Solar fusion III: New data and theory for hydrogen-burning stars.

Ray Davis’s measurements of the flux of solar neutrinos [1968PhRvL..20.1205D, 2003RvMP...75..985D] showed a significant deficit with respect to the predictions of the standard solar model (SSM) [1966PhRvL..17..398B]. This discrepancy became known as the Solar Neutrino Problem. An intense debate ensued about possible explanations for this discrepancy, summarized in the entertaining review by 1988Natur.334..487B. Suggestions included plausible flaws in the SSM that might produce a cooler solar core, new particle physics such as neutrino oscillations, and changes in the nuclear physics governing He synthesis, such as an unidentified low-energy resonance in the ³He+³He reaction affecting extrapolations of laboratory cross sections to solar energies. By the mid-1990s, with new results from Kamioka II/III and the SAGE/GALLEX experiments indicating a pattern of neutrino fluxes inconsistent with the expected scaling of those fluxes with the solar core temperature, attention increasingly turned to neutrino oscillations and other potential particle physics solutions. Concerns about the nuclear physics of the SSM also evolved, focusing more on the uncertainties that might inhibit extraction of any such “new physics.”

At that time, during a meeting on the Solar Neutrino Problem hosted by the Institute for Nuclear Theory (INT), University of Washington, Seattle, a suggestion was made to convene the community working on solar nuclear reactions, in order to reach consensus on the best current values of cross sections and their uncertainties. The INT hosted the proposed workshop in February, 1997, drawing representatives from almost every experimental group active in this area, as well as many of the theorists who were engaged in solar neutrino physics. The working groups that formed during this meeting worked over the next year to evaluate past work, determining the needed cross sections and their uncertainties. The results of this evaluation, which came to be known as Solar Fusion I or SF-I [1998RvMP...70.1265A], became the standard for use in solar modeling over the next decade.

An update of SF I was launched with the January, 2009, workshop “Solar Fusion Cross Sections II”, hosted again by the INT in Seattle. Initial results from SuperKamiokande, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, and Borexino were then in hand, and the conversion of approximately two thirds of solar electron neutrinos into other flavors had been firmly established [2002PhRvL..89a1301A]. Consequently, the motivation for the study was to ensure that solar model predictions would be based on the most current nuclear physics, so that meaningful uncertainties could be placed on neutrino parameters derived from solar neutrino measurements, such as the mixing angle $\theta_{12}$. An additional source of uncertainty had arisen at the time, with the advent of three-dimensional (3D) radiative-hydrodynamic models of the Sun’s atmosphere for determining element abundances from photo-absorption lines [2006NuPhA.777....1A, 2009ARA&A..47..481A]. This improved analysis, though, lowered the inferred metallicities, leading to tension with the Sun’s interior sound speed profile determined from helioseismology [2002RvMP...74.1073C]. The discrepancy between higher metallicity models that accurately reproduce the Sun’s interior sound speed and lower metallicity models based on the most current treatment of the photosphere was termed the “solar composition problem”. While the neutrino fluxes were not known to the precision needed to distinguish between the competing models, it had been shown that the solar core metallicity could be extracted directly from future CN solar neutrino measurements, if the precision of associated nuclear cross sections were improved [2008ApJ...687..678H]. Reflecting the impact of new experimental work and improved theory, the SF II study of 2011RvMP...83..195A significantly revised the SF I cross section for the driving reaction of the CN (or CNO-I) cycle, and updated key pp-chain cross sections.

The present SF-III review began with a four-day workshop in July, 2022, “Solar Fusion Cross Sections III.” The meeting was hosted by Physics Frontier Center N3AS (Network for Neutrinos, Nuclear Astrophysics, and Symmetries)¹¹1https://n3as.berkeley.edu/, a consortium of institutions involved in multi-messenger astrophysics, whose central hub is the University of California, Berkeley. Sessions were held at the David Brower Center, Berkeley, and the Physics Department, UC Berkeley, with the assistance of N3AS staff. The workshop was co-hosted by N3AS, by Solar Fusion’s long-term sponsor, the INT, and by the European ChETEC-INFRA Starting Community for Nuclear Astrophysics²²2https://www.chetec-infra.eu/.

The 47 workshop participants represented most of the leading experimental and theoretical research groups that are active in the field. Workshop participants were organized in nine working groups, who were charged with reviewing and evaluating work completed since SF II, to produce updated recommendations. The structure of this review largely follows that of the working groups. The timing of SF-III was driven in part by planned large-scale asteroseismic surveys of hydrogen-burning stars such as ESA’s PLATO³³3https://platomission.com/ mission [2014ExA....38..249R], and the expectation that associated data analysis will require large libraries of stellar models in which masses, ages, metallicities, and other parameters are varied. SF-III will provide the best current nuclear astrophysics input for such modeling. This review summarizes that input, based on the recommendations of the nine SF-III working groups.

The terminology used here follows recent practice, as summarized for example in the NACRE compilation [1999NuPhA.656....3A]. It is briefly described to aid the reader.

Nuclear reactions are designated as

where $A$ is the target nucleus, $b$ is the bombarding particle, and $c$ and $D$ are the reaction products, with $D$ distinguished as the heavier product. Frequently in nuclear astrophysics, the reaction cross section $\sigma$ is re-expressed in terms of the $S$ factor $S_{ij}$, with $S$ related to $\sigma$ as described below, and with $i,j$ the mass numbers of entrance channel nuclei $b$ and $A$.

The relation between the nuclear cross section $\sigma(E)$ and astrophysical $S$ factor is

with $Z_{A}$ and $Z_{b}$ the charge numbers of the target and projectile, $\alpha\sim 1/137$ the fine structure constant, $\beta\equiv v/c=\sqrt{2E/\mu c^{2}}$ the relative velocity of the interacting particles in units of $c$, $\mu$ the reduced mass, and $E$ the center-of-mass energy. (In this review we use energy units of MeV unless otherwise stated.) This removes the sharp energy dependence from the cross section associated with point Coulomb scattering. The quantity $Z_{A}Z_{b}\alpha/\beta$ is known as the Sommerfeld parameter. Consequently, unless there are resonances, $S(E)$ varies gently, and at low energies can generally be expressed as a low-order polynomial in $E$.

The rapid rise in the nuclear cross section with energy, reflecting the weakening of the Coulomb barrier due to the $1/\sqrt{E}$ dependence of the Sommerfeld parameter, competes with a rapid decrease in the probability of finding interacting particles with the requisite center-of-mass energy $E$, in the high-energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for the solar plasma. Consequently, the thermonuclear reaction rate $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ for a given stellar temperature $T$ takes the form

where $b=\pi Z_{A}Z_{b}\alpha\sqrt{2\mu c^{2}}$ is proportional to the Sommerfeld parameter of Eq. (2) and $k_{\rm B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The maximum of the integrand defines the Gamow peak – the most probable energy for interactions – while the $\sim 1\sigma$ range around the peak is frequently termed the Gamow window.

For the solar reactions of interest, the energy of the Gamow peak is well below the height of the Coulomb barrier. The slowly varying $S(E)$ can be expanded as a power series around $E=0$, with the leading term being $S(0)$, and with corrections given by derivatives taken at $E=0$,

Most of the results presented in this review will be given in terms of $S(0)$ and its derivatives.

For most of the nuclear reactions studied here, the notation $S_{ij}$ is adopted, where $i$ and $j$ are the mass numbers of the projectile and target nuclei, respectively. A summary of SF-III reactions and recommended astrophysical $S$ factors are presented in Table 1.

In the Sun, the primary mechanism for the conversion of four protons into ⁴He is the proton-proton chain of Fig. 1, during which two charge-changing weak interactions take place, each converting a proton into a neutron with the emission of a neutrino. The pp-chain consists of three main branches, ppI, ppII, and ppIII. These branches are distinguished by their dependence on the solar core temperature and by the neutrinos they produce, with the pp, ⁷Be, and ⁸B neutrinos serving as “tags” for the ppI, ppII, and ppIII chains, respectively. The SSM predicts that the fluxes of pp, ⁷Be, and ⁸B neutrinos will have an approximate relative temperature scaling of $\sim$ 1:T${}_{c}^{10}$:T${}_{c}^{22}$, where T_c is the solar core temperature [annurev:/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.002331]. By the mid-1990s solar neutrino experiments had established that the measured fluxes differed significantly from this expected pattern. This contributed to growing expectations that new neutrino physics might be the solution of the Solar Neutrino Problem. It also was an important motivation for SF I, as errors in the nuclear physics of the pp chains could distort the relationship between the various fluxes.

The pp chains account for 99% of solar hydrogen burning and are the main focus of this review. The remaining 1% is generated through the CN cycle (or CNO-I cycle, see Fig. 2). Motivated in part by Borexino’s recent success in measuring the flux of solar CN neutrinos, this review also considers in more detail than past Solar Fusion reviews the reactions driving hydrogen burning in stars more massive than our Sun.

The review is structured as follows. Section II begins with a summary of past solar neutrino experiments, highlighting some of the open questions that remain. It discusses the second-generation experiments Super-Kamiokande, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, and Borexino that helped resolve the solar neutrino problem, as well as new detectors in various stages of development, including Hyper-Kamiokande, SNO+, JUNO, DUNE, and others.

The cross section of the driving reaction of the pp chains, ${}^{1}\text{H}(p,e^{+}\nu)^{2}\text{H}$, is too small to be measured and thus must be taken from theory. This important reaction is reviewed in section III. All the other pp-chain reactions and decays have been studied in the laboratory, and used together with theory – which guides fits and extrapolations, and corrects for difference in the atomic environments of solar and terrestrial reactions – to predict solar fusion rates. The ²H($p,\gamma)^{3}$He, ³He(³He,2$p$)⁴He, and ³He$(\alpha,\gamma)^{7}$B reactions are reviewed in Secs. IV, V, and VI, respectively. The minor hep pp-chain branch is reviewed in Section VII, and the electron-capture reactions on pp and ⁷Be are discussed in Section VIII. The ⁷Be($p$,$\gamma)^{8}$B reaction responsible for the high energy neutrinos measured in Super-Kamiokande is treated in Section IX

While a modest ($\lesssim 1$%) contributor to solar energy production, the CN (or CNO-I) cycle is a potentially important probe of core metallicity as its hydrogen burning is catalyzed by the Sun’s primordial C and N. It is also the primary mode of hydrogen burning in stars more massive than the Sun, with central temperatures above 2$\times 10^{7}$K. This review treats the CNO cycles in somewhat more detail than in SF I and SF II. In SF II the cross section for the leading reaction, ¹⁴N($p,\gamma$)¹⁵O, was revised downward by a factor of two from the SF I recommended value. The SF-III value is close to that of SF II but with an updated uncertainty evaluation described in Section LABEL:sec:S114.

A current focus of laboratory astrophysics is the higher-temperature pathways for hydrogen burning that operate in massive stars. Many of the contributing reactions have been re-measured. That progress is reviewed in Section LABEL:sec:OtherCNO. Reactions of the NeNa cycle are also treated in this section.

Charged-particle nuclear reactions occurring at energies below the Coulomb barrier are affected by screening, the shielding of the nuclear charge by electrons. Because of their very different atomic environments, laboratory reactions and those occurring in the solar plasma are affected in distinct ways. Section LABEL:sec:Screening describes the current status of efforts to account for these differences, when solar cross sections are extracted from laboratory measurements.

The energy transport inside the radiative zone is affected by the metals that were incorporated into the Sun when it first formed. While metals comprise less than 2% of the Sun by mass, they play an outsized role in determining the opacity. Very few of the needed radiative opacities have been measured in the laboratory, and the conditions under which measurements are made typically are not identical to those in the Sun. Section LABEL:sec:Opacities describes the current state of the art, and discusses connections between opacities and solar composition that have complicated efforts to resolve the solar metallicity problem.

Much of the progress made in constraining the reactions of the pp-chain and CNO-I cycles has been enabled by new laboratories and the facilities they house. The underground LUNA laboratory is a prominent example [2018PrPNP..98...55B]. Section LABEL:sec:Facilities describes the capabilities of LUNA and other laboratories responsible for the measurements reviewed here.

The majority of solar neutrino fluxes have now been measured, in some cases with a precision equivalent to or better than theoretical predictions. Improved precision in several cases can offer further insight. A more precise measurement of the flux of neutrinos from the CNO cycle (Fig. 2) would test important aspect of the SSM including, in particular, the initial abundance of heavy elements [2007A&A...463..755C, 2011ApJ...743...24S, 2022A&A...667L...2K] and the redistribution of the CNO elements from out-of-equilibrium burning at the onset of the main sequence. Solar neutrino flux measurements can constrain physical processes in stars such as chemical mixing. The fluxes are sensitive to solar/stellar model inputs, including the radiative opacities (see Sect. LABEL:sec:Opacities). Measurements of the ⁸B and ⁷Be fluxes can offer a handle on the temperature of the solar core, and other environmental factors. A percent-level measurement of the pp flux would provide a test of the luminosity constraint, further probing solar power generation mechanisms. The one branch of the pp-chain that yet remains undetected, the hep flux, has both the highest energy but also the lowest flux of neutrinos from the Sun. The spectrum extends beyond that of the ⁸B neutrinos, offering a small window for unequivocal observation. Limits have been placed on this flux [2020PhRvD.102f2006A], but a definitive observation will likely require a large, next-generation detector such as Hyper-Kamiokande (HyperK) [2018arXiv180504163H] or the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) [2019PhRvL.123m1803C]. Finally, the observation of monochromatic neutrinos produced by electron capture reactions on ¹³N, ¹⁵O and ¹⁷F (which we refer to as ecCNO neutrinos) [1990PhRvD..41.2964B, 2004PhRvC..69a5801S, 2015PhLB..742..279V] would provide important new physics. They can be used as probes of the metal content of the solar core. They provide a measure of the electron neutrino survival probability at specific neutrino energies $E_{\nu}\sim 2.5$ MeV within the broad transition region between vacuum and matter-enhanced oscillations, where currently we have no constraints. This would constitute a new test of the large-mixing-angle (LMA) MSW flavor oscillation paradigm. The detection of this subdominant component of the CNO-cycle is extremely difficult but it could be within reach of future very large ultra-pure liquid scintillator detectors [2015PhLB..742..279V].

There is also opportunity to leverage solar neutrinos to understand the interaction of neutrinos with matter. The effect of MSW oscillations has a significant impact on the observed solar neutrino spectrum: with vacuum oscillation dominating at low energy, below approximately 1 MeV, where the survival probability is roughly one half, while matter effects further suppress the flux to a survival probability of roughly one third above approximately 5 MeV. The transition region between these two regimes offers an extremely sensitive probe of the details of the interactions of neutrinos with matter, including the potential to search for new physics such as sterile neutrinos, or non-standard interactions, by looking for distortions to the expected spectral shape.

The same theory of matter effects predicts a small regeneration of electron neutrinos during the night time, as they propagate through the bulk of the earth. This so-called “day/night effect” has been sought after by both Super-Kamiokande (SuperK) and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) [2014PhRvL.112i1805R, 2002PhRvL..89a1302A], but a significant observation is still limited by statistics. Future data from HyperK or DUNE may be needed to confirm our understanding of this prediction of the MSW effect.

Mild tension lingers between measurements of the mass splitting parameters, $\Delta m^{2}_{12}$ between solar neutrino experiments and terrestrial data sensitive to the same parameter, from the KamLAND reactor experiment [Esteban2020TheFO]. Further study of solar neutrinos could allow resolution of this question, potentially offering new insights.

A broad range of technology can be used to interrogate solar neutrinos. Radiochemical experiments utilizing the interaction on either chlorine or gallium were the first to identify the mystery that became known as the Solar Neutrino Problem. Large monolithic detectors have achieved great success in real-time measurements – from the water Cherenkov detectors such as Kamiokande, SNO, and SuperK, which could use the unique topology of Cherenkov light to point back to the neutrinos’ origin, to liquid scintillator detectors such as KamLAND and Borexino, whose high light yield and low threshold allow for precision spectroscopy.

Near the Gamow peak energy $E\sim$ 6 keV for temperatures characteristic of the Sun center, the first and second derivatives of the astrophysical $\mathrm{S}$ factor at zero energy, ${S}^{\prime}_{11}(0)$ and ${S}^{\prime\prime}_{11}(0)$, generate $\sim$ 7% and $\sim$ 0.5% corrections, respectively, in Taylor’s series expansion of ${S}_{11}(E)$ around $E=0$. Higher derivative terms are neglected in this review since they only contribute at the $10^{-4}$ level. The recommended values for ${S}^{\prime}_{11}(0)$ and ${S}^{\prime\prime}_{11}(0)$ will be discussed in Section III.5. Here we focus on ${S}_{11}(0)$.

At zero relative energy, $S_{11}(0)$ can be written as [1968ApJ...152L..17B, 1969ApJ...155..501B],

where $\alpha=1/137.04$ is the fine-structure constant, $m_{p}=938.272$ MeV is the proton mass, $\gamma=(2\mu B_{d})^{1/2}=0.23161$ fm^-1 is the deuteron binding wave number, $\mu$ being the proton-neutron reduced mass and $B_{d}$ the deuteron binding energy, $G_{V}$ and $G_{A}$ are the Fermi vector and axial-vector weak coupling constants. Finally, $f_{pp}^{R}$ is the phase-space factor for the pp reaction with radiative corrections, $(ft)_{0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+}}$ is the $ft$ value for superallowed $0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+}$ transitions, and $\overline{\Lambda}$ is proportional to the transition matrix element connecting the pp and deuteron states.

For the phase-space factor $f_{pp}^{R}$, we use the same value $f_{pp}^{R}=0.144(1\pm 0.001)$ as in SF-II. It comes from the value without radiative corrections, $f_{pp}=0.142$ [1969ApJ...155..501B], increased by 1.62% to take into account radiative corrections to the cross section [2003PhRvC..67c5502K]. The main source of uncertainty in $f_{pp}^{R}$ arises from neglected diagrams in which the lepton exchanges a weak boson and a photon with different nucleons. These diagrams are estimated to modify $f_{pp}^{R}$ by $\sim 0.1\%$, based on scaling the similar nucleus-dependent correction in superallowed $\beta$ decay [2003PhRvC..67c5502K]. Direct computations of these diagrams were recommended in Solar Fusion II. Here we urge again that this computation be carried out.

For $G_{A}/G_{V}$, we use the PDG [2022PTEP.2022h3C01W] value, $1.2754\pm 0.0013$, whose central value is larger than the 2008 PDG value, $1.2695\pm 0.0029$, used in SF-II by $0.45\%$ (or 1.9 $\sigma$). Naively, this would lead to a $\sim 1\%$ increase in the central value of ${S}_{11}(0)$ according to Eq. (5). Its effect will be discussed below. For $(ft)_{0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+}}$, we take $3072.24\pm 1.85$ s from the most updated comprehensive analysis of experimental rates with the radiative and Coulomb effects corrected [2020PhRvC.102d5501H]. This value is consistent with $3071.4\pm 0.8$ s [2009PhRvC..79e5502H] used in SF-II with a larger error.

The dominant uncertainty in $S_{11}(0)$ comes from the normalized Gamow-Teller (GT) matrix element $\overline{\Lambda}$. Reducing this uncertainty has been the main focus of theoretical work since SF-I. In SF-I, $\overline{\Lambda}$ was written as $\overline{\Lambda}=\Lambda+\delta\Lambda$, i.e. the sum of the one- and two-body current matrix elements, $\Lambda$ and $\delta\Lambda$, respectively, with their uncertainties estimated independently. In SF-II, two major steps had contributed to reducing the uncertainty on $\overline{\Lambda}$. The first was a much deeper understanding of the correlation between the uncertainties in $\Lambda$ and $\delta\Lambda$: the overall uncertainty in $\overline{\Lambda}$ could be described by a universal parameter that could be fixed by a single measurement. The study of 1998PhRvC..58.1263S demonstrated this phenomenologically in the context of potential-model approaches, while later analysis via effective field theory (EFT) provided a more formal justification [2001PhRvC..63c5501B, 2003PhRvC..67e5206P]. The second step was the use of the precisely known tritium $\beta$ decay rate $\Gamma_{\beta}^{T}$ to fix this universal parameter, as first proposed by 1991PhRvC..44..619C. This has been done in both potential models [1998PhRvC..58.1263S] and in the hybrid EFT approach [2003PhRvC..67e5206P] as explained below.

In SF-II, $\overline{\Lambda}$ was determined with three approaches. The first one was the potential model approach. In the most elaborate calculation for the pp fusion process, a comparison of the results for five representative modern potentials designed to accurately reproduce nucleon-nucleon scattering data was carried out [1998PhRvC..58.1263S]. After adjusting the unknown strength of the two-body exchange currents to reproduce $\Gamma_{\beta}^{T}$, the variation in $S_{11}(0)$ that otherwise would come from the choice of the phenomenological potential was largely removed. Predictions for five representative high-precision phenomenological potentials fell in a narrow interval $7.03\lesssim\overline{\Lambda}^{2}\lesssim 7.04$. There were additional uncertainties in the three-body potentials and three-body currents in $\Gamma_{\beta}^{T}$, of the order of $\sim 0.8\%$, and a 0.5% uncertainty due to effective range parameters for nucleon-nucleon scattering. Hence, the recommended $S_{11}(0)$ value from the potential model approach was $S_{11}(0)=4.01(1\pm 0.009)\times 10^{-25}\,{\rm MeV~{}b}$.

The second and third approaches were both based on EFT. The second one was a hybrid EFT (EFT*), which used the current operators derived from EFT in conjunction with the initial and final state wave functions generated by a potential model [2003PhRvC..67e5206P]. For pp fusion, the relevant two-body current contained only one unknown low-energy constant (LEC) $\hat{d}^{R}$ which parameterized the contact axial coupling to two nucleons [2003PhRvC..67e5206P]. A weakness of this approach was the mismatch between the operators and wave functions. However, it was argued that the mismatch only happened for short distance physics which could be absorbed by the LECs. Hence, when the ultraviolet cutoff was changed over a physically reasonable range, the residual cutoff dependence of physical observables provided a measure of the model dependence of the EFT* calculation. By combining the $0.8\%$ error from changing the cutoff $\Lambda_{NN}$ in the range of $500-800$ MeV and the $\sim$ 0.4% higher order correction, obtained by multiplying the $1.8\%$ contribution of the highest calculated order with the small expansion parameter $m_{\pi}/\Lambda_{NN}\sim 1/4$, 2003PhRvC..67e5206P provided the value $S_{11}(0)=4.01(1\pm 0.009)\times 10^{-25}\,{\rm MeV~{}b}$, in perfect agreement with the one obtained within the phenomenological approach.

The third study was performed with the pionless EFT ($\not{\pi}$EFT) approach. It is a framework applicable to processes with the characteristic momentum $p$ much smaller than the pion mass $m_{\pi}$, such that the pion field can be “integrated out” and becomes non-dynamical (1996APS..DNP..BA03K; 1999PhRvL..82..463B; 1999NuPhA.653..386C). In this approach, all nucleon-nucleon interactions and two-body currents are described by point-like contact interactions with a systematic expansion in powers of $p/m_{\pi}$. For all the deuteron weak breakup processes (e.g. $\nu d$ and $\bar{\nu}d$ scattering) and their inverse processes, including the pp fusion, only one two-body current (with coupling $L_{1,A}$) is needed up to next-to-next-to-leading order (N²LO) [2001PhRvC..63c5501B]. Therefore a single measurement will fix $L_{1,A}$ and the rates of all such processes. This feature is shared by the other approaches discussed above. The computation of $\overline{\Lambda}$ in $\not{\pi}$EFT was carried out to the second order in the $p/m_{\pi}$ expansion by 2001PhRvC..64d4002K and then to the fifth order by 2001PhLB..520...87B. Constraints on $L_{1,A}$ from two-nucleon systems [2002PhLB..549...26B, 2003PhRvC..67b5801C] yielded $S_{11}(0)=3.99(1\pm 0.030)\times 10^{-25}\,{\rm MeV~{}b}$.

Based on the consistent results of the above three approaches, SF-II recommended $S_{11}(0)=4.01(1\pm 0.009)\times 10^{-25}\,{\rm MeV~{}b}$. The SF-I value ${S}^{\prime}_{11}(0)={S}_{11}(0)(11.2\pm 0.1)\,{\rm MeV}^{-1}$ from 1969ApJ...155..501B was not re-computed in SF-II. However, with $S_{11}(0)$ reaching a $1\%$ accuracy, new calculations of $S^{\prime}_{11}(0)$ and $S^{\prime\prime}_{11}(0)$, together with the full pionful chiral EFT ($\chi$EFT) computations to remove the unknown systematics of the hybrid EFT, were called for in SF-II. These two challenges have been met in SF-III and will be described below.

In SF-II it was also recommended to carry out the experimental determination of the muon capture rate on deuteron, as proposed in the MuSun experiment [2003nucl.ex...4019K, 2017APS..DNP.CG007S]. This quantity could be used to constrain $S_{11}(0)$ without the need to rely on the three-body calculation of $\Gamma_{\beta}^{T}$. The theoretical calculations for the muon capture rate on deuteron have been carried out in $\not{\pi}$EFT [2005PhRvC..72f1001C] (it is possible to impose neutron energy cut to isolate the low-energy neutron events so $\not{\pi}$EFT is applicable [2003nucl.ex...4019K]), chiral hybrid EFT* [2002PhLB..533...25A], phenomenological potential model [2011PhRvC..83a4002M], and recently in $\chi$EFT (2012PhRvL.108e2502M, 2018PhRvL.121d9901M; 2018PhRvC..98f5506A; 2023FrP....1049919C; 2023PhRvC.107f5502B; PhysRevC.109.035502). However, the MuSun result is yet to be released. On the other hand, we should notice that the muon capture processes happen at a rather large momentum transfer compared to pp fusion. The momentum transfer dependence of the single nucleon axial coupling constant $g_{A}(q^{2})$, with $g_{A}(q^{2}=0)\equiv g_{A}\equiv G_{A}/G_{V}$, has been recently studied by 2018RPPh...81i6301H, who have provided an experimental determination for the axial charge radius, given by $r_{A}^{2}=0.46(16)$ fm², where $r_{A}$ is defined by the relation $g_{A}(q^{2})=g_{A}(1-r_{A}^{2}q^{2}/6)$ for small $q^{2}$. The $\sim 30$% uncertainty on $r_{A}^{2}$ has an impact on the ability of the MuSun experiment alone to directly constrain $S_{11}(0)$ [2018PhRvC..98f5506A, 2023FrP....1049919C, 2023PhRvC.107f5502B, PhysRevC.109.035502].

In the next few years, lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) calculations of $g_{A}(q^{2})$ are expected to reduce the $r_{A}$ uncertainty by a factor of two or more (see 2023slft.confE.240M for the most recent review of the lattice results). Currently, lattice QCD results are consistent with 2018RPPh...81i6301H on $r_{A}$, often with comparable uncertainties. At larger $q^{2}$ ($|q^{2}|\gtrsim 0.25$ GeV²), there is a growing tension between lattice QCD predictions of $g_{A}(q^{2})$ and the phenomenological determination from older neutrino-deuterium bubble chamber data [2016PhRvD..93k3015M] with the lattice QCD results yielding a 30% larger neutrino-nucleon cross section over a large range of $q^{2}$ [2022ARNPS..72..205M].

In any case, it is evident that accurate experimental determinations of muon capture rates on the deuteron and other light nuclei, which can be addressed theoretically ab initio approaches, represent fundamental tests for the theoretical approaches themselves, either within $\chi$EFT or $\not{\pi}$EFT, and might be able to provide the necessary experimental information to fix the unknown parameters of the theory.

Below we summarize the $S_{11}(0)$ calculations performed after SF-II using different approaches.