## 5 Conclusions
Regression analysis is a statistical method used to determine the strength and nature of the relationship between a dependent variable (e.g., experimental cross-section data) and one or more independent variables (e.g., theoretical model predictions). In this study, the coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)) was used to evaluate how well the angular differential cross sections predicted by the SHF-WS and Koning and Delaroche models correlate with the experimental data (Table 5). An R\({}^{2}\) value close to 1 indicates a strong agreement between the model and experiment, whereas a value closer to 0 indicates weaker correlation. This approach provides a quantitative measure of model performance across different neutron energies and isotopes, allowing for an objective comparison between the global OM and the microscopic model proposed in this work. To further quantify the agreement between the theoretical models and the experimental angular differential cross sections, a regression analysis was performed using the coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)). The average R\({}^{2}\) values across multiple energy levels and isotopes indicate that the global Koning and Delaroche model achieves a slightly higher overall correlation (R\({}^{2}\approx 0.8424\)) compared to the SHF-WS model (R\({}^{2}\approx 0.8147\)). However, this difference is relatively minor. In fact, the SHF-WS model demonstrates comparable or even better performance in specific isotopic and energy combinations, such as for \({}^{184}\)W and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Isotope–Energy (MeV)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**R\({}^{2}\)**} \\  & **[PERSON] and [PERSON] [(33)]** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Microscopic Approach**} \\  & **[PERSON] and [PERSON] [(33)]** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed in This Study**} \\  & & **(SHF-WS)** \\ \hline \({}^{182}\)W–1.5 & 0.9768 & 0.5479 \\ \({}^{182}\)W–2.5 & 0.4525 & 0.4586 \\ \({}^{182}\)W–3.4 & 0.9935 & 0.9874 \\ \({}^{182}\)W–4.87 & 0.9951 & 0.9967 \\ \({}^{182}\)W–6.0 & 0.9969 & 0.9992 \\ \({}^{183}\)W–3.4 & 0.9895 & 0.9839 \\ \({}^{184}\)W–1.5 & 0.9798 & 0.9940 \\ \({}^{184}\)W–2.5 & 0.2950 & 0.2935 \\ \({}^{184}\)W–3.4 & 0.9934 & 0.9978 \\ \({}^{184}\)W–4.84 & 0.9964 & 0.9991 \\ \({}^{184}\)W–6.0 & 0.9980 & 0.9982 \\ \({}^{186}\)W–1.5 & 0.9848 & 0.9958 \\ \({}^{186}\)W–2.5 & 0.1502 & 0.1540 \\ \({}^{186}\)W–3.4 & 0.9918 & 0.9992 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Average R\({}^{2}\) (Koning and Delaroche): 0.8424; average R\({}^{2}\) (SHF-WS Model): 0.8147.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: R\({}^{2}\) values obtained from regression analysis between theoretical angular differential cross sections and experimental data, for both SHF-WS and Koning and Delaroche models. \({}^{186}\)W at 3.4, 4.84, and 6 MeV. These findings suggest that the SHF-WS model is not only a consistent alternative but also capable of capturing the nuclear deformation effects more effectively in some cases. Therefore, despite its slightly lower average R\({}^{2}\), the SHF-WS model offers a physically grounded and reliable microscopic framework, complementing the global OM approach with a more structure-sensitive methodology. Data curation, formal analysis, conceptualization, investigation, methodology, software, writing--review and editing, F.A. and I.H.S. ; project administration, supervision, validation I.H.S. ; writing--original draft, visualization, F.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. Not applicable. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because the dataset is part of an ongoing study, and early sharing could affect future publications. The authors declare no conflict of interest.