(0,M,\frac{1}{q}).$$
(2.10)
Next, combining (2.5), (2.8) and (2.10), we arrive at

$$f_{s,b}(L,M,q)=\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}f_{s^{},s}(M,0,\frac{1}{q})f_{s^{},b}(LM,0,q).$$
(2.11)
The desired formula (1.14) is an easy consequence of (2.11) with $`s=b=0`$ and the Rogers-Ramanujan identities (1.3) and (1.4), which we restate again as

$$f_{s,0}(L,0,q)=\underset{t0}{}q^{t^2+st}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lts}{t}\right]_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}e_L(q),\hfill & \text{if }s=0,\hfill \\ d_L(q),\hfill & \text{if }s=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
Remark: If we set $`s=1,b=0,q=1`$ in (2.11), we immediately derive the following well known identity for the Fibonacci numbers $`\mathrm{Fi}(L)`$:

$$\mathrm{Fi}(L)=\mathrm{Fi}(M)\mathrm{Fi}(LM+1)+\mathrm{Fi}(M1)\mathrm{Fi}(LM).$$
(2.13)
If we perform the substitution $`MM`$ and use, according to (1.10),

$$\mathrm{Fi}(M)=(1)^{M+1}\mathrm{Fi}(M)$$
(2.14)
in (2.13), we obtain

$$(1)^M\mathrm{Fi}(L)=\mathrm{Fi}(M+1)\mathrm{Fi}(L+M)\mathrm{Fi}(M)\mathrm{Fi}(L+M+1),$$
(2.15)
which is a specialization of the Euler-Cassini formula. We would like to point out that (2.13) is “minus sign” free. As a result, the combinatorial proof of (2.13) given here is very different from that of Werman and Zeilberger . Namely, their proof of (2.15) given in  made essential use of involution technique.

We conclude this section by pointing out that our analysis can be trivially extended to show that

$`f_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}f_{s,s^{}}(M+x,M,q)q^{s^{}x}f_{s^{},b}(LMx,x,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}q^{s^{}x}f_{s^{},s}(M+x,x,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}})f_{s^{},b}(LMx,x).`$ (2.16)
Note that (2.11) is (2.16) with $`x=0`$.

## 3. Variants of the Andrews-Gordon Identities

For $`\nu _{>0}`$, the analytical generalizations of the Rogers-Ramanujan identities known as Andrews-Gordon identities  can be stated as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_\nu }{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^{(N_1^2+N_2^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2)+(N_s+N_{s+1}+\mathrm{}+N_\nu )}}{(q)_{n_1}(q)_{n_2}\mathrm{}(q)_{n_\nu }}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q)_{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{q^{2(2\nu +3)j^2+j(2\nu +32s)}q^{(2j+1)((2\nu +3)j+s)}\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{n0,\pm s(\mathrm{mod}2\nu +3)}(1q^n)}},s=1,2,\mathrm{},\nu +1`$ (3.1)
with

$$N_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}n_i+n_{i+1}+\mathrm{}+n_\nu ,\hfill & \text{if }1i\nu ,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }i=\nu +1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
Here and throughout, we adopt the convention that in the product

$$\underset{n0,\pm s(\mathrm{mod}2\nu +3)}{}(1q^n)$$

$`n`$ takes on positive integer values not congruent to $`0,\pm s\text{ modulo }2\nu +3`$. Clearly, if $`\nu =1`$, (3.1) reduces to (1.1). As in the case of the Rogers-Ramanujan identities, the identities (3.1) have polynomial analogs. To describe these polynomial versions we need to introduce polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(L,q)`$ defined for $`0s,b\nu `$ as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(L,q):=\underset{𝐧}{}q^{(N_1^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2)+(N_{s+1}+\mathrm{}+N_\nu )}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦}{𝐧}\right]_q$$
(3.3)
with

$$𝐧=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_\nu ),𝐦=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_\nu )$$
(3.4)
and

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦}{𝐧}\right]_q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n_i+m_i}{n_i}\right]_q,$$
(3.5)
where

$$m_i=L2(N_1+N_2+\mathrm{}+N_i)\chi (i>s)(is)\chi (i>b)(ib)$$
(3.6)
and

$$\chi (i>a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }i>a,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }ia.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
Next, for $`Ls+b(\mathrm{mod}2)`$ and $`1s,b\nu +1`$, we define polynomials $`B_{s,b}(L,q)`$ as

$`B_{s,b}(L,q):={\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{`$ $`q^{2(2\nu +3)j^2+j(2\nu +32s)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{L+sb}{2}j(2\nu +3)}}\right]_q`$
$`q^{(2j+1)((2\nu +3)j+s)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{\frac{Lsb}{2}j(2\nu +3)}}\right]_q\}.`$ (3.8)
Equipped with these definitions we are in the position to state the polynomial analogs of (3.1), namely

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(L,q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}B_{s+1,b+1}(L,q),\hfill & \text{if }Ls+b(\mathrm{mod}2),\hfill \\ B_{(2\nu +3)(s+1),b+1}(L,q),\hfill & \text{if }Ls+b(\mathrm{mod}2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.9)
with $`0s,b\nu `$.

For $`b=\nu `$, formulas (3.9) first appeared in the works of Foda, Quano  and Kirillov , for other values of $`b`$, these formulas were derived in . It is important to keep in mind that in case $`s\nu `$ and $`b\nu `$, the summands in (3.3) may be non-zero in value even if $`n_\nu =1`$.

To prove (3.9) the authors of  showed that both sides of (3.9) satisfy identical recurrences for $`1b\nu `$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,0}(L,q)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,1}(L1,q),\hfill & \\ \stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(L,q)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b1}(L1,q)+\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,q)+(q^{L1}1)\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(L2,q)\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.10)
and the initial conditions

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(0,q)=\delta _{s,b}$$
(3.11)
where the Kronecker delta function $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is defined as usual as

$$\delta _{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }i=j,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.12)
We would like to emphasize that there is more than one way to finitize the Andrews-Gordon identities. In particular, Warnaar  found polynomial versions of (3.1) involving $`q`$-multinomial coefficients.

Now we would like to alter the Andrews-Gordon identities in the spirit of Garrett et al. . However, because we have more than one summation variable, it is not immediately clear how to accomplish this. Our guiding principle is that additional linear terms should modify the recurrences (3.10) in a minimal way by simple shifts, since this is precisely what happened in case of Rogers-Ramanujan identities. More specifically, we would like to have polynomials $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ satisfying the following relations for $`1b\nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}s\nu `$

$`\{\begin{array}{c}F_{s,0}(L,M,q)=F_{s,1}(L1,M,q)\hfill \\ F_{s,b}(L,M,q)=F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)+F_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,M,q)\hfill \\ +(q^{LM1}1)F_{s,b}(L2,M,q).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.16)
The above requirement leads us to define

$$F_{s,b}(L,M,q):=\underset{𝐧}{}q^{(N_1^2+N_2^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2)+(N_{s+1}+\mathrm{}+N_\nu )MN_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦}{𝐧}\right]_q$$
(3.17)
with $`s,b\{0,1,\mathrm{},\nu \}`$ and the rest of notations the same as in (3.3). In the Appendix we will prove that these polynomials indeed satisfy the recurrences (3.16).

Now, since $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ and $`F_{s,b}(LM,0,q)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{s,b}(LM,q)`$ satisfy the same recursion relations we can write

$$F_{s,b}(L,M,q)=\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{\nu }{}}A_{s,s^{}}(M,q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},b}(LM,q).$$
(3.18)
The connection coefficients $`A_{s,s^{}}(M,q)`$ can be easily determined from the boundary conditions

$$F_{s,b}(L,L,q)=\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{\nu }{}}A_{s,s^{}}(L,q)\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},b}(0,q)\stackrel{\text{by (}\text{3.11}\text{)}}{=}\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{\nu }{}}A_{s,s^{}}(L,q)\delta _{s^{},b}=A_{s,b}(L,q).$$
(3.19)
Making use of

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_{\frac{1}{q}}=q^{nm}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_q$$
(3.20)
one can easily verify that

$$F_{s,b}(L,L,q)=F_{b,s}(L,0,\frac{1}{q})=\stackrel{~}{F}_{b,s}(L,\frac{1}{q}).$$
(3.21)
Hence,

$$F_{s,b}(L,M,q)=\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{\nu }{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},s}(M,\frac{1}{q})\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},b}(LM,q),$$
(3.22)
which is a perfect analog of formula (2.11). Recalling (3.9), we can rewrite (3.22) as

$`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{s^{}=0}{s+s^{}M(\mathrm{mod}2)}}{\overset{\nu }{}}}B_{s^{}+1,s+1}(M,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}})\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},b}(LM,q)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{s^{}=0}{s+s^{}M(\mathrm{mod}2)}}{\overset{\nu }{}}}B_{(2\nu +3)(s^{}+1),s+1}(M,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}})\stackrel{~}{F}_{s^{},b}(LM,q).`$ (3.23)
In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, (3.23) gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^{N_1^2+N_2^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2+(N_s+\mathrm{}+N_\nu )MN_1}}{(q)_{n_1}(q)_{n_2}\mathrm{}(q)_{n_\nu }}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{s^{}=1}{s+s^{}M(\mathrm{mod}2)}}{\overset{\nu +1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{s^{},s}(M,\frac{1}{q})}{_{n0,\pm s^{}(\mathrm{mod}2\nu +3)}(1q^n)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{s^{}=1}{s+s^{}M(\mathrm{mod}2)}}{\overset{\nu +1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{2\nu +3s^{},s}(M,\frac{1}{q})}{_{n0,\pm s^{}(\mathrm{mod}2\nu +3)}(1q^n)}},`$ (3.24)
where we used the limiting formulas

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{F}_{s1,b}(L,q)=\frac{1}{_{n0,\pm s(\mathrm{mod}2\nu +3)}(1q^n)},$$
(3.25)
which follow from

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{n}\right]_q=\frac{1}{(q)_n}$$
(3.26)
and (3.1). It is easy to check that in case $`\nu =1,s=2`$ (3.24) reduces to (1.12).

## 4. Concluding Remarks

The interested reader may wonder if the combinatorial analysis given in Section 2 can be upgraded to explain the formulas (3.22). The answer to this question is affirmative. However, for $`\nu >1`$ the path interpretation of the $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ polynomials is much more involved than that of the $`f_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ polynomials considered in Section 2. Here, one should deal with peaks of different heights  and in addition with certain boundary defects. We plan to come back to the combinatorial derivation of (3.22) in our future work. Here, we confine ourselves to remark that the introduction of an additional linear term $`MN_1`$ in (3.24) amounts to the shift to the left by $`M`$ units of Bressoud’s path described in .

However, with respect to peaks with different heights we want to mention that these pop-up also in connection with another polynomial version of an identity of Garrett-Ismail-Stanton type. Namely, for integers $`L,m0`$ one has

$$q^m(q;q^2)_m\underset{t0}{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2t+1}\right]_qq^{2t^2+2(m+1)t}=S_m(q)T_{L+m}(q)T_m(q)S_{L+m}(q),$$
(4.1)
where

$$S_m(q)=\underset{t0}{}q^{2t^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2t}\right]_q$$

and

$$T_m(q)=\underset{t0}{}q^{2t^2+2t}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2t+1}\right]_q$$

are the Andrews-Santos polynomials discussed in . Identity (4.1) arose in work of Andrews et al.  and yields, in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, a combination of Slater’s identities (38) and (39) from .

The methods of Sections 1 and 2 above can be applied and lead to the following generalization which extends (4.1) also to negative integers: For $`L0`$ and arbitrary integer $`M`$,

$$\underset{t0}{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{2t+1}\right]_qq^{2t^22Mt}=q^{M+1}S_{M+1}(\frac{1}{q})T_{LM1}(q)+q^MT_{M+1}(\frac{1}{q})S_{LM1}(q).$$
(4.2)
Here we understand that for negative indices, i.e., for $`m0`$, one has

$$S_m(q)=(1)^m\frac{q^{m^2}}{(q;q^2)_m}S_m(\frac{1}{q})$$

and

$$T_m(q)=(1)^{m+1}\frac{q^{m^21}}{(q;q^2)_m}T_m(\frac{1}{q}).$$

In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ one obtains from (4.2) another new identity of Garrett-Ismail-Stanton type. The proof and the underlying combinatorics will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

Our variants of the Andrews-Gordon identities were determined by the polynomial versions (3.9) and a requirement that the introduction of additional linear terms should modify the recursion relations (3.10) by trivial shifts as in (3.16). We intend to use more general polynomial versions of Andrews-Gordon identities containing $`\nu `$ finitization parameters to investigate the most general multisum

$$\underset{𝐧}{}\frac{q^{N_1^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2M_1N_1M_2N_2MN_\nu }}{(q)_{n_1}(q)_{n_2}\mathrm{}(q)_{n_\nu }}.$$
(4.3)
Finally, we would like to mention that many new generalizations of Rogers-Ramanujan identities were introduced in  and proven in  and . Techniques developed in this paper are adequate to produce and prove variants of all these identities.

### Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Prof. G.E. Andrews, Prof. J. Cigler and Prof. C. Krattenthaler for their interest and stimulating discussions. Special thanks to Dr. A. Riese for his help in preparing this manuscript. This paper was completed while the first author was visiting RISC–Linz, Austria. He would like to thank faculty and staff for their warm hospitality.

## 5. Appendix

Here we will prove the recurrences (3.16). To this end we need to define vectors $`𝐞_i`$ and $`𝐄_{a,b}`$ as

$$(𝐞_i)_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }i=j\text{ and }1i\nu ,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.1)
and

$$𝐄_{a,b}=\underset{i=a}{\overset{b}{}}𝐞_i.$$
(5.2)
The first recurrence in (3.16) is trivial. To prove the second relation in (3.16), we expand $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ in a telescopic fashion as

$`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b}}{𝐧}}\right]_q`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b}}{𝐧𝐞_b}}\right]_qq^{m_b}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b1}}{𝐧𝐞_{b1}}}\right]_qq^{m_{b1}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b2}}{𝐧𝐞_{b2}}}\right]_qq^{m_{b2}}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\varphi _s(𝐍,M)}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,1}}{𝐧𝐞_1}}\right]_qq^{m_1},`$ (5.3)
where $`𝐍=(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_\nu )`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)=(N_1^2+N_1^2+\mathrm{}+N_\nu ^2)+(N_{s+1}+\mathrm{}+N_\nu )MN_1,$$
(5.4)
with the rest of notations the same as in (3.3).

It is important to remember that the vectors $`𝐦`$ in (5.3) are actually functions of $`𝐍`$ and $`L`$ as can be seen from (3.6). To make sure that (5.3) is a correct expansion of $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ we merge the first and second sum in (5.3) into a single sum using

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_q=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m1}{n}\right]_q+q^m\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n1+m}{n1}\right]_q.$$
(5.5)
This single sum, in turn, can be merged with the third sum in (5.3). This process can be repeated until all sums are merged together to yield $`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$. It is trivial to recognize the first sum in (5.3) as $`F_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,M,q)`$. With regard to the last sum in (5.3), we perform the change $`n_1n_1+1`$ to recognize it as $`q^{LM1}F_{s,b}(L2,M,q)`$. So, it follows that

$`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)F_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,M,q)q^{LM1}F_{s,b}(L2,M,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{b}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_i}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,i}}{𝐧𝐞_i}}\right]_q.`$ (5.6)
If $`b=1`$, then the rhs of (5.6) is just zero, so

$$F_{s,1}(L,M,q)=F_{s,2}(L1,M,q)+q^{LM1}F_{s,1}(L2,M,q).$$
(5.7)
Combining (5.7) with the first recurrence in (3.16)

$$F_{s,0}(L1,M,q)=F_{s,1}(L2,M,q)$$
(5.8)
we obtain

$$F_{s,1}(L,M,q)=F_{s,0}(L1,M,q)+F_{s,2}(L1,M,q)+(q^{LM1}1)F_{s,1}(L2,M,q),$$
(5.9)
as desired.

If $`b0,1`$, we perform an $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}i\mathrm{"}`$ dependent change of the summation variables in (5.6)

$$𝐧𝐧+(𝐞_i𝐞_{i1})(𝐞_b𝐞_{b1})$$
(5.10)
to obtain

$`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)F_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,M,q)q^{LM1}F_{s,b}(L2,M,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_i+m_bm_{b1}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b1}+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐄_{i,b1}}{𝐧+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐞_i}}\right]_q.`$ (5.11)
Next, we rewrite the polynomial $`F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)`$ in terms of the same $`𝐧`$ vectors as in (5.11)

$$F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)=\underset{𝐧}{}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_bm_{b1}+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b1}+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b}{𝐧+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b}\right]_q$$
(5.12)
and then expand it in a telescopic fashion to get

$`F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_bm_{b1}+1}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b1}+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐄_{1,b1}}{𝐧+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b}}\right]_q`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_i+m_bm_{b1}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦𝐄_{1,b1}+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐄_{i,b1}}{𝐧+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐞_i}}\right]_q.`$ (5.13)
Once again, performing the change $`𝐧𝐧𝐞_{b1}+𝐞_b`$ in the first sum on the rhs of (5.13) we recognize it as $`F_{s,b}(L2,M,q)`$. Hence,

$`F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)F_{s,b}(L2,M,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}q^{\mathrm{\Phi }_s(𝐍,M)+m_i+m_bm_{b1}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{𝐧+𝐦+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐄_{i,b1}}{𝐧+𝐞_{b1}𝐞_b𝐞_i}}\right]_q.`$ (5.14)
Comparing the rhs of (5.11) and (5.14) we immediately infer that

$`F_{s,b}(L,M,q)`$ $`=F_{s,b1}(L1,M,q)+F_{s,b+1\delta _{b,\nu }}(L1,M,q)`$
$`+(q^{LM1}1)F_{s,b}(L2,M,q),`$ (5.15)
as desired.


text:
# The Kohn Variational Principle for Elastic Proton–Deuteron Scattering above Deuteron Breakup Threshold

## I Introduction

In recent years, a series of accurate calculations of $`Nd`$ scattering observables below the deuteron breakup threshold (DBT) by using the Kohn variational principle (KVP) have been reported . The resulting elastic $`nd`$ phase shifts were found to be in strict agreement with those determined via accurate solutions of the Faddeev equations (FE) . The interest in this reaction has been revived consequently on the observation of large disagreements between theoretical predictions and experimental data for the $`pd`$ and $`nd`$ $`A_y`$ and $`iT_{11}`$ polarization observables . Since the solution of the $`Nd`$ Schroedinger equation can be obtained with high precision, the disagreements can be traced back to the current models for the nucleon–nucleon (NN) and three–nucleon (3N) interactions. Therefore, the detailed studies of this process can be used to get information on the microscopic nuclear interaction.

Above the DBT, the FE have been accurately solved for the $`nd`$ reaction (see, for example, Ref.  and references therein). For reactions where there are more than one charged particles in the final state, the proper inclusion of the Coulomb interaction is a difficult problem. On the other hand, the proton induced breakup reaction is more easily studied experimentally, and in fact, there is a large amount of high precision $`pd`$ scattering data available. It should be noticed that the effect of the Coulomb potential can be rather sizeable for various polarization observables, in particular at small scattering angles. It is therefore of relevance to obtain accurate theoretical estimates of the observables of this reaction.

At present, different approaches are applied to calculating the $`pd`$ elastic observables above the DBT. The method used in Refs.  consists of separating the long–range from the short–range Coulomb effects. Then, the FE in momentum space are solved by taking into account only the short–range part of the Coulomb potential, whilst the long–range contribution is included by “renormalizing” the solutions found. This method has been pursued for applications in both atomic systems and $`pd`$ scattering at $`E=10`$ MeV . In other approaches, the FE are solved using the Coulomb-Sturmian-space representation , or by directly solving the FE in configuration space .

The KVP was discussed in Refs.  to treat breakup reactions without considering the case of two or more charged particles in the final state. In the past it has been used mainly for studying atomic processes (in particular, the scattering of electrons or positrons by hydrogen atoms). Above the ionization threshold the direct application of the KVP has however encountered various problems related to the infinite number of two–body bound states between particles of opposite charge and to the complexity of the boundary conditions to be satisfied . Various alternative formulations have then been studied and the associated difficulties analyzed .

In this paper we reconsider the direct formulation of the KVP for calculating the elastic part of the S–matrix of a $`pd`$ collision above the DBT. In such a process there is no problem relating to two–body excited bound states. The long–range Coulomb interaction between the two protons introduces a distortion in the description of the asymptotic three-nucleon outgoing wave. We have proved the validity of such a principle, considering trial wave functions which satisfy “simplified” boundary conditions allowing for practical applications, even when using realistic nuclear interactions. The results for several elastic observables have been already reported in refs. .

The paper is organized as follows. Some definitions used later in the paper are given in Sect. II. In Sect. III, a detailed description of the asymptotic behavior of the $`pd`$ scattering wave function (w.f.) is reported, while the proof of the KVP is given in Sect. IV. The use of such a principle in conjunction with the pair–correlated hyperspherical harmonic expansion technique is discussed in Sect. V, while the conclusions are given in the last section.

## II Definitions

Let us introduce the Jacobi vectors for three equal mass particles, given by

$$𝐱_i=𝐫_j𝐫_k,𝐲_i=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}\left(𝐫_i\frac{𝐫_j+𝐫_k}{2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$, and $`𝐫_i`$ denotes the position of particle $`i`$. The distance between the pair $`jk`$ and the particle $`i`$ is

$$𝐝_i=\kappa 𝐲_i,\kappa =\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}.$$
(2)
For the $`pd`$ system, the non–relativistic total energy operator is written as

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_i^2+\underset{j<k}{}V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)+W^{3\mathrm{N}}+V_C,$$
(3)
with $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)`$ being the pair potential between the particles $`j`$, $`k`$ and $`W^{3\mathrm{N}}`$ a 3N interaction term. Both $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}`$ and $`W^{3\mathrm{N}}`$ are short–ranged. In particular, $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)`$ and $`W^{3\mathrm{N}}`$ become vanishingly small when $`x_i>a_N`$, where $`a_N`$ is a distance somewhat larger than the range of the nuclear interaction. Moreover, $`V_C`$ is the Coulomb interaction operator (we disregard here other electromagnetic interaction terms), namely

$$V_C=\underset{j<k}{}\frac{e^2}{x_i}\frac{1+\tau _{j,z}}{2}\frac{1+\tau _{k,z}}{2},$$
(4)
where $`\tau _{m,z}/2`$ is the $`z`$–component of the isospin operator of particle $`m`$.

For a three–body system, the hyperradius is defined as

$$\rho =\sqrt{x_i^2+y_i^2},$$
(5)
and is independent of the permutation $`i=1,2,3`$. The hyperangular variables are

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i(\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{y}_i,\theta _i),$$
(6)
where the hyperangle $`\theta _i`$ is defined by the relation

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _i=x_i/\rho .$$
(7)
To describe a three–nucleon state with total angular momentum $`J,J_z`$, the following functions are introduced

$$\left\{\left[Y_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\widehat{x}_i)Y_{L_a}(\widehat{y}_i)\right]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha }\left[(s^js^k)_{S_\alpha }s^i\right]_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha }\right\}_{JJ_z}\left[(t^jt^k)_Tt^i\right]_{𝒯𝒯_z}𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i),$$
(8)
where the variables $`s`$ ($`t`$) specify spin (isospin) states. The quantities $`S_\alpha `$ ($`T`$) and $`s^i`$ ($`t^i`$) are the spin (isospin) of the pair $`j`$, $`k`$ and of the third particle $`i`$, respectively, and they are coupled to give $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ ($`𝒯`$). The index $`\alpha `$ stands for the set of quantum numbers

$$\alpha \{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,S_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \}.$$
(9)
The indices $`\{\alpha ,T,𝒯\}`$ distinguish the various angular–spin–isospin “channels”. A generic three–body w.f. can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\psi (i),\psi (i)\psi (𝐱_i,𝐲_i),$$
(10)
where each amplitude $`\psi (i)`$ corresponds to the $`i`$–rearrangement configuration of the three particles and it can be decomposed in channels as

$$\psi (i)=\underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}F_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(x_i,y_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i).$$
(11)
The antisymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be simply enforced by requiring that the amplitude $`\psi (i)`$ change sign under the exchange of particles $`j`$ and $`k`$. This can be easily done by including only those channels having odd values of $`\mathrm{}_\alpha +S_\alpha +T`$ in the sum of Eq. (11)

In the following, the projection on states with a definite value of the third component of the isospin of the three particles will be useful. Let us define

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_i|t_z^i=1/2,t_z^j=1/2,t_z^k=1/2,$$
(12)
as the isospin state where particle $`i`$ is the neutron. Therefore, each amplitude $`\psi (i)`$ can be decomposed as

$$\psi (i)=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}\psi _\nu (i)\mathrm{\Xi }_\nu ,$$
(13)
where $`\psi _\nu (i)`$ is the component of the amplitude $`\psi (i)`$ and particle $`\nu `$ is the neutron. To expand the components $`\psi _\nu (i)`$ in spherical waves, it is convenient to use

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)=\left\{\left[Y_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\widehat{x}_i)Y_{L_\alpha }(\widehat{y}_i)\right]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha }\left[(s^js^k)_{S_\alpha }s^i\right]_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha }\right\}_{JJ_z},$$
(14)
which are a complete set of angular–spin functions. The functions $`𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)`$ are related to each other by

$`𝒴_{\alpha ,1,\frac{3}{2}}(i)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_k\right],`$ (15)
$`𝒴_{\alpha ,0,\frac{1}{2}}(i)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_k\right],`$ (16)
$`𝒴_{\alpha ,1,\frac{1}{2}}(i)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{\Xi }_k\right].`$ (17)
The components $`\psi _\nu (i)`$ can be then expanded as the sum

$$\psi _\nu (i)=\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha ,\nu }(x_i,y_i)\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha ,\nu }`$ are radial amplitudes. Using Eqs. (16), it is not difficult to find the relation between the amplitude $`F_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ defined in Eq. (11) and the functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha ,\nu }`$.

The $`Nd`$ system in the asymptotic region, where a nucleon and the deuteron are far apart, is described by the following “surface” function,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)=\left\{\left[\varphi _d(𝐱_i)s^i\right]_SY_L(\widehat{y}_i)\right\}_{JJ_z}\left[\xi _dt^i\right]_{𝒯𝒯_z},𝒯=\frac{1}{2},$$
(19)
where $`\varphi _d`$ ($`\xi _d`$) is the spatial–spin (isospin) part of the deuteron w.f. The quantum number $`L`$ is the relative angular momentum between the lone nucleon and the deuteron, $`S`$ is the spin obtained by coupling the spin $`j=1`$ of the deuteron with the spin 1/2 of the third nucleon. The deuteron wave function $`\psi _d=\varphi _d(𝐱_i)\times \xi _d`$ satisfies the following equation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}_{x_i}^2+V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)\right)\psi _d=B_d\psi _d.$$
(20)
## III The Asymptotic Behavior

The asymptotic behavior of the w.f. describing $`Nd`$ scattering has been discussed by many authors, in particular for the $`nd`$ case . The case of the scattering of three particles, with at least two of them charged, has been considered in Refs. . In this section, we rederive the asymptotic behavior of the w.f. for a $`pd`$ scattering process, in order to clarify some properties used to discuss the KVP in the following section.

The asymptotic behavior of the amplitudes $`\psi (i)`$ given in Eq. (10) is analyzed by considering them as solutions of the three Faddeev–Noble equations (FNE)

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(_{x_i}^2+_{y_i}^2\right)+V_C+V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)E\right]\psi (i)=V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)\left(\psi (j)+\psi (k)\right),$$
(21)
with $`i,j,k`$ cyclic. The 3N interaction $`W^{3N}`$ has been disregarded since we are interested in the asymptotic solutions of Eq. (21), where at least one particle is very far from the other two. Let us consider the volume $`𝒱(R)`$ of the six–dimensional space where $`\rho R`$ ($`R\mathrm{}`$). $`𝒱(R)`$ can be divided into the following regions, corresponding to different ranges of values of the hyperangular variables $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

* 1+1+1 (breakup) region. Here all the particles are well separated from each other. This breakup region is denoted as $`𝒱_b(R)\{\rho R;x_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{for}i=1,2,3\}`$.
* 2+1 regions. The part of $`𝒱(R)`$ where the particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ are close enough to interact through the NN potential, while particle $`i`$ is very far from them, is hereafter denoted by $`𝒱_i(R)`$. There are three such regions, corresponding to $`i=1,2,3`$, namely $`𝒱_i(R)\{\rho R;x_i<a_N\}`$. In $`𝒱_i(R)`$, we have $`y_i\stackrel{}{>}R`$ but the distance $`x_i`$ between particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ is of the order or lesser than the range $`a_N`$ of the nuclear potential. As $`R`$ increases, the range of the hyperangle $`\theta _i`$ subtended by the region $`𝒱_i(R)`$ decreases, and in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ it reduces virtually only to the value $`\theta _i=\pi /2`$.
* Transitions regions. The regions between $`𝒱_b(R)`$ and $`𝒱_i(R)`$ are denoted as $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. They can be defined as $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)\{\rho R;x_i\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho ^\mu ;x_i>a_N\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mu `$ are suitable constants ($`0<\mu <1`$, as will be shown below). In this region

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _i=\frac{x_i}{\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho ^{\mu 1}0,\mathrm{for}\rho \mathrm{}.$$
(22)
Therefore, for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ the hyperangle extension of this region reduces again to the value $`\theta _i=\pi /2`$. Such regions were considered for the first time by Merkuriev  and should allow for a smooth transition between the solutions in the regions $`𝒱_b(R)`$ and $`𝒱_i(R)`$.

Let us study the asymptotic behavior of the solution of the FNE given in Eq. (21) in the above described regions.

### A The $`𝒱_b(R)`$ region

In the breakup region $`𝒱_b(R)`$ the nuclear interaction can be safely disregarded and the FNE for $`\psi (i)`$ becomes

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(_{x_i}^2+_{y_i}^2\right)+V_CE\right]\psi (i)=0.$$
(23)
By rewriting this equation using the $`\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ coordinates and disregarding terms vanishing faster than $`𝒪(1/\rho )`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, the solution reduces to

$`\psi (i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right)`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho +\mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}B_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right),\mathrm{region}𝒱_b(R),`$
where $`E=\mathrm{}^2Q^2/m`$ and

$$\widehat{\chi }=\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}^2Q}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}\frac{1+\tau _{j,z}}{2}\frac{1+\tau _{k,z}}{2},$$
(26)
is a dimensionless operator. The functions $`A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)`$ and $`B_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)`$ are the so–called breakup amplitudes and are fixed by the dynamics of the process. For example, the cross section for the process $`p+dp+p+n`$ is proportional to $`|A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)|^2`$.

Alternatively, $`\psi (i)`$ can be decomposed as in Eq. (13), where the neutron is explicitly labelled. The corresponding components $`\psi _\nu (i)`$ are

$`\psi _\nu (i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _\nu )\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,\nu }^i(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)\right)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho +\mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _\nu )\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{B}_{\alpha ,\nu }^i(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)\right),\mathrm{region}𝒱_b(R),`$
where $`\eta (\theta _\nu )`$ represents the isospin matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\chi }`$ and is defined as

$$\eta (\theta _\nu )=\frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu },\nu =1,2,3.$$
(29)
The breakup amplitudes depending on the neutron label $`\nu `$ are related to the previous ones by the relations:

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{3}{2}}(\theta _i)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _i),`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{3}{2}}(\theta _i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}A_{\alpha ,0,\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _i),`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,k}^i(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{3}{2}}(\theta _i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}A_{\alpha ,1,\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}A_{\alpha ,0,\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _i),`$ (32)
and analogously for $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{\alpha ,i}^i`$. The superscript $`i`$ of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,\nu }^i`$ recalls that these amplitudes are the appropriate combinations of functions $`A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ entering the expression (28) of $`\psi _\nu (i)`$.

### B The $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ region

In the following analysis we will fix our attention to the term describing outgoing breakup waves, i.e. proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Q\rho )`$. When $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu 0`$, namely going into the regions $`𝒱_{t,\nu }(R)`$, the term $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _\nu )\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho )`$ in Eq. (28) oscillates increasingly. Moreover, it is no longer appropriate to disregard terms like $`1/(\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu )^2`$ in the construction of the solution. In this region the FNE satisfied by $`\psi (i)`$ is still given by Eq. (23), since $`x_i>a_N`$. We can distinguish the following cases.

1. Component $`\psi _i(i)`$ (particle $`i`$ is a neutron). The FNE satisfied by this component is

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(_{x_i}^2+_{y_i}^2\right)+\frac{e^2}{x_i}E\right]\psi _i(i)=0.$$
(33)
Since we are in a region where $`x_iy_i\rho `$, the general solution of the above equation can be written as

$$\psi _i(i)=\underset{\alpha }{}_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}𝑑\phi 𝒞_{\alpha ,i}(\phi )\frac{1}{x_i}F_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2q},qx_i)\frac{1}{y_i}\widehat{h}_{L_\alpha }^+(py_i)\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i).$$
(34)
where

$$q=Q\mathrm{cos}\phi ,p=Q\mathrm{sin}\phi ,$$
(35)
$`F_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,qx)`$ is the regular Coulomb function and

$$\widehat{h}_L^+(z)=z\left(y_L(z)+\mathrm{i}j_L(z)\right),\widehat{h}_L^+(z)e^{\mathrm{i}(zL\pi /2)}\mathrm{for}z\mathrm{},$$
(36)
with $`j_L`$ and $`y_L`$ spherical Bessel functions. The function $`𝒞_{\alpha ,i}(\phi )`$ entering Eq. (34), whose dependence on $`Q`$ is implicit, is a smooth weight function, strictly related to the breakup amplitude $`A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)`$. It goes to zero for $`\phi 0`$ or $`\pi /2`$. In order to analyze the asymptotic form of the solution it is convenient to decompose the Coulomb function as

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)=_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)\mathrm{sin}\left(z+\beta _{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)\right),$$
(37)
where $`_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ have the following asymptotic behaviors for $`z\mathrm{max}(1,\eta ^2)`$,

$`_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (38)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \mathrm{ln}2z\mathrm{}\pi /2+\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(q),`$ (39)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(q)`$ being the Coulomb phase–shift. For $`z\mathrm{min}(1,1/\eta )`$ we have instead

$`_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\mathrm{}}e^{\pi \eta /2}|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1+\mathrm{i}\eta )|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+2)}}(z)^{\mathrm{}}`$ (40)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (41)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the gamma function. The decomposition (37) is somewhat arbitrary. However, we require that both $``$ and $`\beta `$ always be finite. Thus, $`z_n+\beta _{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z_n)=n\pi `$ for $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, where $`z_n`$ are the zeros of the function $`F_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$. An example of the decomposition is shown in Fig. (1) for a few values of $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

In the large $`\rho `$ limit the integral in Eq. (34) can be evaluated by the saddle–point approximation. Introducing the above decomposition for the Coulomb function and the relations $`x_i=\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`y_i=\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$, the leading term, given by the saddle–point $`\phi =\theta _i`$, is

$`\psi _i(i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{Q}}}e^{3\pi \mathrm{i}/4}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞_{\alpha ,i}(\theta _i)}{2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i}}_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)`$ (43)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}\beta _\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)\mathrm{i}L_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)`$ (46)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}\beta _\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)+\mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _i)\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{i}\sigma _\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)\right]`$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\theta _i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _i)\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho )\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),.`$
where in the last passage we have defined

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{Q}}}e^{3\pi \mathrm{i}/4}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞_{\alpha ,i}(\theta _i)}{2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i}}\times `$ (48)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _i)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+\mathrm{i}\sigma _\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)\right).`$
The next term of the saddle–point expansion is $`\rho ^{7/2}`$. In the region $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ we have $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i0`$ so that $`\eta ^2(\theta _i)1`$. Therefore, if

$$Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\eta ^2(\theta _i),$$
(49)
or equivalently

$$x_i\rho _c\left(\frac{m^2e^4\rho ^3}{4\mathrm{}^4Q^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}},$$
(50)
the functions $``$ and $`\beta `$ reach their asymptotic values given in Eqs. (38) and (39). Then, $`\psi _i(i)`$ reduces to the form of Eq. (28) with $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i`$ given by Eq. (48). When Eq. (50) is not satisfied, corresponding to the situation in which the two protons approach each other, the functions $``$ and $`\beta `$ start deviating from their asymptotic behavior and the breakup w.f. cannot be cast into the form (28) and (25). The extreme situation corresponds to the condition

$$Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\frac{1}{\eta (\theta _i)},$$
(51)
or equivalently,

$$x_i\rho _c^{}\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{me^2}60\mathrm{fm},$$
(52)
and the functions $``$ and $`\beta `$ reach the behavior given in Eqs. (40) and (41). Thus, $`e^{\pi me^2/\mathrm{}^2Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}0`$ since $`x_i/\rho =\mathrm{cos}\theta _i0`$. Also the successive terms in the saddle–point expansion are zero. This corresponds to the intuitive fact that the probability of finding two protons (in this case, labelled as particles $`j`$ and $`k`$) at any finite distance $`x_i=r_{jk}`$ is negligible in the asymptotic region $`R\mathrm{}`$. We arrive at the important result that the amplitude $`\psi _i(i)`$ goes smoothly from the behavior given in Eq. (28) to a vanishing value when going from the region where $`x_i\rho _c`$ to the one where $`x_i\rho _c^{}`$.

The same conclusion holds if the regular Coulomb function $`F_{\mathrm{}}(\eta ,z)`$ is replaced by the (regular) solution of the two–body Schroedinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+1\frac{2\eta }{z}\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{z^2}\frac{mV^{\mathrm{NN}}(x_i)}{\mathrm{}^2q^2}\right]F_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{V}(\eta ,q,x_i)=0,z=qx_i,$$
(53)
where, for the matter of simplicity, we have considered here a central NN potential $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}(x_i)`$. Outside the range of $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}`$ we have $`F_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{V}F_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{tan}\delta _{\mathrm{}}G_{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`G`$ is the irregular Coulomb function and $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ the phase shift induced by the NN potential. However, for $`q0`$ or $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ it can be shown that $`G\mathrm{exp}(\pi \eta )`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \eta )`$. Therefore, when $`x_i\rho _c^{}`$ again $`F^\mathrm{V}0`$.

2. Component $`\psi _j(i)`$ (the neutron is labelled as $`j`$). The equation satisfied by $`\psi _j(i)`$ in this region is

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(_{x_i}^2+_{y_i}^2\right)+\frac{e^2}{x_j}E\right]\psi _j(i)=0.$$
(54)
In $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$, $`x_j\kappa y_i`$ and therefore the solution of the above equation can be written in the form

$`\psi _j(i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\phi 𝒞_{\alpha ,j}(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_i}}\widehat{j}_\mathrm{}_\alpha (qx_i)`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_i}}\left[G_{L_\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2\kappa p}},py_i)+\mathrm{i}F_{L_\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2\kappa p}},py_i)\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i).`$
where $`G_L`$ is the irregular Coulomb function and $`\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a regular Riccati-Bessel function. As has been done before, this latter function can be decomposed as,

$$\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{}}(z)=𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(z)\mathrm{sin}(z+\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(z)),$$
(57)
where $`𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ and $`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ have the following asymptotic behavior for $`z1`$,

$`𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (58)
$`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\pi /2,`$ (59)
and for $`z1`$,

$`𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(z)^{\mathrm{}}}{(2\mathrm{}+1)!!}},`$ (60)
$`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (61)
Note that $`𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(z)=_{\mathrm{}}(0,z)`$ and $`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(z)=\beta _{\mathrm{}}(0,z)`$. Moreover, $`𝒥_0(z)=1`$ and $`\zeta _0(z)=0`$.

Following a procedure similar to the one adopted in point 1), the following expression for the component $`\psi _j(i)`$ in $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ is found,

$$\psi _j(i)=C(\rho )\underset{\alpha }{}𝒥_\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _ix_i)\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}\zeta _\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _ix_i)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{\pi }{2}\right]\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),$$
(62)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\theta _i)=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{Q}}e^{3\pi \mathrm{i}/4}\frac{𝒞_{\alpha ,j}(\theta _i)}{2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha )\frac{\pi }{2}+\mathrm{i}\sigma _\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{sin}\theta _i)\right).$$
(63)
In Eq. (62), we have defined

$$C(\rho )=\frac{1}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2Q\kappa }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho \right).$$
(64)
Therefore, for

$$x_i\rho _n\left(\frac{\rho }{Q}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(65)
where the behavior given in Eqs. (58) and (59) for $`𝒥_{\mathrm{}}(qx_i)`$ and $`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(qx_i)`$ is valid, the component $`\psi _j(i)`$ coincides with Eq. (28) \[note that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _j\kappa `$ in $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$\].

If $`x_i\rho _n`$, the amplitudes of the channels having $`\mathrm{}_\alpha >0`$ become vanishing small since $`𝒥_\mathrm{}_\alpha (x_i/\rho _n)^{2\mathrm{}_\alpha }`$. This corresponds to the intuitive fact that the probability of finding two nucleons (in this case, labelled as particles $`j`$ and $`k`$) with a vanishing relative velocity and relative orbital angular momentum greater than zero is negligible in the asymptotic region $`R\mathrm{}`$. Therefore,

$$\psi _j(i)C(\rho )\underset{\alpha }{}\delta _{\mathrm{}_a,0}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\frac{\pi }{2})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),x_i\rho _n.$$
(66)
3. Component $`\psi _k(i)`$ (the neutron is labelled as $`k`$). The solution for this case coincides with that discussed in point 2.

Finally, we can estimate of the value of the constant $`\mu `$ defining the region $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$. In the $`nd`$ case, the appropriate value is $`\mu 1/2`$ \[see Eq. (65)\]. In the $`pd`$ case, a value of $`\mu 3/4`$ can be chosen in accordance with Eq. (50). As shown in Ref. , the presence of those regions does not alter the validity of the KVP for the $`nd`$ case. Therefore, it can be expected that such regions do not play any important role also in the $`pd`$ case, as will become evident in the next section.

### C The $`𝒱_i(R)`$ region

In this region the nuclear interaction between particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ cannot be disregarded, whereas particle $`i`$ is far from the other two. The solution consists of an elastic $`pd`$ amplitude $`\psi ^{(e)}(i)`$ plus a breakup amplitude $`\psi ^{(b)}(i)`$, namely $`\psi (i)=\psi ^{(e)}(i)+\psi ^{(b)}(i)`$. The amplitude $`\psi ^{(e)}`$ has the form

$$\psi ^{(e)}(i)=\underset{LS}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)\left[a_{LS}_L^+(\eta _0,q_0d_i)+b_{LS}_L^{}(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\right],$$
(67)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)`$ is given in Eq. (19), the distance $`d_i`$ in Eq. (2) and

$$_L^\pm (\eta _0,q_0d_i)=\frac{G_L(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\pm \mathrm{i}F_L(\eta _0,q_0d_i)}{q_0d_i}.$$
(68)
The functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ are the regular and irregular Coulomb functions and

$$\eta _0=\frac{me^2}{2\mathrm{}^2q_0},$$
(69)
is the usual Coulomb parameter, with the wave number $`q_0`$ satisfying the relation

$$B_d+\frac{1}{(\kappa )^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}q_0^2=E.$$
(70)
The coefficients $`a_{LS}`$ ($`b_{LS}`$) are the amplitudes of the corresponding incoming (outgoing) waves. In fact, $`^\pm \mathrm{exp}(\pm \mathrm{i}q_0d_i+\mathrm{})`$ in the limit of large $`q_0d_i`$ values.

The amplitude $`\psi ^{(b)}(i)`$, when particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ are protons, again vanishes for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ due to the Coulomb repulsion, namely $`\psi _i^{(b)}(i)=0`$. When one of the particles is a neutron, it takes the form

$$\psi _\nu ^{(b)}(i)=\underset{\alpha }{}\delta _{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,0}\varphi _\alpha ^0(x_i)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,\nu }^i(\frac{\pi }{2})C(\rho )\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),\nu =j\mathrm{or}k,$$
(71)
where $`\varphi _\alpha ^0`$ is the s–wave solution of a inhomogeneous zero energy two–body Schroedinger–like equation  derived from Eq. (21) by taking into account the coupling between $`\psi (i)`$ and $`\psi (j)+\psi (k)`$ induced by the NN potential. The amplitude $`\psi _{j\mathrm{or}k}^{(b)}(i)`$ vanishes for $`\mathrm{}_\alpha >0`$ due to the centrifugal repulsion. For the present discussion of the KVP the precise form of the functions $`\varphi _\alpha ^0`$ is not important. They are normalized so that $`\varphi _\alpha ^01`$ outside $`𝒱_i(R)`$, namely when $`x_ia_N`$, in order to match the result obtained in the transition region. The derivation of the equation satisfied by $`\varphi _\alpha ^0`$ is reported in the Appendix.

### D The $`𝒱_j(R)`$+$`𝒱_{t,j}(R)`$ regions

In these regions $`y_j\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_j/y_j0`$ and therefore we can approximate $`x_i\kappa y_j`$ and $`y_iy_j/2`$. Then, the component $`\psi _i(i)`$ satisfies again the uncoupled FNE given in Eq. (23). Moreover, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\kappa `$ or $`\theta _i\pi /6`$ and from Eq. (46)

$$\psi _i(i)C(\rho )\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\frac{\pi }{6})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (i),\mathrm{region}𝒱_j(R).$$
(72)
In fact, here (for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$) we always have $`Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\eta ^2(\theta _i)`$. The same conclusion is reached for $`\psi _k(i)`$. Both components can be obtained directly by taking the limit $`\theta _i\pi /6`$ in Eq. (28).

The component $`\psi _j(i)`$ is more difficult to obtain. In fact, since here $`x_j`$ can become very small, we have to fully take into account the distortion due to the Coulomb potential. This component can be calculated by expressing it in terms of the coordinates $`𝐱_j`$ and $`𝐲_j`$ and by rewriting Eq. (23) as

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(_{x_j}^2+_{y_j}^2\right)+\frac{e^2}{x_j}E\right]\psi _j(i;𝐱_j,𝐲_j)=0.$$
(73)
Now $`\psi _j(i;𝐱_j,𝐲_j)`$ can be determined by following the same procedure as in Sect. III B. In particular, it has been shown there that for $`x_j\rho _c^{}`$, $`\psi _j(i)`$ vanishes due to the Coulomb repulsion between the protons.

The behavior of $`\psi (i)`$ in $`𝒱_k(R)`$ and $`𝒱_{t,k}(R)`$ can be analyzed in the same manner. Here the components $`\psi _i(i)`$ and $`\psi _j(i)`$ are given by Eq. (72) and can be obtained directly as the limit of the solution valid in $`𝒱_b(R)`$. The component $`\psi _k(i)`$ will be distorted by the Coulomb repulsion and will vanish inside $`𝒱_k(R)`$.

### E Summary

It is straightforward to show that the behavior of the incoming wave $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Q\rho +\mathrm{})`$ has similar properties. Therefore, the behavior of the amplitudes $`\psi (i)`$ in the asymptotic regions can be put in the form,

$`\psi (i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{LS}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)\left[a_{LS}_L^+(\eta _0,q_0d_i)+b_{LS}_L^{}(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\right]`$ (76)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho )}}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho +\mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right).`$
The “distorted” breakup amplitudes $`𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ and $`_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ have been written as functions of ($`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$) taking into account the modifications induced by the Coulomb, centrifugal and NN potentials. In $`𝒱_b(R)`$, clearly $`𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)A_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)`$ and $`_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)B_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\theta _i)`$. Moreover, as discussed in Sect. III B and III C, in the region $`𝒱_i(R)`$ and $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$, a good approximation for the (isospin-projected components of) $`𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ should be

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ $``$ $`_\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{(c)}(x_i,\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,i}^i(\theta _i),`$ (77)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ $``$ $`_\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{(n)}(x_i,\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i(\theta _i),`$ (78)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{\alpha ,k}^i(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ $``$ $`_\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{(n)}(x_i,\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,k}^i(\theta _i),`$ (79)
where the following functions have been introduced,

$`_\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{(c)}(x_i,\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}\beta _\mathrm{}_\alpha (\eta (\theta _i),Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)`$ (81)
$`+\mathrm{i}\eta (\theta _i)\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{i}\sigma _\mathrm{}_\alpha (Q\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)],`$
$`_\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{(n)}(x_i,\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,0}(\varphi _\alpha ^0(x_i)1)+1)𝒥_\mathrm{}_\alpha \left(Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\right)`$ (83)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}\zeta _\mathrm{}_\alpha \left(Q\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\right)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right].`$
In the regions $`𝒱_i(R)+𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ the divergent behavior of $`\widehat{\chi }`$ for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i0`$ is completely canceled by terms in $`𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$. It can be checked that outside of the region $`𝒱_i(R)+𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ the functions $`𝒜`$ reduce to the breakup amplitude $`A`$, since in $`𝒱_b(R)`$ $`^{(z)}(x_i,\theta _i)1`$ ($`z=c`$, $`n`$). The factor $`^{(c)}`$ takes into account the effect of the Coulomb and centrifugal potential in $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ and goes to zero in $`𝒱_i(R)`$. Conversely the factor $`^{(n)}`$ takes into account the effects of the NN potential and the centrifugal barrier. Since for $`\mathrm{}_\alpha >0`$ $`𝒥_\mathrm{}_\alpha `$ vanishes in $`𝒱_i(R)`$, the influence of the NN potential has been taken into account only in the $`\mathrm{}_\alpha =0`$ wave.

## IV The Kohn Variational Principle

The process we are interested in is a collision between a proton and a deuteron, namely, the reaction

$$(p+d)(p+d)+(n+p+p).$$
(84)
If the incident state of the $`pd`$ system has quantum numbers $`L_0`$, $`S_0`$ and $`J`$, the elastic amplitude in Eq. (76) is characterized by

$$b_{LS}=\delta _{LL_0}\delta _{SS_0}.$$
(85)
The coefficient $`a_{LS}`$ is usually renamed as $`𝒮_{L_0S_0,LS}`$, $`𝒮_{L_0S_0,LS}`$ being the elements of the elastic S–matrix. Since the breakup part should not include incoming waves, we must have

$$_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(x_i,\theta _i)=0.$$
(86)
The Eqs. (8586) give the boundary conditions to be satisfied by the w.f. describing the process (84). Explicitly, the asymptotic amplitude is

$`\psi (i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{LS}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)\left[𝒮_{L_0S_0,LS}_L^+(\eta _0,q_0d_i)+\delta _{LL_0}\delta _{SS_0}_L^{}(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\right]`$ (88)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho )}}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right),\rho R.`$
Let us now consider the integral

$$I=\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0S_0}_R,$$
(89)
where $`_R`$ stands for the integration over $`d^3x_id^3y_i`$ of the six–dimensional volume with $`\rho R`$ ($`R\mathrm{}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{()}`$ is the time–reversed w.f. In the end the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ is taken. The function $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is a trial w.f. which will be chosen to satisfy the boundary conditions. Without loss of generality, the trial w.f. can be decomposed into three amplitudes, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=_{i=1}^3\overline{\psi }(i)`$. The asymptotic behavior of $`\overline{\psi }(i)`$ can be written as

$`\overline{\psi }(i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{LS}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}^d(i)\left[\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,LS}_L^+(\eta _0,q_0d_i)+\delta _{L_0,L}\delta _{S_0,S}_L^{}(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\right]`$ (91)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho \mathrm{i}\overline{\chi }\mathrm{log}2Q\rho }}{\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}}\overline{𝒜}_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)\right),\rho R.`$
The overlined quantities are free parameters which represent approximations to the exact values. It should be noticed that an approximate expression $`\overline{\chi }`$ of the operator $`\widehat{\chi }`$ has been introduced in the above equation.

The important point is that the validity of the KVP for the elastic part of the S–matrix can be proved also in this case. However, the “choice” of $`\overline{\chi }`$ is not completely arbitrary, since the matrix element $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ has to be finite. Moreover, in a practical calculation the convergence of the elastic S–matrix should be checked whenever an improvement is made to $`\overline{\chi }`$.

For example, in the case considered in Sect. V the operator $`\overline{\chi }`$ is represented as an expansion over the Hyperspherical Harmonic functions and therefore has not any singular behavior for $`\theta _i\pi /2`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. Moreover, $`\overline{\chi }\widehat{\chi }`$ as the number of terms included in the expansion basis is increased. Such a procedure may result in a slow convergence of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ towards the exact $`𝒜`$, in particular for $`\theta _i\pi /2`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. However, this problem has no practical consequences for the calculation of the elastic S–matrix, as will be shown in Sect. V.

Contributions to the integral $`I`$ come only from the differential operators present in $`H`$. By integrating by parts, $`I`$ takes contribution only from the hypersurface $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ at $`\rho =R`$. Let us denote with $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_x]`$ the parts of $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ corresponding to a particular asymptotic region $`𝒱_x(R)`$. Therefore,

$$I=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(I_i+I_{t,i}\right)+I_b,$$
(92)
where $`I_i`$, $`I_{t,i}`$ and $`I_b`$ are the contributions coming from $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_i]`$, $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{t,i}]`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_b]`$, respectively. On the hypersurface $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$, the trial and exact wave functions have reached the asymptotic behavior given in Eqs. (88) and (91). In $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_i]`$, only the elastic part contributes, with the result

$$I_i=\frac{2\mathrm{i}}{q_0}\kappa \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}𝒮_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}\right).$$
(93)
In fact, the breakup part goes like $`\rho ^{5/2}`$ and gives a contribution $`R^{3/2}`$ which vanishes in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. The contribution $`I_{t,i}`$ coming from the region $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{t,i}]`$ is also zero. First of all, only breakup waves can contribute since the elastic wave vanishes outside $`𝒱_i(R)`$. Moreover, the “dimension” of the surface $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{t,i}]`$ is proportional to $`R^{2+3\mu }`$, whereas the integrand is proportional to $`1/R^5`$. Thus, for $`R\mathrm{}`$ the integral in $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{t,i}]`$ behaves $`R^{3(\mu 1)}0`$. Finally, in the case in which only outgoing breakup waves are present in both the trial and exact w.f. the contributions of the two terms in Eq. (89) cancel each other.

In $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_b]`$, $`I_b`$ reduces to

$$I_b=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}_{[\mathrm{\Omega }_b]}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0S_0}\frac{d}{d\rho }\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}\frac{d}{d\rho }\rho ^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0S_0}\right]_{\rho =R},$$
(94)
and, using the asymptotic behaviors given in Eqs. (76) and (91), $`I_b1/R0`$ for $`R\mathrm{}`$.

Summing up all the contributions and remembering that $`(HE)\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0,S_0}=0`$ the exact expression is obtained:

$$𝒮_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}=\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}\frac{mq_0}{6\mathrm{i}\kappa \mathrm{}^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}+\frac{mq_0}{6\mathrm{i}\kappa \mathrm{}^2}ϵ_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|ϵ_{L_0S_0},$$
(95)
where $`ϵ_{L_0S_0}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L_0S_0}`$ is the “error” introduced in the trial w.f. It can be noticed that Eq. (95) is variational in character, since the last term is quadratic in the error function $`ϵ_{L_0S_0}`$. Therefore, the functional

$$[𝒮_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}]=\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}\frac{mq}{6\mathrm{i}\kappa \mathrm{}^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0},$$
(96)
represents a second order estimate for the exact diagonal element $`𝒮_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}`$. The search of stationary solutions through the equation

$$\delta [𝒮_{L_0S_0,L_0S_0}]=0,$$
(97)
provides the optimum estimate. Here $`\delta `$ denotes the variation with respect to all the trial parameters entering $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}`$, including $`\overline{S}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$. Moreover, the KVP can be readily generalized to obtain variational relations for the non–diagonal matrix elements $`𝒮_{L_1S_1,L_2S_2}`$ of the elastic collisional matrix.

Clearly, the principle is meaningful only if the two matrix elements entering Eq. (95) are both finite. This is not evident since for $`\rho >R`$ both $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`ϵ`$ have oscillatory behaviors. However, since Eq. (95) is exact and $`𝒮`$ and $`\overline{𝒮}`$ are finite, it is sufficient to check that one of the matrix elements is finite, in particular $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. This imposes some constraints on $`\overline{\chi }`$, which usually has to be chosen coherently with the expansion basis used to construct $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (see Sect. V for a practical example).

Applications of the KVP usually start with the expansion of the w.f. in a certain basis which is truncated at some level. The stability of the functional (96) is studied in terms of the dimension of the basis and in terms of the nonlinear parameters (if any). Spurious resonances or spurious solutions in the convergence procedure could appear due to a zero eigenvalue present in the operator $`HE`$ . These spurious solutions have been studied for a long time and it was shown that the KVP in its complex form, as presented here, is well-behaved . Spurious solutions could appear in this case too, but these occur for unrealistic values of the nonlinear parameters, which are in general present in the form of a regularizing factor or inside some exponent . Below the DBT, a practical rule to verify the presence of spuriousities is to apply the principle to the reactance matrix $`K`$ and its inverse $`K^1`$ (inverse KVP) and verify the relation $`KK^1=I`$. Similarly, for energies above the DBT, one could apply the variation principle for the T-matrix (which can be derived by following an analogous procedure to the one described here). With two independent estimates of (the elastic part of) the S– and T–matrices one can test, for example, the relation $`S=I2\mathrm{i}T`$. Besides these anomalies, which constitute an inherent problem of the method, the trial w.f. must be flexible enough to approach the exact one in the asymptotic and the internal regions. In other words, the error introduced due to the approximate representation of the operator $`\widehat{\chi }`$ in the truncated basis should be reduced accordingly with the improvement in the description of the internal part of the wave function.

The situation is rather similar to that which occurs when an approximate form $`\overline{\varphi }_d`$ of the deuteron w.f. is used in Eq. (19). It is easy to show that the KVP is still valid, but the “error” term also includes a quadratic term in $`\overline{\varphi }_d\varphi _d`$ . In general, what happens is the following: when the inaccuracies of $`\overline{\varphi }_d`$ or $`\overline{\chi }`$ are “small”, the resulting errors in the elastic S–matrix elements are of second order, and can usually be disregarded. If the inaccuracies are not small enough, the expansion basis $`\{𝒬\}`$ used to describe the internal part of the w.f. will spread out in the asymptotic region in an attempt to remedy the defects of the $`\overline{\varphi }_d`$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$. If this happens, the convergence with respect to $`\{𝒬\}`$ may be extremely slow, or it could even happen that no convergence could be found.

## V A Practical Example

In this Section, the application of the pair–correlated hyperspherical harmonic (PHH) technique to describe $`pd`$ scattering for energies above the DBT is discussed. In the PHH approach, the trial w.f. is written as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}=\mathrm{\Psi }_A+\mathrm{\Psi }_C,\mathrm{\Psi }_A=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\psi }_A(i),\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\psi }_C(i).$$
(98)
The first term $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ describes the system when the two incident clusters are well separated and it is written in the form

$$\psi _A(i)=\underset{LS}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{LS}(i)\left[𝒮_{L_0S_0,LS}\stackrel{~}{}_L^+(\eta _0,q_0d_i)+\delta _{LL_0}\delta _{SS_0}\stackrel{~}{}_L^{}(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\right],$$
(99)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{}_L^\pm (\eta _0,q_0d_i)=\frac{(1e^{\gamma d_i})^{2L+1}G_L(\eta _0,q_0d_i)\pm \mathrm{i}F_L(\eta _0,q_0d_i)}{q_0d_i}.$$
(100)
The factor $`(1e^{\gamma d_i})^{2L+1}`$ has been introduced to regularize the function $`G`$ at the origin, and $`\gamma `$ is taken as a nonlinear variational parameter. Its choice is not a critical problem due to the large flexibility of the trial w.f. in the internal region. The range of values $`\gamma =0.30.5`$ fm<sup>-1</sup> has been found to be adequate in all the cases studied. For $`d_i1/\gamma `$, $`\psi _A(i)`$ coincides with the first term of the asymptotic form (91).

The second term $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$ of the trial w.f. must describe those configurations of the system where the particles are close to each other. For large interparticle separations and energies below the DBT, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$ goes to zero, whereas for higher energies it must reproduce an outgoing three particle state. Each amplitude $`\psi _C(i)`$ is expanded in terms of the PHH basis ,

$$\psi _C(i)=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}\underset{K}{}u_{\alpha ,T,𝒯,K}(\rho )f_\alpha (x_i){}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }(\theta _i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i),$$
(101)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }`$ is a hyperspherical polynomial, defined for example in Ref. , $`u_{\alpha ,T,𝒯,K}(\rho )`$ are the hyperradial functions to be determined by the variational procedure and $`f_\alpha (x_i)`$ is a correlation function. In the “uncorrelated” hyperspherical harmonic expansion (HH) one has $`f_\alpha (x_i)=1`$, whereas in the PHH approach it is included in order to better take into account those correlations introduced by the repulsion of the potential at short distances. The correlation function is calculated by solving a two-body Schroedinger–like equation and it goes to one for large values of the interparticle distance $`x_i`$. In Eq. (101), the sum over $`\alpha ,T,𝒯`$ is truncated after the inclusion of $`N_c`$ channels. Usually all the channels with $`\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha L_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{max}}=6`$ or $`7`$, are included in the expansion. For each channel, the sum over the index $`K`$ of the hyperspherical polynomial runs from $`K=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ up to a maximum value $`K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$. The latter values are chosen in order to achieve the required convergence in the quantities of interest. The total number of basis functions is therefore

$$M=\underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{\overset{N_c}{}}(K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}+1).$$
(102)
To simplify the notation let us label the basis elements with the index $`\mu [\alpha ,T,𝒯,K]`$, and introduce the following completely antisymmetric correlated spin-isospin-hyperspherical basis elements

$$𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}f_\alpha (x_i){}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }(\theta _i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i),$$
(103)
which depends on $`\rho `$ through the correlation factor and form a non–orthogonal basis. In terms of $`𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the internal part is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}u_\mu (\rho )𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(104)
The “uncorrelated” basis elements $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are obtained from Eq. (103) in which all the correlation functions are $`f_\alpha (x_i)=1`$. It is important to note that also the elements $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ do not form an orthogonal basis, as has been discussed in Ref. . In particular, those elements having the same grand–angular quantum number $`G=\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha +2K`$ but belonging to different channels are not orthogonal among themselves. Moreover, some $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with the same $`G,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,𝒯`$ quantum numbers are linearly dependent. In Ref.  these states have been identified and eliminated from the expansion.

In the present case, the basis elements $`𝒫_\mu (\rho \mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ reduce to the uncorrelated ones $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in the asymptotic region $`𝒱_b(R)`$. Therefore, it will be useful to combine the correlated basis (103) in order to define a new basis with the property of being orthonormal for $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$. This can be readily accomplished by noting that

$$n_{\mu \mu ^{}}(\rho )=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })^{}𝒫_\mu ^{}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}+\frac{N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(3)}}{\rho ^3}+𝒪(1/\rho ^5),\mathrm{for}\rho \mathrm{},$$
(105)
where, in particular,

$$N_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{(0)}=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}𝒫_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(106)
Let us define a matrix $`U`$ such that $`UN^{(0)}U^t=𝒟`$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $`𝒟_\mu `$ either $`1`$ or $`0`$. The $`𝒟_\mu =0`$ correspond to the states $`𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ linearly dependent on the others. New uncorrelated and correlated bases are defined as:

$$𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}U_{\mu \mu ^{}}𝒫_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega }),𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}U_{\mu \mu ^{}}𝒫_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(107)
The basis functions $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are still not orthogonal for any finite values of $`\rho `$. When $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, the elements $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Due to the fact that some of the uncorrelated elements $`𝒫^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are linearly dependent, some elements $`𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are identically zero. Therefore, some correlated elements have the property: $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })0`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$.

In terms of the new basis, the internal part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$ is simply

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\rho ^{5/2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}\omega _\mu (\rho )𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(108)
where $`\omega _\mu =_\mu ^{}(U^1)_{\mu ^{}\mu }u_\mu ^{}`$.

The variation of the functional (96) with respect to the hyperradial functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$, which are the unknown quantities entering in the description of the internal part of the w.f. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C`$, leads to the set of inhomogeneous second order differential equations given in Ref. , where the method of solution has been discussed. For $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, neglecting terms going to zero faster than $`\rho ^1`$, the asymptotic expression of such a set of differential equations reduces to the form

$$\underset{\mu ^{}}{}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+Q^2\right)𝒟_\mu \delta _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}+\frac{2Qc_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}}{\rho }+𝒪(\frac{1}{\rho ^2})\right\}\omega _\mu ^{}(\rho )=0,$$
(109)
where the matrix $`c`$ is defined as

$$c_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\widehat{\chi }𝒬_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(110)
In practice, the functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$ are chosen to be regular at the origin ($`\omega _\mu (0)=0`$) and, in accordance to Eq. (109), to have the following behavior

$$\omega _\mu (\rho )\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(e^{\mathrm{i}c\mathrm{ln}2Q\rho }\right)_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,\mu ^{}}^be^{\mathrm{i}Q\rho },(\rho \mathrm{}),$$
(111)
where $`\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,\mu ^{}}^b`$ are unknown coefficients. Eq. (111) reproduces the behavior of the breakup term with

$$\underset{\alpha ,T,𝒯}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{𝒜}_{\alpha ,T,\tau }(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)𝒴_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}(i)=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,\mu }^b𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(112)
or

$$\overline{𝒜}_{\alpha ,T,\tau }(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)=\underset{K=0}{\overset{K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}}{}}\left(\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{𝒮}_{L_0,S_0,\mu ^{}}^bU_{\mu ^{}\mu }\right)f_\alpha (x_i){}_{}{}^{(2)}P_{K}^{\mathrm{}_\alpha ,L_\alpha }(\theta _i),\mu [\alpha ,T,𝒯,K],$$
(113)
and

$$\overline{\chi }=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝒬_\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}c_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}𝒬_\mu ^{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(114)
From the above equation it is clear that an enlargement of the PHH basis by increasing $`N_c`$ and $`K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ improves the trial w.f. both in the internal and in the asymptotic regions. The choice in Eqs. (111) and (114) is natural in the calculation scheme outlined here and ensures that the matrix element $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}^{()}|(HE)|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}`$ be finite . In fact

$$<\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}^{()}|HE|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{L_0S_0}>=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho (\rho ),$$
(115)
and for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ one has

$`(\rho )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ^{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\{\omega _\mu (\rho )({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}}+Q^2)𝒟_\mu \delta _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}\omega _\mu ^{}(\rho )+`$ (117)
$`+\omega _\mu (\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{2Qc_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}}{\rho }}\omega _\mu ^{}(\rho )+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}})\}𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}).`$
In conclusion, the procedure appears to be well founded and in the (hypothetical) limit of an infinite expansion it leads to the exact results. The breakup amplitudes $`\overline{𝒜}_\alpha (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ are obtained in first order approximation in terms of the PHH basis elements $`𝒬_\mu (\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, via Eq. (113). The convergence of $`\overline{𝒜}(\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ as a function of $`N_c`$ and $`K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ has been found to be very slow when $`\theta _i\pi /2`$. This is related to the difficulties for the expansion (113) of reproducing the $`x_i`$ dependence of the breakup amplitudes in the region $`𝒱_i(R)+𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$ specified in Eqs. (7779). However, this problem has no consequences on the calculation of the elastic S–matrix elements $`[𝒮]`$, since the regions $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_i]`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{t,i}]`$ do not give any contribution to the error term $`<ϵ|HE|ϵ>`$.

Once proved that the procedure can lead to the correct solution of the problem, there are two main questions to be taken care of in practical applications, namely:

1. The boundary conditions given in Eq. (111) are valid only at $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$. However, such a problem can be overcome by using the procedure proposed in Ref. . First of all, a set of $`M`$ coupled differential equations are derived from the variational condition $`\delta _{\omega _\mu }[𝒮]=0`$. The functions $`\omega _\mu (\rho )`$ are determined in the region $`\rho >\rho _0`$ by expanding in powers of $`1/\rho `$ and verifying the boundary conditions of Eq. (111). Values of $`\rho _0100`$ fm have been found to be appropriate. Then, the differential equations are solved numerically in the region $`(0,\rho _0)`$ imposing the continuity of the logarithmic derivative at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ with the solutions found for $`\rho >\rho _0`$. This procedure fixes the values of the coefficients $`\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,\mu }^b`$. The stability of the solution has been tested by choosing different values of the matching radius in the range $`80200`$ fm. Finally, the variational condition $`\delta _{\overline{S}_{L_0S_0,LS}}[𝒮]=0`$ is used to find the elastic coefficients $`\overline{𝒮}_{L_0S_0,LS}`$.

2. The convergence of the functional $`[𝒮]`$ with $`N_c`$ and $`K_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$. In all the calculations performed , the convergence pattern of $`[𝒮]`$ above the DBT was found to be rather similar to that observed below the threshold . To give an idea of the convergence, the calculated S–matrix elements for $`pd`$ scattering at $`E_{lab}=(3/2)E=5`$ MeV and $`10`$ MeV are reported in Table I. The state considered is $`J^\mathrm{\Pi }=1/2^+`$, which is in general the most structured one since it must satisfy the orthogonality condition with respect to the three-nucleon bound state. In this case the S–matrix is a $`2\times 2`$ (complex) matrix corresponding to the $`pd`$ asymptotic states $`L=0`$, $`S=1/2`$ and $`L=2`$, $`S=3/2`$. The NN interaction considered is the AV18 potential .

In Table I, the real and complex part of the two phase–shifts $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}D_{1/2}^{}`$ and the mixing parameter $`\eta _{1/2+}`$ are given for different values of the number of channels $`N_c=8,18,26`$. In the first case ($`N_c=8`$) only the 8 channels given in Table II have been considered since they give the major contribution to the bound state. The cases $`18`$ and $`26`$ correspond to including all the $`𝒯=1/2`$ channels with $`\mathrm{}_\alpha +L_\alpha 4`$ and $`6`$, respectively. In all the cases, the number of hyperspherical states for each channel has been increased until the convergence was reached. It has been found that a number of states similar to the one used for energies below the DBT is sufficient to get converged results, i.e. $`8`$ basis elements for the first $`4`$ channels, $`6`$ basis elements for channels $`514`$ and $`4`$ basis elements for the successive channels.

Also the convergence with $`N_c`$ is analogous to that obtained for energies below the deuteron breakup, as can be seen in Table I. The first $`8`$ channels give the most important contribution to the S–matrix, with results accurate up to three digits. Higher order channels give minor contributions, of the order of a few percent. The contribution of the channels with $`𝒯=3/2`$ has been found to be very small and it has been disregarded in the calculation presented here.

## VI Conclusions

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the validity of the KVP to describe $`pd`$ elastic scattering above the DBT. The practical application of the principle has been analyzed, with particular reference to the use of the PHH expansion technique. It was shown that the principle remains formally unchanged when the breakup channels are open. In this case, the asymptotic behavior of the w.f. has been extensively discussed with special care in the treatment of the long range Coulomb potential. Different asymptotic regions has been introduced for different values of the hyperspherical variables ($`\rho ,\theta _i`$) and the solution of the Faddeev-Noble equations has been studied in each case. It was found that certain asymptotic configurations in the $`p+p+n`$ system have negligible probability. For example, the breakup w.f. vanishes in region $`𝒱_i`$ when particles $`j,k`$ are protons or when they are in a relative state with angular momentum $`\mathrm{}_\alpha >0`$, independently of the fact that they form a $`pp`$ or an $`np`$ pair. The transition from the solution in region $`𝒱_b`$ to these vanishing solutions has been studied.

Moreover, it was explicitly shown that the use of “approximate” terms in the asymptotic logarithmic distortion of the breakup wave function does not influence the formal derivation and the practical application of the principle. This is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\widehat{\chi }\mathrm{ln}(2Q\rho ))\times 𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ is in any region a smooth function (as discussed in Sect. III E). Thus it is not very critical to try to reproduce it with some approximate method like an expansion over HH functions.

The hyperspherical basis has been found to be a rather natural one to describe the asymptotic behavior of the wave function describing scattering above the DBT, including also the long–range Coulomb interaction. In fact, the equations to be solved have a very simple structure in terms of $`\rho `$ in the asymptotic region and, accordingly, analytical solutions can be obtained. In practical applications it is not difficult to reduce the problem to the determination of the hyperradial functions in the range $`0\rho \rho _0`$ with the application of specific boundary conditions at $`\rho _0`$. Appropriate values of the matching radius $`\rho _0`$ have been found to be in the range of $`80÷200`$ fm.

The convergence of the quantities of interest is the usual problem which one has to face when applying a variational procedure. In two preceding papers , it has been shown that the convergence of the elastic observables can be achieved with the same precision as below DBT. Realistic NN and 3N interactions can be used to calculate the observables in the $`nd`$ and $`pd`$ case, so meaningful comparisons with experimental data can be performed. In the present work a detailed discussion of the problem related to possible inaccuracies introduced from an approximate description of the outgoing breakup waves was presented, including a numerical example.

In conclusion, the KVP provide a formalism from which it is possible to obtain reliable and fully–converged results for the elastic part of the $`pd`$ S–matrix at energies above the DBT even with the inclusion of the long range Coulomb interaction. Applications of the method described here were already reported in Refs.  where the elastic differential cross section and the vector and tensor analyzing powers were studied at $`E_{lab}=5`$ MeV and $`10`$ MeV. The further problem related to a precise determination of the breakup amplitudes $`𝒜_{\alpha ,T,𝒯}`$ is currently under progress and it will be discussed elsewhere .

##

In this appendix, the asymptotic behavior of the (outgoing) breakup wave of $`\psi (i)`$ in $`𝒱_i(R)`$ is given. As discussed in Sect. III B, only the $`\mathrm{}_\alpha =0`$ channels of the components $`\psi _j(i)`$ and $`\psi _k(i)`$ do not vanish in $`𝒱_i(R)`$ and we have

$`\psi _i(i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (118)
$`\psi _j(i)`$ $`=`$ $`C(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}()^S{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)}{\sqrt{2}x_i}}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),\mathrm{region}𝒱_i(R),`$ (119)
$`\psi _k(i)`$ $`=`$ $`C(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)}{\sqrt{2}x_i}}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),`$ (120)
where $`C(\rho )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{\mathrm{},L,\mathrm{\Lambda },S,\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i)`$ are defined in Eqs. (64) and (14), respectively. The sum over the channels has been restricted to those with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ as stated previously. The factors $`()^S`$ and $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ have been introduced for convenience. The functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are determined as explained in the following. First of all, $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}=f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ since $`\psi (i)`$ must be antisymmetric under the exchange $`jk`$. Therefore, the amplitude $`\psi (i)=\psi _i(i)\mathrm{\Xi }_i+\psi _j(i)\mathrm{\Xi }_j+\psi _k(i)\mathrm{\Xi }_k`$ can be cast in the form

$$\psi (i)=C(\rho )\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\frac{f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)}{x_i}\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),$$
(121)
where

$$\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i)=\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i)|(t^jt^k)_{T,0}(t^i)_{\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}},T=1S.$$
(122)
The amplitude $`\psi (i)`$ given in Eq. (121) is easily seen to be antisymmetric with respect to the exchange $`jk`$.

The amplitudes $`\psi (j)`$ and $`\psi (k)`$ in the region $`𝒱_i(R)`$ can be obtained in the same way as in Sect. III D, where the behavior of $`\psi (i)`$ in $`𝒱_j(R)`$ and $`𝒱_k(R)`$ is discussed. In this region the following relations hold

$$𝐱_j\kappa 𝐲_i𝐲_j\frac{1}{2}𝐲_i,\theta _j\frac{\pi }{6},$$
(123)
and

$$𝐱_k\kappa 𝐲_i𝐲_k\frac{1}{2}𝐲_i,\theta _k\frac{\pi }{6}.$$
(124)
Accordingly, $`\psi _{j\mathrm{or}k}(j)`$ and $`\psi _{j\mathrm{or}k}(k)`$ satisfy the FNE with $`V^{\mathrm{NN}}=0`$ and coincide with the “free” solution (28). On the other hand, as discussed in Sect. III D, the components $`\psi _i(j)`$ and $`\psi _i(k)`$ vanish in $`𝒱_i(R)`$ due to the Coulomb repulsion. Therefore, in region $`𝒱_i(R)`$

$`\psi (j)`$ $`=`$ $`C(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^j({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (j)\mathrm{\Xi }_j+\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,k}^j({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (j)\mathrm{\Xi }_k,`$ (125)
$`\psi (k)`$ $`=`$ $`C(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^k({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (k)\mathrm{\Xi }_j+\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,k}^k({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (k)\mathrm{\Xi }_k,`$ (126)
where $`\alpha =\{\mathrm{},L,\mathrm{\Lambda },S,\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$.

Since, under the exchange $`jk`$, it must be verified that $`\psi (j)\psi (k)`$ and vice versa, the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j\mathrm{or}k}^{j\mathrm{or}k}(\pi /6)`$ are not independent. Using the previous relations for the Jacobi coordinates, then

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (j)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S^{}}{}}()^S^{}D_{\alpha ,S^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),`$ (127)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_\alpha (k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S^{}}{}}()^{\mathrm{}+S}D_{\alpha ,S^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),`$ (128)
where

$$D_{\alpha ,S^{}}=()^{S+S^{}}\widehat{\mathrm{}}\widehat{L}\widehat{S}\widehat{S^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& L& \mathrm{\Lambda }\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& S\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }& \frac{1}{2}& S^{}\end{array}\right\},$$
(129)
and $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}+1}`$, etc. Note that only states with orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}=0`$ enter the r.h.s of Eqs. (127) and (128). Finally, we can write

$$\psi (j)+\psi (k)=C(\rho )\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i),\mathrm{region}𝒱_i(R),$$
(130)
where $`\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i)`$ is given in Eq. (122) and

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\underset{\mathrm{}LS}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^j(\frac{\pi }{6})+()^S^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,k}^j(\frac{\pi }{6})\right)D_{\alpha ,S^{}}\sqrt{2}.$$
(131)
Inserting the expressions (121) and (130) in the FNE and disregarding all terms $`𝒪(1/y_i)`$ or $`𝒪(1/\rho )`$, the following equation is obtained

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }(x_i)+V_{2S+1}(x_i)f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)=x_iV_{2S+1}(x_i)𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(132)
where

$$𝑑\widehat{x}_i𝑑\widehat{y}_i\left(\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}S^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}(i)\right)^{}V^{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐱_i)\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i)=V_{2S+1}(x_i)\delta _{SS^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}.$$
(133)
$`V_{2S+1}(x_i)`$ is the projection of the NN potential acting in a state with orbital angular momentum zero, spin $`S`$ and isospin $`T=1S`$.

The general solution of Eq. (132) can be written as the sum of the solution of the homogeneous part and a particular solution of the complete equation. The solution of the homogeneous part will be denoted as $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}f_{2S+1}^h(x_1)`$, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is an arbitrary coefficient; $`f_{2S+1}^h`$ coincides with the (regular) solution of the zero–energy Schroedinger equation of a two–nucleon system in the $`2S+1`$ s-wave state. For large $`x_i`$ values it goes like $`x_ia_{2S+1}`$, where $`a_1`$ ($`a_3`$) is the singlet (triplet) scattering length.

A particular solution is simply

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}^p=x_i𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(134)
Note that the particular solution exactly cancels the amplitudes $`\psi (j)+\psi (k)`$ in $`𝒱_i(R)`$. In fact,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (i)+\psi (j)+\psi (k),`$ (135)
$``$ $`C(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}^h(x_i)}{x_i}}\overline{𝒴}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i).`$ (136)
Namely, in $`𝒱_i(R)`$ the pair $`jk`$ is in a relative s–wave state with vanishing relative velocity, whereas the motion of the third particle $`i`$ is governed by the distorted wave $`C(\rho )C(y_i)`$.

For large values of $`x_i`$, $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)/x_i\mathrm{const}`$. In the region $`𝒱_{t,i}(R)`$, the amplitude given in Eq. (119) should smoothly match the behavior of $`\psi _j(i)`$ and $`\psi _k(i)`$. Therefore, the constants $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are related to the breakup amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\alpha ,j}^i`$ via the relations

$$\frac{()^S}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝒦_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }})=\stackrel{~}{A}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma },j}^i(\pi /2).$$
(137)
Finally, the functions $`\varphi _\alpha ^0(x_i)`$ introduced in Eq. (71) have been defined to be

$$\varphi _{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(x_i)=\frac{()^S}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma },j}^i(\pi /2)}\frac{f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }S\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_i)}{x_i}.$$
(138)