关于从现有数据中提取12 C（a，g）反应天体物理截面因子的灵敏度[对Schuermann等的评论。B711（2012）35]
On the sensitivity of extracting the astrophysical cross section factor of the 12C(a,g) reaction from existing data [Comment on Schuermann et al. Phys. Lett. B711(2012)35]
摘要：
我们解决了一个矛盾的报告的价值和不确定性的天体物理截面因子的12 C（a，g）反应从现有的数据中提取。与先前报道的模糊性（高达8倍）形成鲜明对比，Schuermann等人提出的准确性为12%。我们证明了Schuermann等人所使用的所谓“严格的数据选择标准”依赖于Assuncao等人提取的s因子。但这些结果在后来的分析中（作者）显示出较大的误差线（远远大于Assuncao等人所声称的）。这使得这些数据不适合于严格的分析。当他们的“严格的数据选择”被调整以去除Assuncao等人的结果时，天体物理学的截面因子不能以12%的准确度提取，甚至不能接近它。这样的低能S_E2值数据偏离其拟合高达两倍，并表现出向低能上升的更尖锐的斜率，导致对它们的外推S_E2（300）值和引用的小误差条的强烈怀疑。与他们的说法相反，S_E1（300）~10 keVb的小值不能被目前的数据（包括最现代的伽马射线数据）排除。正如几位作者先前所观察到的，当前数据揭示了S_E1（300）~10 keVb或~80 keVb值的模糊性，而最近（作者）揭示的S_E2（300）~60 keVb或~154 keVb的新模糊性似乎是对当前数据状况的更合理评价。
英文摘要：
We address a conflicting report on the value and uncertainty of the astrophysical cross section factor of the 12C(a,g) reaction extracted from existing data. In sharp contrast to previously reported ambiguities (by up to a factor 8), Schuermann et al. suggest an accuracy of 12%. We demonstrate that the so claimed "rigorous data selection criteria" used by Schuermann et al. relies on the s-factors extracted by Assuncao et al. But these results were shown in a later analysis (by this author) to have large error bars (considerably larger than claimed by Assuncao em et al.) which render these data not appropriate for a rigorous analysis. When their "rigorous data selection" is adjusted to remove the results of Assuncao et al. the astrophysical cross section factor cannot be extracted with 12% accuracy, or even close to it. Such data on the S_E2 values at low energies deviate by up to a factor two from their fit and exhibit a sharper slope rising toward low energies, leading to strong doubt on their extrapolated S_E2(300) value and the quoted small error bar. Contrary to their claim the small value of S_E1(300) ~10 keVb cannot be ruled out by current data including the most modern gamma-ray data. As previously observed by several authors current data reveal ambiguities in the value of S_E1(300) ~10 keVb or ~80 keVb, and the new ambiguity that was recently revealed (by this author) of S_E2(300) ~60 keVb or ~154 keVb, appear to be a more reasonable evaluation the status of current data.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
