Improved description of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ar</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts /><mml:none /><mml:mrow><mml:mn>34</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn>36</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn>46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math>(<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>) transfer reactio

Nunes, F. M.; Deltuva, A.; Hong, June Seok

doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.034610

Cited by 47 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas with increasing l the ADWA diverges from the Faddeev in a rapid manner, the differences with increasing binding appear to reach a saturation point around ≈ 20 %. These results explain the findings in [21]. In [21], the discrepancy between ADWA and Faddeev was found to be much larger for 36 Ar(p,d) than for 34 Ar(p,d) and 46 Ar(p,d).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Discrepancies between FR-ADWA were found to vary considerably (6-19%). The work in [21] calls for a better understanding of the range of validity of FR-ADWA.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This first order truncation of the exact solution of the threebody problem has never been systematically tested before. FR-ADWA calculations in [21] are used to analyze 34,36,46 Ar(p,d) data at 33 MeV/u and compared to Faddeev to determine the error in the treatment of the reaction dynamics. Discrepancies between FR-ADWA were found to vary considerably (6-19%).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adiabatic approximation versus exact Faddeev method for (d,p) and (p,d) reactions

Nunes

Deltuva

2011

Phys. Rev. C

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The finite range adiabatic wave approximation provides a practical method to analyze (d,p) ≈ 5% for a range of beam energies (E d ≈ 20 − 40 MeV) but differences increase significantly for very low energies and for the highest energies. Our tests show that ADWA agrees best with Faddeev when the angular momentum transfer is small ∆l = 0 and when the neutron-nucleus system is loosely bound.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Discrepancies between FR-ADWA were found to vary considerably (6-19%). The work in [21] calls for a better understanding of the range of validity of FR-ADWA.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adiabatic approximation versus exact Faddeev method for (d,p) and (p,d) reactions

Nunes

Deltuva

2011

Phys. Rev. C

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Couplings to higher lying excited states in the target nucleus of transfer reactions can change the magnitude of the cross section at the peak by up to 15% [38,39]. Inclusion of deuteron break-up is another important effect, and even when using the adiabatic wave approximation, differences between results from those calculations and full three-body Faddeev calculations can be around 20% [40]. For these reasons, depending on the reaction model used, one will obtain differing spectroscopic factors extracted from the same transfer data [41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty quantification for optical model parameters

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although uncertainty quantification has been making its way into nuclear theory, these methods have yet to be explored in the context of reaction theory. For example, it is well known that different parameterizations of the optical potential can result in different cross sections, but these differences have not been systematically studied and quantified.Purpose: The purpose of this work is to investigate the uncertainties in nuclear reactions that result from fitting a given model to elastic-scattering data, as well as to study how these uncertainties propagate to the inelastic and transfer channels.Method: We use statistical methods to determine a best fit and create corresponding 95% confidence bands. A simple model of the process is fit to elastic-scattering data and used to predict either inelastic or transfer cross sections. In this initial work, we assume that our model is correct, and the only uncertainties come from the variation of the fit parameters.Results: We study a number of reactions involving neutron and deuteron projectiles with energies in the range of 5-25 MeV/u, on targets with mass A=12-208. We investigate the correlations between the parameters in the fit. The case of deuterons on 12 C is discussed in detail: the elastic-scattering fit and the prediction of 12 C(d,p) 13 C transfer angular distributions, using both uncorrelated and correlated χ 2 minimization functions. The general features for all cases are compiled in a systematic manner to identify trends.Conclusions: Our work shows that, in many cases, the correlated χ 2 functions (in comparison to the uncorrelated χ 2 functions) provide a more natural parameterization of the process. These correlated functions do, however, produce broader confidence bands. Further optimization may require improvement in the models themselves and/or more information included in the fit.

show abstract

“…Studies benchmarking various methods have exposed serious limitations in even the most advanced approaches [6][7][8][9]. Although the methodology for accurately solving the three-body scattering problem is under intense research, there are at least two less-tractable sources of uncertainty in the calculation of transfer reaction observables, namely the reduction of the many-body problem to a three-body problem and the uncertainties in the effective interactions introduced as a consequence of that reduction [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of nonlocal potentials on(p,d)transfer reactions

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although local phenomenological optical potentials have been standardly used to interpret nuclear reactions, recent studies suggest the effects of non-locality should not be neglected. Purpose: In this work we investigate the effects of non-locality in (p, d) transfer reactions using non-local optical potentials. We compare results obtained with the dispersive optical model to those obtained using the Perey-Buck interaction. Method: We solved the scattering and bound-state equations for the non-local version of the dispersive optical model. Then, using the distorted wave Born approximation, we calculate the transfer cross section for (p, d) on 40 Ca at Ep=20, 35 and 50 MeV. Results: The inclusion of non-locality in the bound state has a larger effect than on the scattering states. The overall effect on the transfer cross section is very significant. We found an increase due to non-locality in the transfer cross section of ≈ 30 − 50% when using the Perey-Buck interaction and ≈ 15 − 50% when using the dispersive optical potential. Conclusions: Although the details of the non-local interaction can change the magnitude of the effects, our study shows that qualitatively the results obtained using the dispersive optical potential and the Perey-Buck interaction are consistent, in both cases the transfer cross sections are significantly increased.

show abstract

Improved description ofAr34,36,46(p,d) transfer reactio

Cited by 47 publications

References 55 publications

Adiabatic approximation versus exact Faddeev method for (d,p) and (p,d) reactions

Adiabatic approximation versus exact Faddeev method for (d,p) and (p,d) reactions

Uncertainty quantification for optical model parameters

Effects of nonlocal potentials on(p,d)transfer reactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About