their dependence on $^{2}$a$_{nd}$ and B ( $^{4}$He). To improve the description of these quantities, some substantial modifications were necessary for the first two models. In the case of the TM’ interaction we found opportune the inclusion of a repulsive term. In the analysis of the URIX interaction, the strength of the repulsive term resulted to be more than three times bigger than the original value and the relative strength of the b - and d -terms, originally fixed to 1 / 4, has been also increased. In the case of the N2LOL interaction, some adjustment of the parameters was necessary, mainly due to the fact that the AV18 interaction is less attractive than the N3LO interaction, from which the N2LOL model has been originally parametrized. In this section we analyze the effects of the new parametrizations in observables that are not correlated to the binding energies or to $^{2}$a$_{nd}$ . Some polarization observables in p − d scattering have this characteristic, in particular the vector and tensor analyzing powers. In Figs. 7, 8, 9 we show the differential cross section dσ/d Ω, the vector polarization observables A$_{y}$ and iT 11 and the tensor polarization observables T 20 , T 21 and T 22 at E$_{lab}$ = 3 MeV for the different potential models compared to the results obtained using the original AV18+URIX interaction. In the figures, the cyan band collects the results obtained with the parameters given in the three last rows of Table II, from the second to the sith row of Table III, and the three last rows of Table IV for each model respectively, whereas the solid line is the prediction of the original AV18+URIX model. As we can see, for each TNF model, the observables calculated using the different parametrizations, fixed from a simultaneous description of B ( $^{3}$H), $^{2}$a$_{nd}$ and B ( $^{4}$He), fall in bands which, in the case of the vector analyzing powers, have a different position for the three models. Since the models essentially differ in the definitions of the functions y ( r ), T ( r ) and Z 0 ( r ), this difference can be associated to the different short-range behavior of the TNF models. In Fig. 7 we observe that the AV18+TM’ model, using the new parametrizations, does not give any improvement in the observables compared to the AV18+URIX predictions. Moreover iT 11 and T 21 are worse described. It should be observed that the AV18+TM’ model, with the original parametrization, and the AV18+URIX give similar results for the observables (a small difference can be observed in the maximum of A$_{y}$ being slightly higher for the former). Therefore the previous conclusions do not change if compared to the original AV18+TM’ model. In Fig. 8 we observe that the new parametrizations of the AV18+URIX produce a much worse description of A$_{y}$ , iT 11 and T 21 . Since the vector analyzing powers are mainly described by the P -wave phase-shift and mixing parameters, we can conclude that they result to be poorly reproduced with the new 14