Astrophysical $S$ factor for the ${}^{15}{\rm N}(p,γ){}^{16}{\rm O}$ reaction from $R$-matrix analysis and asymptotic normalization coefficient for ${}^{16}{\rm O} \to {}^{15}{\rm N} + p$. Is any fit acceptable?

Abstract: The $$^{15}{\rm N}(p,\gamma)^{16}{\rm O}$$ reaction provides a path from the CN cycle to the CNO bi-cycle and CNO tri-cycle. The measured astrophysical factor for this reaction is dominated by resonant capture through two strong $J<sup>{\pi}=1<sup>{-}$ resonances at $E_{R}= 312$ and 962 keV and direct capture to the ground state. Recently, a new measurement of the astrophysical factor for the $$^{15}{\rm N}(p,\gamma)^{16}{\rm O}$$ reaction has been published [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. The analysis has been done using the $R$-matrix approach with unconstrained variation of all parameters including the asymptotic normalization coefficient (ANC). The best fit has been obtained for the square of the ANC $C^{2}= 539.2$ fm${}<sup>{-1}$, which exceeds the previously measured value by a factor of $\approx 3$. Here we present a new $R$-matrix analysis of the Notre Dame-LUNA data with the fixed within the experimental uncertainties square of the ANC $C<sup>{2}=200.34$ fm${}<sup>{-1}$. Rather than varying the ANC we add the contribution from a background resonance that effectively takes into account contributions from higher levels. Altogether we present 8 fits, five unconstrained and three constrained. In all the fits the ANC is fixed at the previously determined experimental value $C<sup>{2}=200.34$ fm${}<sup>{-1}$. For the unconstrained fit with the boundary condition $B_{c}=S_{c}(E_{2})$, where $E_{2}$ is the energy of the second level, we get $S(0)=39.0 \pm 1.1$ keVb and normalized ${\tilde \chi}<sup>{2}=1.84$, i.e. the result which is similar to [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. From all our fits we get the range $33.1 \leq S(0) \leq 40.1$ keVb which overlaps with the result of [P. J. LeBlanc {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 82}, 055804 (2010)]. We address also physical interpretation of the fitting parameters.