{
  "annotation_id": "b6cddd06-c746-4472-8795-480617bb35f5",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:00:11.988000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:00:11.988000Z",
  "file_hash": "7d84e4af2395993cd4c34c60149350d536f06831a8842b126dc4dba3f8beec3b",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "We point out two flaws in the recent test of nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials\nconducted by Stoks and de Swart. First, in some cases, the neutron-proton\n($np$) version of an NN potential was compared to the proton-proton ($pp$)\ndata, which is improper and yields (large) $\\chi^2$ that are essentially\nmeaningless. Second, for a proper test of the quantitative nature of a NN\npotential, it is insufficient to compare to $pp$ data only, since this leaves\nthe T=0 potential untested. Thus, it can happen that the $pp$ version of a\npotential predicts the $pp$ data accurately, while the $np$ version of that\nsame potential is poor in $np$ (where also the T=0 potential is involved). An\nexample for this is the Nijmegen potential, which predicts the $pp$ data well\nwith a $\\chi^2$/datum of 2.0, but yields a $\\chi^2$/datum of 6.5 in $np$.",
    "arxiv_id": "nucl-th/9304022",
    "authors": [
      "G. Q. Li",
      "R. Machleidt"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "nucl-th"
    ],
    "title": "Comment on \"Comparison of Potential Models with the PP Scattering Data   Below 350 Mev\"",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9304022"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "b6b04329-a4d4-419e-a813-fb0ac163486a",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}