Deuteron-induced nucleon transfer reactions within an<i>ab initio</i>framework: First application to<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math>-shell nuclei
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low-energy transfer reactions in which a proton is stripped from a deuteron projectile and dropped into a target play a crucial role in the formation of nuclei in both primordial and stellar nucleosynthesis, as well as in the study of exotic nuclei using radioactive beam facilities and inverse kinematics. Ab initio approaches have been successfully applied to describe the $^{3}\mathrm{H}(d,n)^{4}\mathrm{He}$ and $^{3}\mathrm{He}(d,p)^{4}\mathrm{He}$ fusion processes.Purpose: An ab initio treatment of transfer reactions would also be desirable for heavier targets. In this work, we extend the ab initio description of $(d,p)$ reactions to processes with light $p$-shell nuclei. As a first application, we study the elastic scattering of deuterium on $^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ and the $^{7}\mathrm{Li}(d,p)^{8}\mathrm{Li}$ transfer reaction based on a two-body Hamiltonian.Methods: We use the no-core shell model to compute the wave functions of the nuclei involved in the reaction, and describe the dynamics between targets and projectiles with the help of microscopic-cluster states in the spirit of the resonating group method.Results: The shapes of the excitation functions for deuterons impinging on $^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ are qualitatively reproduced up to the deuteron breakup energy. The interplay between $d\ensuremath{-}^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ and $p\ensuremath{-}^{8}\mathrm{Li}$ particle-decay channels determines some features of the $^{9}\mathrm{Be}$ spectrum above the $d+\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ threshold. Our prediction for the parity of the 17.298 MeV resonance is at odds with the experimental assignment.Conclusions: Deuteron stripping reactions with $p$-shell targets can now be computed ab initio, but calculations are very demanding. A quantitative description of the $^{7}\mathrm{Li}(d,p)^{8}\mathrm{Li}$ reaction will require further work to include the effect of three-nucleon forces and additional decay channels and to improve the convergence rate of our calculations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".