Skip to main content

Showing 1–8 of 8 results for author: Herman, M W

.
  1. Nuclear data activities for medium mass and heavy nuclei at Los Alamos

    Authors: M. R. Mumpower, T. M Sprouse, T. Kawano, M. W. Herman, A. E. Lovell, G. W. Misch, D. Neudecker, H. Sasaki, I. Stetcu, P. Talou

    Abstract: Nuclear data is critical for many modern applications from stockpile stewardship to cutting edge scientific research. Central to these pursuits is a robust pipeline for nuclear modeling as well as data assimilation and dissemination. We summarize a small portion of the ongoing nuclear data efforts at Los Alamos for medium mass to heavy nuclei. We begin with an overview of the NEXUS framework and s… ▽ More

    Submitted 21 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

    Comments: 6 pages, 5 figures, Nuclear Data (2022) conference proceedings. Comments welcome!

    Report number: LA-UR-22-30993

  2. Collective enhancement in the exciton model

    Authors: M. R. Mumpower, D. Nuedecker, H. Sasaki, T. Kawano, A. E. Lovell, M. W. Herman, I. Stetcu, M. Dupuis

    Abstract: The pre-equilibrium reaction mechanism is considered in the context of the exciton model. A modification to the one-particle one-hole state density is studied which can be interpreted as a collective enhancement. The magnitude of the collective enhancement is set by simulating the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) pulsed-spheres neutron-leakage spectra. The impact of the collective enh… ▽ More

    Submitted 21 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

    Comments: 7 pages, 7 figures. Comments welcome!

    Report number: LA-UR-22-30081

  3. Modeling photon--induced reactions on $^{233-238}$U actinide targets

    Authors: M. Sin, R. Capote, M. W. Herman, A. Trkov, B. V. Carlson

    Abstract: Comprehensive calculations of cross sections of photon induced reactions on $^{233-238}$U targets for incident photon energies from 3 up to 30 MeV are undertaken with the statistical model code EMPIRE-3.2 Malta. Results are compared with the experimental data from EXFOR and with the current evaluations. The differences and the similarities between the models and parameters used in calculations of… ▽ More

    Submitted 24 September, 2019; v1 submitted 21 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

    Comments: 16 pages, to be submitted to Physical Review C

    Journal ref: Phys. Rev. C 103, 054605 (2021)

  4. Constraining level densities through quantitative correlations with cross-section data

    Authors: G. P. A. Nobre, D. A. Brown, M. W. Herman, A. Golas

    Abstract: The adopted level densities (LD) for the nuclei produced through different reaction mechanisms significantly impact the calculation of cross sections for the many reaction channels. Common LD models make simplified assumptions regarding the overall behavior of the total LD and the intrinsic spin and parity distributions of the excited states. However, very few experimental constraints are taken in… ▽ More

    Submitted 28 February, 2020; v1 submitted 20 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

    Comments: 16 pages, 12 Figures. Accepted by PRC

    Report number: BNL-213738-2020-JAAM, LA-UR-19-29483

    Journal ref: Phys. Rev. C 101, 034608 (2020)

  5. Constraining level densities using spectral data

    Authors: G. P. A. Nobre, D. A. Brown, M. W. Herman

    Abstract: Several models of level densities exist and they often make simplified assumptions regarding the overall behavior of the total level densities (LD) and the intrinsic spin and parity distributions of the excited states. Normally, such LD models are constrained only by the measured $D_0$, i.e. the density of levels at the neutron separation energy of the compound nucleus (target plus neutron), and t… ▽ More

    Submitted 22 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

    Comments: 6 pages, 4 figures. Submitted to the proceedings of the CNR*18 conference

    Report number: BNL-211548-2019-JAAM

    Journal ref: In: Escher J. et al. (eds) Compound-Nuclear Reactions. Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol 254. Springer, Cham., pp 133-138, 2020

  6. Impact of alternative transmission coefficient parameterizations on Hauser-Feshbach theory

    Authors: David A. Brown, Gustavo P. A. Nobre, Michal W. Herman

    Abstract: We investigate different formulations of the transmission coefficient $T_c$, including the form implied by Moldauer's ``sum rule for resonance reactions'' [P.A. Moldauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1047 (1967)], the SPRT method [G. Noguere, et al. EPJ Web Conf. 146, 02036 (2017)] and the Moldauer-Simonius form [M. Simonius, Phys. Lett. 52B, 279 (1974); P.A. Moldauer, Phys. Rev. 157, 907 (1967)]. Within… ▽ More

    Submitted 13 July, 2018; originally announced July 2018.

    Comments: 12 pages, 6 figures, to be submitted to Phys. Rev. C

    Report number: BNL-207837-2018-JAAM

    Journal ref: Phys. Rev. C 98, 024616 (2018)

  7. arXiv:1505.05334  [pdf, ps, other

    cs.OH

    Managing Null Entries in Pairwise Comparisons

    Authors: W. W. Koczkodaj, M. W. Herman, M. Orlowski

    Abstract: This paper shows how to manage null entries in pairwise comparisons matrices. Although assessments can be imprecise, since subjective criteria are involved, the classical pairwise comparisons theory expects all of them to be available. In practice, some experts may not be able (or available) to provide all assessments. Therefore managing null entries is a necessary extension of the pairwise compar… ▽ More

    Submitted 20 May, 2015; originally announced May 2015.

    Comments: 5 pages

  8. arXiv:1505.01888  [pdf, ps, other

    cs.OH

    A Monte Carlo Study of Pairwise Comparisons

    Authors: M. W. Herman, W. W. Koczkodaj

    Abstract: Consistent approximations obtained by geometric means ($GM$) and the principal eigenvector ($EV$), turned out to be close enough for 1,000,000 not-so-inconsistent pairwise comparisons matrices. In this respect both methods are accurate enough for most practical applications. As the enclosed Table 1 demonstrates, the biggest difference between average deviations of $GM$ and $EV$ solutions is 0.0001… ▽ More

    Submitted 7 May, 2015; originally announced May 2015.

    Journal ref: Information Processing Letters 57 (1996) 25-29