Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Systematic study of the propagation of uncertainties to transfer observables

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For 48Ca(d,p)49Ca, propagating the KDUQ optical-potential posterior through ADWA gives transfer cross-section uncertainties of roughly 5–10%, with bound-state and optical uncertainties correlated rather than additive.

desk verdict A useful, transparent uncertainty-propagation study whose headline 5-10% numbers rest on an unvalidated posterior; the systematic scan and non-additivity finding are the real value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13063 v1 pith:6DB4SFDI submitted 2025-07-17 nucl-th

Chloë Hebborn , Filomena M. Nunes This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 25.40.Hs24.10.Ht
keywords transferreactionsuncertaintyquantificationopticalpotentialsADWAKDUQ48Ca(dp)Bayesiancalibrationspectroscopicfactors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish how large the theory uncertainties in single-nucleon transfer cross sections are when the optical potentials are drawn from one global, uncertainty-quantified model rather than fitted case by case. Using 48Ca(d,p)49Ca(g.s.) as the test case, it reports that the relative half-width of the 68% credible interval at the peak of the angular distribution is about 5% at 19 MeV and grows with beam energy to about 20% at 120 MeV. It also argues that the uncertainty from the final-state binding potential and the uncertainty from the optical potentials do not add in quadrature, because the same KDUQ posterior samples generate both; combining them independently would overestimate the total error. The result matters because transfer reactions are a standard tool for extracting spectroscopic factors, asymptotic normalization coefficients, and astrophysical rates, and a reliable few-percent parametric error budget changes how those extractions are interpreted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the KDUQ posterior distribution: a 46-parameter global optical-model posterior, represented here by 416 samples, calibrated on a large corpus of nucleon-scattering data via Bayesian inference. The adiabatic distorted-wave approximation (ADWA) T-matrix, $\langle \phi_{nA} \chi_{pB}^{(-)} | V_{np} | \phi_{np} \chi_{ad}^{d} \rangle$, maps each parameter sample into a transfer cross section. The decisive construction is correlated sampling: the neutron-target and proton-target potentials in the entrance channel and the proton-target potential in the exit channel are all drawn from the same KDUQ sample, and in the KDUQ-real variant the final-state binding-well geometry is also drawn from that same sample. The quoted uncertainty is $\varepsilon_{68\%}$, the relative half-width of the 68% credible interval evaluated at the peak angle via Eq. (3).

What would settle it

Measure the 48Ca(d,p)49Ca(g.s.) angular distribution at 19 and 50 MeV with total normalization errors below 3% and compare the data against the 68% and 95% bands generated from the 416 KDUQ samples; if empirical coverage of the theory bands falls well below the nominal level, the posterior is overconfident and the 5–10% uncertainty claim fails. A second check is to extract the ANC from the same data and compare with the KDUQ-real value $C^2 = 28.6 \pm 1.3\ \mathrm{fm}^{-1}$: a statistically significant disagreement would falsify the geometric-universality assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully consistent use of the KDUQ global optical-model posterior in ADWA calculations produces small, well-characterized parametric uncertainties in (d,p) transfer observables. For the physical 48Ca(d,p)49Ca(g.s.) reaction, the relative half-width of the 68% credible interval at the peak is about 5% at 19 MeV, and it rises with beam energy, reaching roughly 20% at 120 MeV because higher-energy transfer probes the short-range part of the T-matrix that elastic data constrain poorly. The paper further claims that when the geometry of the real part of the KDUQ potential is used for the final-state single-particle well (KDUQ-real), the resulting bound-state and optical-potential uncertainties are strongly correlated and therefore cannot be summed in quadrature; in the cases shown, quadrature addition would give a misleadingly large total. Finally, the relative uncertainty stays below 10% across variations in the final-state separation energy, orbital angular momentum, and number of radial nodes, so the optical-potential uncertainty is largely insensitive to the structure of the populated state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geometry of the mean field binding the final neutron is the same as the geometry of the scattering mean field, so the same KDUQ samples can generate both the optical potentials and the bound-state well.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transfer-extracted spectroscopic factors for this reaction carry parametric errors at the few-percent level: the SF half-width at 19 MeV is about 5% when KDUQ samples are used.
  • At the higher end of the studied range (120 MeV), the predicted transfer uncertainty reaches roughly 20%, so percent-level transfer theory requires lower beam energies or additional constraints on the short-range interaction.
  • Since the bound-state and optical uncertainties are correlated, a framework that fits scattering and bound-state data with one consistent interaction, such as a dispersive optical model, could tighten the off-shell part of the T-matrix and narrow transfer predictions further.
  • The insensitivity of relative uncertainties to the final-state separation energy, angular momentum, and node number means that, within this model, optical-potential uncertainty does not need to be re-evaluated separately for every populated orbital.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to run the same correlated-sampling protocol on (d,p) reactions populating halo or weakly bound states; the paper's assumption of geometric universality between bound and scattering mean fields is least secure there, and deviations would show up as underestimated bands.
  • The non-quadrature result implies that common practice of summing bound-state and optical errors in quadrature is biased for transfer reactions, with the bias here inflating the total; the direction and size of that bias should be checked for other optical-potential families.
  • Because KDUQ was not calibrated on 48Ca elastic data, the good empirical coverage for protons suggests global posteriors can be transferred to nearby nuclei; a stronger test would be to repeat the analysis on a target with known, high-precision transfer and elastic data across 20–100 MeV.
  • If the energy trend is generic, it implies that experiments aiming at astrophysical rates from low-energy transfer should be less affected by optical-model uncertainties than experiments at higher energies, which may be relevant when comparing rate extractions from different beam energies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper propagates the 416 posterior samples of the KDUQ global optical potential through finite-range ADWA for 48Ca(d,p)49Ca(g.s.), studying how parametric uncertainties in the three nucleon-target optical potentials and in the final bound-state single-particle well translate into uncertainties in transfer angular distributions. It reports empirical coverage checks against existing elastic data, introduces a rescaled neutron posterior (KDUQ-n) to fix undercoverage, and scans beam energies (19-120 MeV) and bound-state properties (separation energy, angular momentum, number of nodes). The main claims are that transfer cross-section uncertainties are small (5-10% half-width of the 68% credible interval at the peak), that bound-state and optical uncertainties do not add in quadrature because of correlations, and that relative uncertainties grow with beam energy but are insensitive to final-state properties.

Significance. The paper is a useful systematic contribution to uncertainty quantification for transfer reactions: it propagates a global UQ optical potential through ADWA with consistent sampling of all nucleon optical potentials from the same posterior, and it includes empirical-coverage diagnostics rather than relying only on posterior covariance. The qualitative conclusions about correlations, energy dependence, and insensitivity to bound-state details are valuable for the community. However, the headline magnitude (5-10%) is tied to a posterior that the authors themselves show undercovers neutron elastic data; after their correction the corresponding uncertainty is 13-24%. With appropriate revision of the headline and more careful treatment of the rescaling and the model dependence of the correlation claim, the paper's systematic results are publishable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 3.1, Table 1] The paper concludes in the abstract and in Section 4 that parametric uncertainties in transfer observables are roughly 5-10% (68% interval half-width). This number is obtained with the original KDUQ posterior. The authors' own empirical coverage analysis (Fig. 1d) shows that this posterior severely undercovers neutron elastic scattering, and their corrected posterior KDUQ-n raises the 68% half-width at the peak to 13-24% for the physical reaction at 19 MeV (Table 1). The 5-10% claim is therefore a lower bound based on a posterior that does not pass the paper's own validation. The abstract should either quote the KDUQ-n numbers as the physical estimate or explicitly frame the 5-10% as conditional on the un-inflated posterior.
  2. [Section 3.1, KDUQ-n construction] The covariance inflation factor of 38 that defines KDUQ-n is fitted to a single n+48Ca elastic angular distribution at 12 MeV, under a Gaussian approximation to the 46-parameter posterior, and is not validated on independent neutron data or at other energies. This makes the corrected uncertainty estimate itself fragile. The paper should assess the sensitivity of the factor to the chosen data set, beam energy, and Gaussian approximation, or at least state these limitations prominently and avoid presenting KDUQ-n as a fully validated uncertainty quantification.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The non-quadrature conclusion is constructed rather than emergent: the KDUQ-real bound-state geometries are, by construction, perfectly correlated with the KDUQ optical-potential samples, as acknowledged in Section 3.1. If the geometric-universality assumption of Section 2.2 fails, the correlation and the non-quadrature result lose their foundation. The claim should be presented as a model-dependent demonstration conditional on that assumption, and the paper should indicate a concrete test, for example comparing with a bound-state geometry sampled independently from the optical potentials or using a dispersive-optical-model analysis.
  4. [Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Section 4] The systematic energy and final-state scans use the original KDUQ posterior, so the statement in Fig. 7 and in Section 4 that uncertainties remain below 10% for all bound-state properties is also a lower bound. The authors note this in Section 3.1, but the abstract and conclusions do not carry the caveat. The paper should consistently distinguish absolute uncertainty magnitudes from relative trends, since only the latter are claimed to be robust for the unscaled posterior.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] There is a typo in the paragraph following Eq. (2): 'singe-particle' should be 'single-particle'.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text near Fig. 2 says the relative half-width is 5% (16%) when using KDUQ (KDUQ-n), while Table 1 lists 5% (13%) for the case with only scattering-state uncertainties and the STD bound state. Please clarify which configuration is being quoted, including whether KDUQ-n is applied to all three optical potentials or only to UnA.
  3. [Section 4] The conclusion states an uncertainty of 'about 25%' for the rescaled KDUQ-n case, but Table 1 gives 24% for the combined scattering-plus-bound-state case. These numbers should be made consistent.
  4. [Eqs. (3)-(4)] The notation sigma68%_min and sigma68%_max is not defined. Please specify that these are the lower and upper edges of the 68% credible interval of the predicted cross section at theta_max over the 416 posterior samples.
  5. [Fig. 5] The y-axis labels in Fig. 5(a)-(b) appear to have formatting problems (for example '0.75 -0.50'), and the caption contains the phrase 'for a n in a 1p3/2'; these should be corrected.
  6. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement says the raw data 'will be made available' but gives no repository or DOI. Providing the sampling and analysis scripts would substantially improve reproducibility of the propagation study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper propagates an externally calibrated KDUQ posterior through ADWA, and its key non-quadrature result is explicitly attributed to the correlated sampling construction rather than claimed as an independent discovery.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the KDUQ posterior of Ref. (25), which is external to this paper and is independently checked here via empirical coverage against 48Ca elastic data (Figs. 1d-f). The KDUQ-n rescaling factor 38 is a calibrated correction for the neutron channel, not a renamed prediction; the paper reports the resulting transfer uncertainties separately (13-24% in Table 1) and explicitly flags that Sections 3.2 and 3.3 use the un-inflated KDUQ posterior and therefore underestimate the magnitude: 'Obviously, because we are not including the additional error in KDUQ-n, nor the uncertainty in the bound state interaction, the overall magnitude of the uncertainty estimates shown in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are underestimated.' The non-quadrature conclusion is likewise transparent: the text states that 'KDUQ-real used for the single-particle potential is perfectly correlated to KDUQ (or KDUQ-n) used for the optical potentials,' so the absence of quadrature addition is a stated consequence of the sampling design, not a hidden input masquerading as a result. Self-citations (Refs. 21, 22, 27-30) provide comparison context or methodological background and do not carry the paper's conclusions. The 5-10% headline is presented with the KDUQ-based caveat and is a propagation output, not a fit renamed as prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on externally supplied modeling ingredients. The most consequential are the validity of the ADWA T-matrix with a neglected remnant term, the transferability of the KDUQ posterior to 48Ca, the equality of bound-state and scattering-state mean-field geometries, and an ad hoc Gaussian approximation used to rescale the neutron covariance. No new physical entity is introduced; KDUQ-n is a rescaled statistical posterior, not a new force, particle, or degree of freedom.

free parameters (4)
  • neutron-target covariance rescale factor = 38 (uncertainties inflated by sqrt(38) ~ 6)
    Chosen so that the KDUQ-n posterior gives exactly 68% empirical coverage for n+48Ca elastic scattering at 12 MeV. This is a post hoc fit to validation data and directly controls the larger 25% uncertainty estimates.
  • assumed relative error on transfer data = 10% per data point
    The experimental uncertainties for the 48Ca(d,p)49Ca dataset of Ref. (35) are not reported, so the authors assume 10%. This assumption sets the scale for the claim that theoretical uncertainties are comparable to experimental error and affects the extracted spectroscopic-factor uncertainties.
  • STD single-particle geometry = rR = 1.25 fm, aR = 0.65 fm
    Used as the fixed bound-state well for the beam-energy and final-state scans in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The depth is adjusted to reproduce the separation energy, but the geometry is chosen by hand and its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • bound-state spin-orbit parameters = Vso = 6 MeV, rso = 1.25 fm, aso = 0.65 fm
    Fixed by hand in all calculations. No uncertainty is assigned to these parameters, so the quoted bound-state uncertainty estimates are conditional on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ADWA T-matrix of Eq. (1) is valid and the remnant term (UnA - UpB) is negligible.
    Section 2.1 assumes the remnant term is negligible. The authors note in the Conclusions that this may become inaccurate for light nuclei or halo final states, but no quantitative estimate is given for 48Ca.
  • domain assumption The KDUQ global optical potential and its posterior samples are valid for 48Ca at the energies considered.
    The entire uncertainty propagation uses the 416 KDUQ samples from Ref. (25), calibrated on stable nuclei without 48Ca. Validation against nearby calcium elastic data is indirect and shows a neutron-channel mismatch, so this transferability is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The geometry of the real mean field is the same for bound and scattering states.
    Section 2.2 explicitly states this to justify using KDUQ real-part radii and diffuseness for the final single-particle well. This assumption also creates the perfect correlation between bound-state and scattering-state uncertainties that underlies the non-quadrature finding.
  • ad hoc to paper The KDUQ neutron-target posterior can be approximated as a multivariate Gaussian for the purpose of rescaling.
    Section 3.1 approximates the parameter distributions of the neutron-target potential as Gaussian so that the covariance can be rescaled by 38. The original posterior is not Gaussian, and the approximation may not preserve nonlinear correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic study of the propagation of uncertainties to transfer observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DB4SFDI

@misc{pith2026250713063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic study of the propagation of uncertainties to transfer observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DB4SFDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13063}
}
abstract

A systematic study of parametric uncertainties in transfer reactions is performed using the recently developed uncertainty quantified global optical potential (KDUQ). We consider reactions on the doubly-magic spherical nucleus $^{48}$Ca and explore the dependence of the predicted $(d,p)$ angular distribution uncertainties at different beam energies and for different properties of the final single-particle state populated by the reaction. Our results show that correlations between the uncertainties associated with the bound state potential and with the optical potentials may be important for correctly determining the uncertainty in the transfer cross sections (in our case, these do not add in quadrature). In general, we find small uncertainties in the predicted transfer observables: half-width of the 68% credible interval is roughly $5-10$%, which is comparable to the experimental error on the transfer data. Finally, our results show that the relative magnitude of the parametric uncertainty in transfer observables increases with the beam energy and does not depend strongly on the properties of the final state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Angular distributions for the elastic scattering of (a) n+ 48Ca @ 12 MeV, (b) p+ 48Ca @ 14 MeV and (c) p+ 48Ca @ 25 MeV. The dark and light shaded blue bands correspond respectively to the 68% and 95% credible intervals obtained with optical potentials derived from the KDUQ posterior distribution. The green bands are obtained with rescaled KDUQ posterior distributions (referred as KDUQ-n) in the text. These predicti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular distribution for 48Ca(d, p) 49Ca(g.s.) at 19 MeV scaled to reproduce the first four forward data point, with the corresponding scaling factors (SFs) and their uncertainties. The shaded blue band corresponds to the 68% credible intervals respectively obtained with optical potentials derived from the same sample of the KDUQ posterior distribution. The green band is obtained using the KDUQ-n posterior distribut… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative half-width ε68% Eq. (3) for 48Ca(d, p) 49Ca(g.s.), as a function of the beam energy. In blue are the results obtained with nucleon-nucleus interactions needed for the ADWA calculations derived consistently from the same KDUQ sample. The black line corresponds to the situation where all three interactions are derived from different KDUQ samples. Eq. (1), i.e., considering only d￾48Ca distances smaller than R… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a-e) Transfer angular distributions for 48Ca(d, p) 49Ca(g.s.) at 23 MeV for a range of single￾particle radii and (f) the relative half-width ε68% Eq. (3) as a function of the squared of the single-particle r.m.s radius ⟨r 2 ⟩. The vertical black lines in panels (a-e) …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 48Ca s.p. wave function for a n in a (a) 1p3/2 and (b) 0p3/2 states reproducing various separation energies Sn = 1.146-15.146 MeV. were obtained using the posterior distribution of the global optical potential KDUQ, enabling us to study the impact of optical potential …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transfer angular distributions for 48Ca(d, p) 49Ca(g.s.) at 23 MeV, for different wave function shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative half-widths ε68% Eq. (3) for various cases: the blue dots correspond to transfer cross sections populating a 1p3/2 state, the red crosses to the population of a 0p3/2 state and the magenta triangles to the population of a 1s1/2 state. The corresponding single-…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key language month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  3. [3]

    Quenching of cross sections in nucleon transfer reactions

    Kay BP, Schiffer JP, Freeman SJ. Quenching of cross sections in nucleon transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 111 (2013) 042502

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Constraining the 6.05 MeV 0 ^ + and 6.13 MeV 3 ^ - Cascade Transitions in the ^ 12 C( , )^ 16 O Reaction Using the Asymptotic Normalization Coefficients

    Avila ML, Rogachev GV, Koshchiy E, Baby LT, Belarge J, Kemper KW, et al. Constraining the 6.05 MeV 0 ^ + and 6.13 MeV 3 ^ - Cascade Transitions in the ^ 12 C( , )^ 16 O Reaction Using the Asymptotic Normalization Coefficients . Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 114 (2015) 071101

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Constraining spectroscopic factors near the r -process path using combined measurements: ^ 86 Kr (d, p) ^ 87 Kr

    Walter D, Pain SD, Cizewski JA, Nunes FM, Ahn S, Baugher T, et al. Constraining spectroscopic factors near the r -process path using combined measurements: ^ 86 Kr (d, p) ^ 87 Kr . Phys. Rev. C\/ 99 (2019 a ) 054625

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Search for the 1/ 2 ^ + intruder state in ^ 35 P

    Salathe M, Crawford HL, Macchiavelli AO, Kay BP, Hoffman CR, Ayangeakaa AD, et al. Search for the 1/ 2 ^ + intruder state in ^ 35 P . Phys. Rev. C\/ 102 (2020) 064317

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of the ^ 35 K(p, )^ 36 Ca reaction rate using the ^ 37 Ca(p,d)^ 36 Ca transfer reaction

    Lalanne L, Sorlin O, Assi\'e M, Hammache F, de S\'er\'eville N, Koyama S, et al. Evaluation of the ^ 35 K(p, )^ 36 Ca reaction rate using the ^ 37 Ca(p,d)^ 36 Ca transfer reaction. Phys. Rev. C\/ 103 (2021) 055809

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Transfer reactions as a tool in nuclear astrophysics

    Hammache F, de Sereville N. Transfer reactions as a tool in nuclear astrophysics. Front. Phys.\/ 8 (2021) 2020

    work page 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Quenching of single-particle strength in a=15 nuclei

    Kay BP, Tang TL, Tolstukhin IA, Roderick GB, Mitchell AJ, Ayyad Y, et al. Quenching of single-particle strength in a=15 nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 129 (2022) 152501

    2022

  2. [10]

    Structure of ^ 36 Ca under the coulomb magnifying glass

    Lalanne L, Sorlin O, Poves A, Assi\'e M, Hammache F, Koyama S, et al. Structure of ^ 36 Ca under the coulomb magnifying glass. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 129 (2022) 122501

    2022

  3. [11]

    Neutron transfer reactions on the ground state and isomeric state of a ^ 130 Sn beam

    Jones KL, Bey A, Burcher S, Allmond JM, Galindo-Uribarri A, Radford DC, et al. Neutron transfer reactions on the ground state and isomeric state of a ^ 130 Sn beam. Phys. Rev. C\/ 105 (2022) 024602

    2022

  4. [12]

    Direct determination of fission-barrier heights using light-ion transfer in inverse kinematics

    Bennett SA, Garrett K, Sharp DK, Freeman SJ, Smith AG, Wright TJ, et al. Direct determination of fission-barrier heights using light-ion transfer in inverse kinematics. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 130 (2023) 202501

    2023

  5. [13]

    Impact of the ^ 6 Li asymptotic normalization constant onto -induced reactions of astrophysical interest

    Hebborn C, Avila ML, Kravvaris K, Potel G, Quaglioni S. Impact of the ^ 6 Li asymptotic normalization constant onto -induced reactions of astrophysical interest. Phys. Rev. C\/ 109 (2024 a ) L061601

    2024

  6. [14]

    Nuclear reactions in astrophysics: A review of useful probes for extracting reaction rates

    Nunes F, Potel G, Poxon-Pearson T, Cizewski J. Nuclear reactions in astrophysics: A review of useful probes for extracting reaction rates. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science\/ 70 (2020) 147--170

    2020

  7. [15]

    Theory of deuteron stripping and pick-up reactions for nuclear structure studies

    Timofeyuk NK, Johnson RC. Theory of deuteron stripping and pick-up reactions for nuclear structure studies. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.\/ 111 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    An approximate three-body theory of deuteron stripping

    Johnson RC, Tandy PC. An approximate three-body theory of deuteron stripping. Nucl. Phys. A\/ 235 (1974) 56--74

    1974

  9. [17]

    Transfer reaction code with nonlocal interactions

    Titus LJ, Ross A, Nunes FM. Transfer reaction code with nonlocal interactions. Comput. Phys. Commun.\/ 207 (2016) 499--517

    2016

  10. [18]

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

    Nunes FM, Deltuva A. Adiabatic approximation versus exact faddeev method for ( d,p ) and ( p,d ) reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 84 (2011) 034607

    2011

  11. [19]

    Testing the continuum-discretized coupled channels method for deuteron-induced reactions

    Upadhyay NJ, Deltuva A, Nunes FM. Testing the continuum-discretized coupled channels method for deuteron-induced reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 85 (2012) 054621

    2012

  12. [20]

    Constraining transfer cross sections using bayes' theorem

    Lovell AE, Nunes FM. Constraining transfer cross sections using bayes' theorem. Phys. Rev. C\/ 97 (2018) 064612

    2018

  13. [21]

    Uncertainty quantification due to optical potentials in models for ( d,p ) reactions

    King GB, Lovell AE, Nunes FM. Uncertainty quantification due to optical potentials in models for ( d,p ) reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 98 (2018) 044623

    2018

  14. [22]

    Recent advances in the quantification of uncertainties in reaction theory

    Lovell AE, Nunes FM, Catacora-Rios M, King GB. Recent advances in the quantification of uncertainties in reaction theory. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.\/ 48 (2020) 014001

    2020

  15. [23]

    Complete quantification of parametric uncertainties in (d,p) transfer reactions

    Catacora-Rios M, Lovell AE, Nunes FM. Complete quantification of parametric uncertainties in (d,p) transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 108 (2023) 024601

    2023

  16. [24]

    The role of the likelihood for elastic scattering uncertainty quantification

    Pruitt CD, Lovell AE, Hebborn C, Nunes FM. The role of the likelihood for elastic scattering uncertainty quantification. arXiv:2403.00753, accepted in Phys. Rev. C\/ (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Prediction for ( p,n ) charge-exchange reactions with uncertainty quantification

    Whitehead TR, Poxon-Pearson T, Nunes FM, Potel G. Prediction for ( p,n ) charge-exchange reactions with uncertainty quantification. Phys. Rev. C\/ 105 (2022) 054611

    2022

  18. [26]

    Uncertainty quantification in (p,n) reactions

    Smith AJ, Hebborn C, Nunes FM, Zegers RGT. Uncertainty quantification in (p,n) reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 110 (2024) 034602

    2024

  19. [27]

    Uncertainty-quantified phenomenological optical potentials for single-nucleon scattering

    Pruitt CD, Escher JE, Rahman R. Uncertainty-quantified phenomenological optical potentials for single-nucleon scattering. Phys. Rev. C\/ 107 (2023) 014602

    2023

  20. [28]

    Local and global nucleon optical models from 1 keV to 200 MeV

    Koning A, Delaroche J. Local and global nucleon optical models from 1 keV to 200 MeV . Nucl. Phys. A\/ 713 (2003) 231--310

    2003

  21. [29]

    New perspectives on spectroscopic factor quenching from reactions

    Hebborn C, Nunes FM, Lovell AE. New perspectives on spectroscopic factor quenching from reactions. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 131 (2023 a ) 212503

    2023

  22. [30]

    Erratum: New perspectives on spectroscopic factor quenching from reactions [phys

    Hebborn C, Nunes FM, Lovell AE. Erratum: New perspectives on spectroscopic factor quenching from reactions [phys. rev. lett. 131, 212503 (2023)]. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 132 (2024 b ) 139901

    2023

  23. [31]

    Quantifying uncertainties due to optical potentials in one-neutron knockout reactions

    Hebborn C, Whitehead TR, Lovell AE, Nunes FM. Quantifying uncertainties due to optical potentials in one-neutron knockout reactions. arXiv:2212.06056\/ (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Optical potentials for the rare-isotope beam era

    Hebborn C, Nunes FM, Potel G, Dickhoff WH, Holt JW, Atkinson MC, et al. Optical potentials for the rare-isotope beam era. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.\/ 50 (2023 b ) 060501

    2023

  25. [33]

    Nuclear reactions for astrophysics\/ (Cambridge University Press) (2009)

    Thompson IJ, Nunes FM. Nuclear reactions for astrophysics\/ (Cambridge University Press) (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Coupled reaction channels calculations in nuclear physics

    Thompson IJ. Coupled reaction channels calculations in nuclear physics. Comp. Phys. Rep.\/ 7 (1988)

    1988

  27. [35]

    Benchmark on neutron capture extracted from (d,p) reactions

    Mukhamedzhanov AM, Nunes FM, Mohr P. Benchmark on neutron capture extracted from (d,p) reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 77 (2008) 051601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.051601

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    Analysis of the 48ca(d, p)49ca reaction for incident energies below and above the coulomb barrier

    Rapaport J, Sperduto A, Salomaa M. Analysis of the 48ca(d, p)49ca reaction for incident energies below and above the coulomb barrier. Nucl. Phys. A\/ 197 (1972) 337--351

    1972

  29. [37]

    Forbidden transitions in the ^ 48 Ca(d, p)^ 49 Ca reaction

    Metz WD, Callender WD, Bockelman CK. Forbidden transitions in the ^ 48 Ca(d, p)^ 49 Ca reaction. Phys. Rev. C\/ 12 (1975) 827--844

    1975

  30. [38]

    Single-particle strengths measured with 48ca(d, p)49ca reaction at 56 mev

    Uozumi Y, Iwamoto O, Widodo S, Nohtomi A, Sakae T, Matoba M, et al. Single-particle strengths measured with 48ca(d, p)49ca reaction at 56 mev. Nucl. Phys. A\/ 576 (1994) 123--137

    1994

  31. [39]

    Constraining spectroscopic factors near the r -process path using combined measurements: ^ 86 Kr (d, p) ^ 87 Kr

    Walter D, Pain SD, Cizewski JA, Nunes FM, Ahn S, Baugher T, et al. Constraining spectroscopic factors near the r -process path using combined measurements: ^ 86 Kr (d, p) ^ 87 Kr . Phys. Rev. C\/ 99 (2019 b ) 054625. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.054625

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Uncertainty quantification in breakup reactions

    S\"urer O, Nunes FM, Plumlee M, Wild SM. Uncertainty quantification in breakup reactions. Phys. Rev. C\/ 106 (2022) 024607. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024607

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    How unique is the asymptotic normalization coefficient method? Phys

    Fernandes JC, Crespo R, Nunes FM. How unique is the asymptotic normalization coefficient method? Phys. Rev. C\/ 61 (2000) 064616. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.61.064616

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    Asymmetry dependence of nucleon correlations in spherical nuclei extracted from a dispersive-optical-model analysis

    Mueller JM, Charity RJ, Shane R, Sobotka LG, Waldecker SJ, Dickhoff WH, et al. Asymmetry dependence of nucleon correlations in spherical nuclei extracted from a dispersive-optical-model analysis. Phys. Rev. C\/ 83 (2011) 064605

    2011

  35. [43]

    Nuclear sizes in ^ 40,44,48 Ca

    Lombardi JC, Boyd RN, Arking R, Robbins AB. Nuclear sizes in ^ 40,44,48 Ca . Nucl. Phys. A\/ 188 (1972) 103

    1972

  36. [44]

    Elastic scattering of protons from ^ 40,42,44,48 Ca from 20 to 50 MeV and nuclear matter radii

    McCamis RH, Nasr TN, Birchall J, Davison NE, van Oers WTH, Verheijen PJT, et al. Elastic scattering of protons from ^ 40,42,44,48 Ca from 20 to 50 MeV and nuclear matter radii . Phys. Rev. C\/ 33 (1986) 1624

    1986

  37. [45]

    Recent developments for the optical model of nuclei

    Dickhoff W, Charity R. Recent developments for the optical model of nuclei. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.\/ 105 (2019) 252--299

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.