The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures

Cited by

1. Khandaker, M.U., Haba, H., Usman, A.R. et al. Activation cross-sections of proton-induced nuclear reactions on natural zinc in the energy range of 4–30 MeV[J]. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2024.112272
2. Acero, M.A., Argüelles, C.A., Hostert, M. et al. White paper on light sterile neutrino searches and related phenomenology[J]. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 2024, 51(12): 120501. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ad307f
3. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., Sevestrean, V.A. et al. High-precision measurements of the atomic mass and electron-capture decay Q value of 95Tc[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139094
4. Moscato, P., Grebogi, R. Approximating the nuclear binding energy using analytic continued fractions[J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14(1): 11559. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61389-5
5. Deng, H.-Y., Xing, Y.-M., Zhou, X. et al. Improved isochronous mass spectrometry with tune measurement[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2024, 35(11): 203. doi: 10.1007/s41365-024-01580-5
6. Karthein, J., Ricketts, C.M., Garcia Ruiz, R.F. et al. Electromagnetic properties of indium isotopes illuminate the doubly magic character of 100Sn[J]. Nature Physics, 2024, 20(11): 1719-1725. doi: 10.1038/s41567-024-02612-y
7. Cheng, J., Wang, B., Zhang, W. et al. Study α decay and proton emission based on data-driven symbolic regression[J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109317
8. Khandaker, M.U., Nagatsu, K., Minegishi, K. et al. Excitation functions of helion-induced nuclear reactions on natural copper up to 55 MeV[J]. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2024.111999
9. Pandey, B., Giri, S., Pant, R.D. et al. Prediction of binding energy using machine learning approach[J]. AIP Advances, 2024, 14(10): 105228. doi: 10.1063/5.0230425
10. Kimura, S., Wada, M., Haba, H. et al. Comprehensive mass measurement study of Cf 252 fission fragments with MRTOF-MS and detailed study of masses of neutron-rich Ce isotopes[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(4): 045810. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.045810
11. Chenmarev, S., Blaum, K., Block, M. et al. Masses of transuranium nuclides measured with the PI-ICR technique at TRIGA-Trap[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(10): 204. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01414-3
12. Zhang, W.Q., Yu, X.H., Liu, Z. et al. Prediction for proton-emitting candidate nuclei above the Z=82 shell closure[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(4): 044301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044301
13. Shi, J.-Y., Huang, W.-J., Wang, M. et al. Nucleus++: a new tool bridging Ame and Nubase for advancing nuclear data analysis[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2024, 35(10): 186. doi: 10.1007/s41365-024-01563-6
14. Ge, Z., Reponen, M., Eronen, T. et al. High-Precision Mass Measurements of Neutron Deficient Silver Isotopes Probe the Robustness of the N=50 Shell Closure[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2024, 133(13): 132503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.132503
15. Otuka, N., Takács, S., Aikawa, M. et al. Isomer production studied with simultaneous decay curve analysis for alpha-particle induced reactions on natural platinum up to 29 MeV[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(9): 195. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01383-7
16. Beliuskina, O., Nesterenko, D.A., Jaries, A. et al. Mass measurements in the Sn 132 region with the JYFLTRAP double Penning trap mass spectrometer[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(3): 034325. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034325
17. You, H.-S., Sun, H., Li, H.-B. et al. Compact dwarfs made of light-quark nuggets[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(5): 054041. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054041
18. Jaries, A., Stryjczyk, M., Kankainen, A. et al. Isomeric states of fission fragments explored via Penning trap mass spectrometry at IGISOL[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(3): 034326. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034326
19. Agostini, M., Alexander, A., Araujo, G. et al. Searches for new physics below twice the electron mass with GERDA[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2024, 84(9): 940. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13020-0
20. Ashok, N., Ashiq, K.M., Santhosh, K.P. Half-lives of one-proton emitters using Effective Liquid Drop Model[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(9): 188. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01412-5
21. Li, B., Vretenar, D., Nikšić, T. et al. Entanglement in multinucleon transfer reactions[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(3): 034611. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034611
22. Hukkanen, M., Ryssens, W., Ascher, P. et al. Precision mass measurements in the zirconium region pin down the mass surface across the neutron midshell at N = 66[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138916
23. Satija, S., Domnanich, K.A., Sumithrarachchi, C. et al. Production and separation of 7Be for use in an ion source[J]. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2024.111382
24. Jain, A., Agrawal, S., Swami, S. et al. Theoretical investigation of probable decay modes in potential nuclei 296,297Og, 297119, and 298120 for future experiments[J]. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2024, 3149(1): 140010. doi: 10.1063/5.0224989
25. Pahlavani, M.R., Ahmadvand, F. Effects of deformation on the cluster and the α-decay half-lives for isotopes of the Trans-lead and the undetected superheavy nuclei[J]. Chinese Journal of Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2024.05.007
26. Dudouet, J., Gruyer, D. The toolkit for nuclei library (TkN): a C++ interface to nuclear databases[J]. European Physical Journal Plus, 2024, 139(7): 641. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05384-9
27. Melbinger, J., Weiss, C., Griesmayer, E. et al. Diamond based neutron detector in high temperature environments of 200 °C[J]. Journal of Instrumentation, 2024, 19(7): P07015. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/P07015
28. Zhang, X., He, H., Qu, G. et al. Investigation of the difference in charge radii of mirror pairs with deep Bayesian neural networks[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(1): 014316. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.014316
29. Skripnikov, L.V., Prosnyak, S.D., Malyshev, A.V. et al. Isotope-shift factors with quantum electrodynamics effects for many-electron systems: A study of the nuclear charge radius of Al 26m[J]. Physical Review A, 2024, 110(1): 012807. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012807
30. Ge, Z., Bai, S., Eronen, T. et al. High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of 84Sr and implications to isotope shift studies[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(7): 147. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01359-7
31. He, X.-T., Wu, J.-W., Zhang, K.-Y. et al. Odd-even differences in the stability "peninsula" in the 106≤Z≤112 region with the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 110(1): 014301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.014301
32. Zhu, X.-Y., Luo, S., Gao, W. et al. An improved simple model for α decay half-lives[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(7): 074102. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad3d4b
33. Guo, P., Cao, X., Chen, K. et al. Nuclear mass table in deformed relativistic Hartree–Bogoliubov theory in continuum, II: Even-Z nuclei[J]. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2024.101661
34. Fedderke, M.A., Kaplan, D.E., Mathur, A. et al. Fireball antinucleosynthesis[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(12): 123028. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123028
35. Andel, B., Andreyev, A.N., Blazhev, A. et al. β decay of the ground state and of a low-lying isomer in Bi 216[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(6): 064321. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.064321
36. Wang, J., Tian, Y., Xu, R. et al. A study of U-isotope ground state properties with covariant energy density functional[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(6): 064102. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad305c
37. Deng, J.-G., Cheng, J.-H., Bao, X.-J. et al. Systematic study of cluster radioactivity within the generalized liquid drop model[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(6): 064101. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad30ef
38. Yahya, W.A., Azeez, O.K., Majekodunmi, J.T. et al. Density-Dependent Parametrizations in B3Y-Fetal NN Interaction: Application to Alpha Decay[J]. Brazilian Journal of Physics, 2024, 54(3): 74. doi: 10.1007/s13538-024-01453-7
39. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., Ramalho, M. et al. Direct high-precision measurement of the mass difference of 77As–77Se related to neutrino mass determination[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(5): 104. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01317-3
40. Lang, J., Przybytek, M., Lesiuk, M. Thermophysical properties of argon gas from improved two-body interaction potential[J]. Physical Review A, 2024, 109(5): 052803. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.052803
41. Dellen, B., Jaekel, U., Freitas, P.S.A. et al. Predicting nuclear masses with product-unit networks[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138608
42. Campbell, S.E., Bollen, G., Brown, B.A. et al. Precision Mass Measurement of the Proton Dripline Halo Candidate Al 22[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2024, 132(15): 152501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.152501
43. Seif, W.M., Abdulghany, A.R. Stability and fine structure of α decay of isomers in the trans-tin region of the nuclear chart and their single-particle structure[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(4): 044326. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044326
44. Shimizu, Y., Kubo, T., Sumikama, T. et al. Production of new neutron-rich isotopes near the N=60 isotones Ge 92 and As 93 by in-flight fission of a 345 MeV/nucleon U 238 beam[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(4): 044313. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044313
45. Luo, S., Zhang, D.-M., Qi, L.-J. et al. α-particle preformation factors in heavy and superheavy nuclei[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(4): 044105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad21e9
46. Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.L., Cugnon, J., David, J.C. et al. Short-range correlations in dynamical intranuclear cascade models for describing nucleon knockout reactions[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138559
47. Onecha, V.V., Espinosa-Rodriguez, A., Briz, J.A. et al. Reaction yields and angular distributions of prompt γ-rays for range verification in proton therapy using 18O[J]. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111485
48. Zhang, Y.-X., Zhang, S., Ma, Y.-G. Signatures of an α + core structure in 44Ti + 44Ti collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV by a multiphase transport model[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(3): 73. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01290-x
49. Wang, K.-L., Estrade, A., Famiano, M. et al. Mass measurements of neutron-rich nuclei near N=70[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(3): 035806. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.035806
50. Xiao, Q., Cheng, J.-H., Xu, Y.-Y. et al. α Decay in extreme laser fields within a deformed Gamow-like model[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2024, 35(2): 27. doi: 10.1007/s41365-024-01371-y
51. Bhandari, R., Bollen, G., Brunner, T. et al. First direct Be 7 electron-capture Q-value measurement toward high-precision searches for neutrino physics beyond the Standard Model[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(2): L022501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L022501
52. Jaries, A., Stryjczyk, M., Kankainen, A. et al. Reinvestigation of 91Sr and 95Y atomic masses using the JYFLTRAP Penning trap[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(2): 37. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01248-z
53. Yahya, W.A., Oluwadare, O.J., Falaye, B.J. Alpha Decay Half-lives of Heavy and Superheavy Nuclei within a Deformed Double Folding Model[J]. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 2024, 63(2): 46. doi: 10.1007/s10773-024-05575-1
54. Yiu, T.C., Liang, H., Lee, J. Nuclear mass predictions based on a deep neural network and finite-range droplet model (2012)[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2024, 48(2): 024102. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad021c
55. Denisov, V.Y.. Alpha-decay half-lives and alpha-capture cross-sections[J]. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2024.101684
56. Sagawa, H., Naito, T., Roca-Maza, X. et al. QCD-based charge symmetry breaking interaction and the Okamoto-Nolen-Schiffer anomaly[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(1): L011302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L011302
57. Wang, B., Xu, Y., Goriely, S. Systematic study of the radiative proton capture including the compound, pre-equilibrium, and direct mechanisms[J]. Physical Review C, 2024, 109(1): 014611. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014611
58. Cheng, J.-H., Zhang, W.-Y., Xiao, Q. et al. Determinants in laser-assisted deformed α decay[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138322
59. Coraggio, L., De Gregorio, G., Fukui, T. et al. The role of three-nucleon potentials within the shell model: Past and present[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104079
60. Pahlavani, M.R., Ahmadvand, F. The competition between α-decay and spontaneous fission for even-even isotopes of superheavy nuclei in the range 106 ≤ Z ≤ 124[J]. Modern Physics Letters A, 2023, 38(40): 2350176. doi: 10.1142/S0217732323501766
61. Heiße, F., Door, M., Sailer, T. et al. High-Precision Determination of g Factors and Masses of Ne 20 9+ and Ne 22 9+[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2023, 131(25): 253002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.253002
62. Baumann, K.-S., Derksen, L., Witt, M. et al. The influence of different versions of FLUKA and GEANT4 on the calculation of response functions of ionization chambers in clinical proton beams[J]. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2023, 68(24): 24NT01. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad0ad4
63. Hukkanen, M., Ryssens, W., Ascher, P. et al. Binding energies of ground and isomeric states in neutron-rich ruthenium isotopes: Measurements at JYFLTRAP and comparison to theory[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(6): 064315. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.064315
64. Li, J.-X., Zhang, H.-F. Evaporation residue cross sections of superheavy nuclei based on optimized nuclear data[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2023, 47(12): 124105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad021f
65. Antel, C., Battaglieri, M., Beacham, J. et al. Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2023, 83(12): 1122. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12168-5
66. Jaries, A., Stryjczyk, M., Kankainen, A. et al. High-precision Penning-trap mass measurements of Cd and in isotopes at JYFLTRAP remove the fluctuations in the two-neutron separation energies[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(6): 064302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.064302
67. Plattner, P., Wood, E., Al Ayoubi, L. et al. Nuclear Charge Radius of Al 26m and Its Implication for Vud in the Quark Mixing Matrix[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2023, 131(22): 222502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.222502
68. Kondev, F.G.. Recommended Nuclear Structure and Decay Data for A = 200 Isobars[J]. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2023.10.001
69. Omura, Y., Nakada, H., Abe, K. et al. Low-energy quadrupole collectivity of Sn nuclei in self-consistent calculations with a semi-realistic interaction[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(5): 054308. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.054308
70. Capel, P., Phillips, D.R., Andis, A. et al. Effective field theory analysis of the Coulomb breakup of the one-neutron halo nucleus 19 C[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(11): 273. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01181-7
71. Nesterenko, D.A., Ruotsalainen, J., Stryjczyk, M. et al. High-precision measurements of low-lying isomeric states in In 120-124 with the JYFLTRAP double Penning trap[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(5): 054301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.054301
72. Litvinov, Y.A., Zhang, Y.H. Nascent precision mass spectrometry for scantly produced exotic nuclei[J]. Science Bulletin, 2023, 68(20): 2298-2301. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.08.044
73. McFadden, R.M.L., Asaduzzaman, M., Buck, T.J. et al. Depth-resolved measurement of the Meissner screening profile in a niobium thin film from spin-lattice relaxation of the implanted β-emitter 8Li[J]. Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(16): 163902. doi: 10.1063/5.0175532
74. Morgner, J. | Tu, B. | König, et al. Stringent test of QED with hydrogen-like tin[J]. Nature, 2023, 622(7981): 53-57. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06453-2
75. Deng, X.-Q., Zhou, S.-G. Ground state and ¯ssion properties of even-A uranium isotopes from multidimensionally-constrained relativistic mean ¯eld model[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2023, 32(10): 2340004. doi: 10.1142/S0218301323400049
76. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., De Roubin, A. et al. β- decay Q -value measurement of Cs 136 and its implications for neutrino studies[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(4): 045502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.045501
77. Blanco, J.M., Dobrowolski, A., Zdeb, A. et al. Spontaneous fission half-lives of actinides and superheavy elements[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(4): 044618. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.044618
78. Zhang, X., Fu, H.-L., Guo, F.-K. et al. Neutron scattering off one-neutron halo nuclei in halo effective field theory[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(4): 044304. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.044304
79. Tu, B., Si, R., Shen, Y. et al. Experimental access to observing decay from extremely long-lived metastable electronic states via Penning trap spectrometry[J]. Physical Review Research, 2023, 5(4): 043014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043014
80. Meißner, U.-G., Metsch, B.C., Meyer, H. The electromagnetic fine-structure constant in primordial nucleosynthesis revisited[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(10): 223. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01131-3
81. Jayatissa, H., Avila, M.L., Rehm, K.E. et al. Study of the Mg 22 Waiting Point Relevant for X-Ray Burst Nucleosynthesis via the Mg 22 (α,p) Al 25 Reaction[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2023, 131(11): 112701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.112701
82. Borgwardt, T.C., Deboer, R.J., Boeltzig, A. et al. Deep underground measurement of B 11 (α,n) N 14[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(3): 035809. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.035809
83. Sasidharan, S., Bezrodnova, O., Rau, S. et al. Penning-Trap Mass Measurement of Helium-4[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2023, 131(9): 093201. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.093201
84. Raja, S.W., Acharya, R. Activation cross sections of radionuclides produced by alpha induced reactions on natCd up to 40 MeV for optimized production of 117mSn[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(9): 214. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01124-2
85. Gharaei, R., Jalali Shakib, M., Santhosh, K.P. Description of temperature effects on proton radioactivity[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122700
86. Ashok, N., Rohith, M. Exotic decay modes of uranium isotopes[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122686
87. Tavares, O.A.P., Terranova, M.L. A semiempirical evaluation of half-life of 146Sm isotope[J]. Modern Physics Letters A, 2023, 38(24-25): 2350115. doi: 10.1142/S0217732323501158
88. Bonnard, J., Dobaczewski, J., Danneaux, G. et al. Nuclear DFT electromagnetic moments in heavy deformed open-shell odd nuclei[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138014
89. Hartley, D.J., Kondev, F.G., Carpenter, M.P. et al. First β-decay spectroscopy study of 157Nd[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(2): 024307. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.024307
90. Stopani, K.A., Vladimirova, E.V., Negrebetskiy, V.V. et al. Nuclear Mass Model Based on Bayesian Estimate of Local Difference Experssions of Binding Energies[J]. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2023, 86(4): 347-355. doi: 10.1134/S1063778823040348
91. Xiao, Q., Cheng, J.-H., Wang, B.-L. et al. Half-lives for proton emission and α decay within the deformed Gamow-like model[J]. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 2023, 50(8): 085102. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/acdfeb
92. Moscato, P., Grebogi, R.B. Approximating the Boundaries of Unstable Nuclei Using Analytic Continued Fractions[J]. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3583133.3590638
93. Pahlavani, M.R., Ahmadvand, F. Study of α -decay half-life for axially symmetric deformed even-even isotopes of nuclei with atomic numbers 8 8 ≤ Z ≤ 1 0 4[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2023, 32(7): 2350036. doi: 10.1142/S0218301323500362
94. Nakatsukasa, T., Hinohara, N. Local α -removal strength in the mean-field approximation[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(1): 014318. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014318
95. Sun, Y.Z., Wang, S.T. CNOK: A C++ Glauber model code for single-nucleon knockout reactions[J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108726
96. Litvinov, Y.A.. Precision Physics with Stored Exotic Ions: Storage Ring Mass Spectrometry[J]. Proceedings of Science, 2023. doi: 10.22323/1.419.0033
97. Luo, S., Qi, L.-J., Zhang, D.-M. et al. An improved empirical formula of α decay half-lives for superheavy nuclei[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(6): 125. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01040-5
98. Li, R., Xu, C. Three-dimensional approach applied to quasistationary states of deformed α emitters[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(6): 064301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064301
99. Naito, T., Colò, G., Liang, H. et al. Effects of Coulomb and isospin symmetry breaking interactions on neutron-skin thickness[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(6): 064302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064302
100. Grabmayr, P.. Gamma cascades in gadolinium isotopes[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2023, 83(5): 444. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11602-y
101. Li, J., Zhao, T., Ma, N. et al. Application of Neural Network Approach in Nuclear Mass | [神经网络方法在核质量中的应用][J]. Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu/Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 2023, 57(4): 696-703. doi: 10.7538/yzk.2022.youxian.0778
102. Ghezzer, L.E., Nozzoli, F., Nicolaidis, R. et al. Search for electron capture in Lu 176 with a lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate scintillator[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(4): 045504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.045504
103. Smith, A.I., Johnson, E.T., Chen, Z. et al. pynucastro: A Python Library for Nuclear Astrophysics[J]. Astrophysical Journal, 2023, 947(2): 65. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbaff
104. Delaunay, C., Karr, J.-P., Kitahara, T. et al. Self-Consistent Extraction of Spectroscopic Bounds on Light New Physics[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2023, 130(12): 121801. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.121801
105. Yamamoto, Y.. The dual King relation[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137682
106. Bally, B., Giacalone, G., Bender, M. The shape of gold[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(3): 58. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00955-3
107. Marshall, C., Setoodehnia, K., Cinquegrana, G.C. et al. New constraints on sodium production in globular clusters from the Na 23 (He 3, d) Mg 24 reaction[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(3): 035806. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.035806
108. Furusawa, S., Nagakura, H. Nuclei in core-collapse supernovae engine[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104018
109. Parmar, V., Das, H.C., Sharma, M.K. et al. Magnetized neutron star crust within effective relativistic mean-field model[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 107(4): 043022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043022
110. Xu, Y.-Y., Hu, X.-Y., Zhu, D.-X. et al. Systematic study of proton radioactivity half-lives[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2023, 34(2): 30. doi: 10.1007/s41365-023-01178-3
111. Zhang, M., Zhou, X., Wang, M. et al. Bρ -defined isochronous mass spectrometry and mass measurements of 58 Ni fragments[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(2): 27. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00928-6
112. Kondev, F.G.. Nuclear Data Sheets for A=201[J]. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2023.01.003
113. Rosenbusch, M., Wada, M., Chen, S. et al. The new MRTOF mass spectrograph following the ZeroDegree spectrometer at RIKEN's RIBF facility[J]. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.167824
114. Giuliani, P., Godbey, K., Bonilla, E. et al. Bayes goes fast: Uncertainty quantification for a covariant energy density functional emulated by the reduced basis method[J]. Frontiers in Physics, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.1054524
115. Sun, X.-X., Zhou, S.-G. Models for Pairing Phenomena[J]. Handbook of Nuclear Physics: Volume 1-5, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_12
116. Nakamura, T.. Coulomb Breakup and Soft E1 Excitation of Neutron Halo Nuclei[J]. Handbook of Nuclear Physics: Volume 1-5, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_68
117. Phillips, W.D., Mohr, P.J. The Quantum Reform of the International System of Units[J]. Handbook of Metrology and Applications, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-2074-7_10
118. Xia, C.-J., Huang, Y.-F., Li, H.-B. et al. Ultra-low-mass and small-radius white dwarfs made of heavy elements[J]. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1334642
119. Maslyuk, V.T., Skakun, Y.O., Semisalov, I.L. et al. NUCLEOSYNTHESIS OF NUCLEAR MATTER: ENTROPY EFFECTS[J]. Problems of Atomic Science and Technology, 2023, 2023(6): 3-7. doi: 10.46813/2023-148-003
120. Tanaka, S., Nishimura, N., Minato, F. et al. Postfission properties of uranium isotopes: A hybrid method with Langevin dynamics and the Hauser-Feshbach statistical model[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 108(5): 054607. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.054607
121. Smith, M.S.. Nuclear data resources and initiatives for nuclear astrophysics[J]. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1243615
122. Karr, J.-P., Koelemeij, J.C.J. Extraction of spin-averaged rovibrational transition frequencies in HD+ for the determination of fundamental constants[J]. Molecular Physics, 2023, 121(17-18): e2216081. doi: 10.1080/00268976.2023.2216081
123. Hukkanen, M., Ryssens, W., Ascher, P. et al. Odd-odd neutron-rich rhodium isotopes studied with the double Penning trap JYFLTRAP[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(1): 014306. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014306
124. Göbel, M., Acharya, B., Hammer, H.-W. et al. Final-state interactions and spin structure in E1 breakup of Li 11 in halo effective field theory[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(1): 014617. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014617
125. Severijns, N., Hayen, L., De Leebeeck, V. et al. Ft values of the mirror β transitions and the weak-magnetism-induced current in allowed nuclear β decay[J]. Physical Review C, 2023, 107(1): 015502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.015502
126. Wiescher, M., deBoer, R.J., Görres, J. The resonances in the 22 Ne+ α fusion reactions[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(1): 11. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00917-9
127. Martin Contreras, M.A., Vega, A., Diles, S. A holographic bottom-up description of light nuclide spectroscopy and stability[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137551
128. He, C., Guo, J.-Y. Structure and α decay for the neutron-deficient nuclei with 89≤Z≤94 in the density-dependent cluster model combined with a relativistic mean-field approach[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(6): 064310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.064310
129. Luo, S., Xu, Y.-Y., Zhu, D.-X. et al. Improved Geiger–Nuttall law for α -decay half-lives of heavy and superheavy nuclei[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(12): 244. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00898-1
130. Zhou, X., Yang, J. Status of the high-intensity heavy-ion accelerator facility in China[J]. AAPPS Bulletin, 2022, 32(1): 35. doi: 10.1007/s43673-022-00064-1
131. Ahn, D.S., Amano, J., Baba, H. et al. Discovery of Na 39[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2022, 129(21): 212502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.212502
132. Typel, S., Oertel, M., Klähn, T. et al. CompOSE reference manual: Version 3.01, CompStar Online Supernovæ Equations of State, “harmonising the concert of nuclear physics and astrophysics”, https://compose.obspm.fr[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(11): 221. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00847-y
133. Wang, M., Zhang, M., Zhou, X. et al. Bρ -defined isochronous mass spectrometry: An approach for high-precision mass measurements of short-lived nuclei[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(5): L051301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.L051301
134. Xu, Y.-Y., Zhu, D.-X., Zou, Y.-T. et al. Systematic study on α-decay half-lives of uranium isotopes with a screened electrostatic barrier*[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(11): 114103. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac7fe8
135. Meißner, U.-G., Metsch, B.C. Probing nuclear observables via primordial nucleosynthesis[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(11): 212. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00869-6
136. Navarro Pérez, R., Schunck, N. Controlling extrapolations of nuclear properties with feature selection[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137336
137. Grams, G., Somasundaram, R., Margueron, J. et al. Nuclear incompressibility and speed of sound in uniform matter and finite nuclei[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(4): 044305. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044305
138. Lim, Y., Holt, J.W. Neutron Star Radii, Deformabilities, and Moments of Inertia from Experimental and Ab Initio Theory Constraints of the 208Pb Neutron Skin Thickness[J]. Galaxies, 2022, 10(5): 99. doi: 10.3390/galaxies10050099
139. Cheng, J.-H., Zhang, Z., Wu, X.-J. et al. Systematic study of proton radioactivity half-lives based on the relationship between Skyrme-Hartree-Fock and the macroscopic quantities of nuclear matter*[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(10): 104104. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac7a99
140. Dagtas, R., Bayrak, O. Clustering effect in description of the alpha and heavier decay half-life[J]. Physica Scripta, 2022, 97(10): 105301. doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac8ad7
141. Bahtiyar, H., Soydaner, D., Yüksel, E. Application of multilayer perceptron with data augmentation in nuclear physics[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109470
142. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., de Roubin, A. et al. High-precision electron-capture Q value measurement of 111In for electron-neutrino mass determination[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137226
143. Fantina, A.F., Zdunik, J.L., Chamel, N. et al. Accreting neutron stars from the nuclear energy-density functional theory: II. Equation of state and global properties[J]. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2022. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243715
144. Bally, B., Giacalone, G., Bender, M. Structure of 128 , 129 , 130 Xe through multi-reference energy density functional calculations[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(9): 187. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00833-4
145. Xu, Y.-Y., Zhu, D.-X., Chen, X. et al. A unified formula for α decay half-lives[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(9): 163. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00812-9
146. Deng, J.-G., Zhang, H.-F. Probing the robustness of N=126 shell closure via the α decay systematics[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(9): 165. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00813-8
147. Bhattacharjee, P., Bandyopadhyay, A., Chakraborty, S. et al. Inelastic charged-current interactions of supernova neutrinos in two-phase liquid xenon dark matter detectors[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(4): 043029. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043029
148. Zhang, W.Q., Andreyev, A.N., Liu, Z. et al. Identification of excited states in Bi 188 and Po 188[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(2): 024317. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024317
149. Wang, Z., Ren, Z. Favored α -decay half-lives of odd- A and odd-odd nuclei using an improved density-dependent cluster model with anisotropic surface diffuseness[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(2): 024311. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024311
150. Minato, F., Niu, Z., Liang, H. Calculation of β-decay half-lives within a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov energy density functional with the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation and isoscalar pairing strengths optimized by a Bayesian method[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(2): 024306. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024306
151. Parmar, V., Das, H.C., Kumar, A. et al. Pasta properties of the neutron star within effective relativistic mean-field model[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(2): 023031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023031
152. Eronen, T., Ge, Z., de Roubin, A. et al. High-precision measurement of a low Q value for allowed β−-decay of 131I related to neutrino mass determination[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137135
153. Vitéz-Sveiczer, A., Algora, A., Morales, A.I. et al. The β-decay of 70Kr into 70Br: Restoration of the pseudo-SU(4) symmetry[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137123
154. Pan, C., Cheoun, M.-K., Choi, Y.-B. et al. Deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum with a point-coupling functional. II. Examples of odd Nd isotopes[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(1): 014316. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014316
155. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., De Roubin, A. et al. Direct determination of the atomic mass difference of the pairs As 76 - Se 76 and Tb 155 - Gd 155 rules out As 76 and Tb 155 as possible candidates for electron (anti)neutrino mass measurements[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(1): 015502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.015502
156. Puentes, D., Meisel, Z., Bollen, G. et al. High-precision mass measurement of Si 24 and a refined determination of the rp process at the A=22 waiting point[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(1): L012801. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.L012801
157. Ramalho, M., Ge, Z., Eronen, T. et al. Observation of an ultralow- Q -value electron-capture channel decaying to As 75 via a high-precision mass measurement[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(1): 015501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.015501
158. Leoni, S., Michelagnoli, C., Wilson, J.N. Gamma-ray spectroscopy of fission fragments with state-of-the-art techniques[J]. Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 2022, 45(7): 461-547. doi: 10.1007/s40766-022-00033-2
159. Schunck, N., Regnier, D. Theory of nuclear fission[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103963
160. Zhang, W.Q., Andreyev, A.N., Liu, Z. et al. First observation of a shape isomer and a low-lying strongly-coupled prolate band in neutron-deficient semi-magic 187Pb[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137129
161. Saxena, M., J Ong, W., Meisel, Z. et al. 57Zn β-delayed proton emission establishes the 56Ni rp-process waiting point bypass[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137059
162. Li, C.-Q., Tong, C.-N., Du, H.-J. et al. Deep learning approach to nuclear masses and α-decay half-lives[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(6): 064306. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064306
163. Yin, X., Shou, R., Zhao, Y.M. Atomic masses of nuclei with neutron numbers N<126 and proton numbers Z>82[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(6): 064304. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064304
164. Ono, K., Saito, Y., Ishiyama, T. et al. Observation of Nonlinearity of Generalized King Plot in the Search for New Boson[J]. Physical Review X, 2022, 12(2): 021033. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.021033
165. Özdoğan, H., Üncü, Y.A., Şekerci, M. et al. Mass excess estimations using artificial neural networks[J]. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2022.110162
166. Mohammed-Azizi, B., Mouloudj, H. Least-squares fitting applied to nuclear mass formulas. Solution by the Gauss-Seidel method[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2022, 33(6): 2250076. doi: 10.1142/S0129183122500760
167. Negrebetskiy, V.V., Vladimirova, E.V., Simonov, M.V. et al. Sensitivity of r-nuclide distributions to the choice of nuclear mass model[J]. Proceedings of Science, 2022.
168. Sargsyan, G.H., Launey, K.D., Burkey, M.T. et al. Impact of Clustering on the Li 8 β Decay and Recoil Form Factors[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2022, 128(20): 202503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202503
169. Lou, Y.-S., Guo, W.-J. Prediction of unknown nuclear stability by Bayesian deep neural network | [贝叶斯深度神经网络对于核质量预测的研究][J]. Wuli Xuebao/Acta Physica Sinica, 2022, 71(10): 102101. doi: 10.7498/aps.71.20212387
170. Orford, R., Vassh, N., Clark, J.A. et al. Searching for the origin of the rare-earth peak with precision mass measurements across Ce-Eu isotopic chains[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(5): L052802. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L052802
171. Azeez, O.K., Yahya, W.A., Saeed, A.A. Predictions of the alpha-decay half-lives of even-even superheavy nuclei using modified Gamow-like model[J]. Physica Scripta, 2022, 97(5): 055302. doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac619d
172. Ming, X.-C., Zhang, H.-F., Xu, R.-R. et al. Nuclear mass based on the multi-task learning neural network method[J]. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2022, 33(5): 48. doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01031-z
173. Negrebetskiy, V.V., Vladimirova, E.V., Simonov, M.V. et al. Sensitivity of the r-Process Model to the Choice of a Mass Model[J]. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, 2022, 86(4): 495-499. doi: 10.3103/S1062873822040189
174. Schiffer, J.P., Kay, B.P., Chen, J. Single-nucleon energies changing with nucleon number[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(4): L041302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L041302
175. Piekarewicz, J.. Insights into the possible existence of a soft dipole mode in He 8[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(4): 044310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.044310
176. Roy, B.J., Santra, S., Pal, A. et al. Reaction mechanism study for multinucleon transfer processes in collisions of spherical and deformed nuclei at energies near and above the Coulomb barrier: The O 16 + Sm 154 reaction[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(4): 044611. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.044611
177. Lv, W.L., Niu, Y.F., Fang, D.L. et al. Single-state or low-lying-states dominance mechanism of 2νββ -decay nuclear matrix elements[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(4): 044331. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.044331
178. Macchiavelli, A.O., Crawford, H.L., Fallon, P. et al. Weak binding effects on the structure of 40 Mg[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(4): 66. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00719-5
179. Aguilar-Arevalo, A., Amidei, D., Arnquist, I. et al. Characterization of the background spectrum in DAMIC at SNOLAB[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(6): 062003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.062003
180. Nesterenko, D.A., Jokiniemi, L., Kotila, J. et al. High-precision Q-value measurement and nuclear matrix element calculations for the double- β decay of 98 Mo[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(3): 44. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00695-w
181. Parr, E., Smith, J.F., Greenlees, P.T. et al. Single-particle states and parity doublets in odd- Z Ac 221 and Pa 225 from α -decay spectroscopy[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(3): 034303. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034303
182. Yahya, W.A., Ibrahim, T.T. Cluster decay half-lives using relativistic density dependent double folding model[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(3): 48. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00701-1
183. Zhang, K., Cheoun, M.-K., Choi, Y.-B. et al. Nuclear mass table in deformed relativistic Hartree–Bogoliubov theory in continuum, I: Even–even nuclei[J]. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101488
184. Parmar, V., Das, H.C., Kumar, A. et al. Crustal properties of a neutron star within an effective relativistic mean-field model[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(4): 043017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043017
185. Negrebetskiy, V.V., Simonov, M.V., Vladimirova, E.V. et al. Sensitivity of r Process Calculation to the Choice of a Mass Model of Atomic Nuclei: Comparison of the FRDM, HFB-24, WS+RBF, and LMR Models[J]. Moscow University Physics Bulletin, 2022, 77(1): 43-49. doi: 10.3103/S0027134922010271
186. Wang, Z., Bai, D., Ren, Z. Improved density-dependent cluster model in a -decay calculations within anisotropic deformation-dependent surface diffuseness[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(2): 024327. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024327
187. Cheng, J.-H., Li, Y., Yu, T.-P. Systematic study of laser-assisted proton radioactivity from deformed nuclei[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(2): 024312. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024312
188. Kłos, J., Li, H., Tiesinga, E. et al. Prospects for assembling ultracold radioactive molecules from laser-cooled atoms[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2022, 24(2): 025005. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ac50ea
189. Meisel, Z., Hamaker, A., Bollen, G. et al. Improved nuclear physics near A=61 refines urca neutrino luminosities in accreted neutron star crusts[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(2): 025804. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.025804
190. Naito, T., Colò, G., Liang, H. et al. Toward ab initio charge symmetry breaking in nuclear energy density functionals[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(2): L021304. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L021304
191. Xu, Y.-Y., Liu, H.-M., Zhu, D.-X. et al. An improved formula for the favored α decay half-lives[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(2): 16. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00666-1
192. Wang, X.-Q., Sun, X.-X., Zhou, S.-G. Microscopic study of higher-order deformation effects on the ground states of superheavy nuclei around 270Hs[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(2): 024107. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3904
193. Yahya, W.A., Olusola, I.D., Saeed, A.A. et al. Half-lives of α-decay from nuclei with Z = 92 − 118 using the double folding model with relativistic NN interactions[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122360
194. Ogujiuba, K., Delipei, G., Mertyurek, U. et al. ESTIMATION OF RECOVERABLE ENERGIES IN NEUTRON-INDUCED FISSION AND CAPTURE WITH ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTIES[J]. 2022. doi: 10.13182/PHYSOR22-37744
195. Cai, B., Yuan, C. Theoretical description of the decay width of neutron emission in light nuclei | [轻质量原子核中子发射的衰变宽度理论描述][J]. Kexue Tongbao/Chinese Science Bulletin, 2022, 67(23): 2782-2789. doi: 10.1360/TB-2022-0151
196. Kankainen, A., Goriely, S. Nuclear Data and Experiments for Astrophysics[J]. Lecture Notes in Physics, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-10751-1_4
197. Sadhukhan, J., Giuliani, S.A., Nazarewicz, W. Theoretical description of fission yields: Toward a fast and efficient global model[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(1): 014619. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014619
198. Murarka, U., Banerjee, K., Malik, T. et al. The neutron star outer crust equation of state: A machine learning approach[J]. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 2022(1): 045. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/045
199. Yahya, W.A., Kimene Kaya, B.D.C. The α-decay half-lives of heavy nuclei via the double folding model with the use of relativistic NN interactions[J]. International Journal of Modern Physics E, 2022, 31(1): 2250002. doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500021
200. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., Tyrin, K.S. et al. Dy 159 Electron-Capture: A New Candidate for Neutrino Mass Determination[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2021, 127(27): 272301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.272301
201. Sorensen, J.J., Bernath, P.F. Near-infrared and Visible Opacities of S-type Stars: The B1Π - X1Σ+Band System of ZrO[J]. Astrophysical Journal, 2021, 923(2): 234. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300d
202. Watanabe, H., Yuan, C.X., Lorusso, G. et al. Impact of shell evolution on Gamow-Teller β decay from a high-spin long-lived isomer in 127Ag[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136766
203. Paul, S.F., Bergmann, J., Cardona, J.D. et al. Mass measurements of Ga 60-63 reduce x-ray burst model uncertainties and extend the evaluated T=1 isobaric multiplet mass equation[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(6): 065803. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.065803
204. Wan, N., Fan, J. Systematical calculations on α -cluster preformation factors and decay half-lives of light nuclei near the recently observed α emitters Xe 108 and Te 104[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(6): 064320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064320
205. Bao, M., Wei, Q. Nuclear structure evolution reflected from local relations[J]. Symmetry, 2021, 13(12): 2253. doi: 10.3390/sym13122253
206. Hamaker, A., Leistenschneider, E., Jain, R. et al. Precision mass measurement of lightweight self-conjugate nucleus 80Zr[J]. Nature Physics, 2021, 17(12): 1408-1412. doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01395-w
207. Fleig, T., Demille, D. Theoretical aspects of radium-containing molecules amenable to assembly from laser-cooled atoms for new physics searches[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2021, 23(11): 113039. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ac3619
208. Wu, D., Bai, C.L., Sagawa, H. et al. β -delayed one-neutron emission probabilities within a neural network model[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(5): A78. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.054303
209. Yahya, W.A., Falaye, B.J. Alpha decay study of Thorium isotopes using double folding model with NN interactions derived from relativistic mean field theory[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122311
210. Berceanu, A., Xu, Y., Niu, Y.F. Temperature effects on neutron-capture cross sections and rates through electric dipole transitions in hot nuclei[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(4): 044332. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.044332
211. Yoshida, K.. Isovector giant monopole and quadrupole resonances in a Skyrme energy density functional approach with axial symmetry[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(4): 044309. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.044309
212. Itaco, N.. Close to the edge[J]. Nature Physics, 2021, 17(10): 1080-1081. doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01348-3
213. Mougeot, M., Atanasov, D., Karthein, J. et al. Mass measurements of 99–101In challenge ab initio nuclear theory of the nuclide 100Sn[J]. Nature Physics, 2021, 17(10): 1099-1103. doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01326-9
214. Zhang, K., He, X., Meng, J. et al. Predictive power for superheavy nuclear mass and possible stability beyond the neutron drip line in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(2): L021301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L021301
215. Batchelder, J.C., Apgar, C., Brewer, N.T. et al. Levels in Cd 125 populated by the β decay of Ag 125m and Ag 125[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(2): 024308. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024308
216. Yoshida, K., Tanimura, Y. Spin-triplet proton-neutron pair in spin-dipole excitations[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 104(1): 014319. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.014319
217. Ge, Z., Eronen, T., De Roubin, A. et al. Direct measurement of the mass difference of As 72 - Ge 72 rules out As 72 as a promising β -decay candidate to determine the neutrino mass[J]. Physical Review C, 2021, 103(6): 065502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.065502
218. Huang, W.J., Wang, M., Kondev, F.G. et al. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(3): 030002. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0
219. Wang, M., Huang, W.J., Kondev, F.G. et al. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(3): 030003. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf
220. Yahya, W.A., Oyewumi, K.J. Calculations of the alpha decay half-lives of some polonium Isotopes using the double folding model[J]. Acta Physica Polonica B, 2021, 52(11): 1357-1372. doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.52.1357

Figures(12) / Tables(7)

Get Citation
W.J. Huang, Meng Wang, F.G. Kondev, G. Audi and S. Naimi. The Ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(3): 030002. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0
W.J. Huang, Meng Wang, F.G. Kondev, G. Audi and S. Naimi. The Ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2021, 45(3): 030002.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0 shu
Milestone
Received: 2021-01-19
Article Metric

Article Views(4204)
PDF Downloads(319)
Cited by(249)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures

  • 1. Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • 2. Advanced Energy Science and Technology Guangdong Laboratory, Huizhou 516003, China
  • 3. Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, France
  • 4. Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
  • 5. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 6. Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA
  • 7. RIKEN Nishina Center, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan

Abstract: This is the first of two articles (Part I and Part II) that presents the results of the new atomic mass evaluation, AME2020. It includes complete information on the experimental input data that were used to derive the tables of recommended values which are given in Part II. This article describes the evaluation philosophy and procedures that were implemented in the selection of specific nuclear reaction, decay and mass-spectrometric data which were used in a least-squares fit adjustment in order to determine the recommended mass values and their uncertainties. All input data, including both the accepted and rejected ones, are tabulated and compared with the adjusted values obtained from the least-squares fit analysis. Differences with the previous AME2016 evaluation are discussed and specific examples are presented for several nuclides that may be of interest to AME users.

    HTML

    1.   Introduction
    • The Atomic Mass Evaluation (AME) was created in 1950’s to produce a reliable atomic mass table from the available experimental data. A number of AME mass tables have been produced and published since then [1], serving the need of the broader research community to have reliable and comprehensive information about the atomic masses. The last complete evaluation of experimental atomic mass data, AME2016, was published in March, 2017 [2,3]. Since then the experimental knowledge of atomic masses has continuously expanded and a large amount of new data has been published in the scientific literature.

      This paper is the first of two AME2020 articles (Part I and Part II). It contains the details on the evaluation procedures and the main AME2020 evaluation table, Table I, where all accepted and rejected experimental data are presented and compared with the adjusted values deduced using a least-squares fit analysis. In Part II (the next article of this issue) [4], the recommended mass values and their uncertainties are given, followed by tables and graphs of derived quantities and detailed bibliographical information. As in previous AME publications, the AME2020 is accompanied by the NUBASE2020 evaluation [5], which provides information about the basic properties of the known ground and excited isomeric states that are used in the AME.

      There is no strict literature cut-off date for the data used in the present AME2020 evaluation: all data, available to the authors until the end of October 2020 were included. The final mass-adjustment calculations were performed on February 1st, 2021. The present publication contains updated information presented in the previous AME tables, including data that were not used in the final adjustment due to specific reasons, e.g. data that have too large uncertainties.

      Remark: In the following text, several data of general interest are discussed. References to articles that can be found in Table I are avoided. When it is necessary to provide specific references, those are given using the NSR key-numbers style [6] (e.g. [2020Fu05]) and are listed at the end of Part II, under "References used in the AME2020 and the NUBASE2020 evaluations".

      As in the previous AME versions, all uncertainties are one-standard deviation (1 σ ).

    2.   Units and energy recalibration
    • The unit used in the AME is the 'unified atomic mass unit’ u, which is defined as one twelfth of the mass of one free atom of carbon-12, at rest and in its atomic and nuclear ground states, 1 u =m(12 C )/12 . The 'unified mass unit' stands for the unification of the physical and chemical units in 1960 following the proposal of Kohman, Mattauch and Wapstra [7]. It is worth mentioning that the chemical mass-spectrometry community (e.g. bio-chemistry, polymer chemistry) widely uses the dalton unit (symbol Da, named after John Dalton). The dalton is an alternative name for the same unit and allows to express the number of nucleons in a molecule.

      Until May 20th, 2019, the SI (International System of Units) unit of amount of substance, the mole, was defined by fixing the value of the molar mass of 12 C to be exactly 0.012 kg/mol. At that time the kilogram was defined as exactly the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram, an artifact made of platinum-iridium. In the current SI, the base units are defined by exact numerical values for the Planck constant h, elementary charge e, Boltzmann constant k, and Avogadro constant NA [8]. The kilogram is now defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant, h, to be 6.626 070 15 × 10 34 Js , which is equal to kg m2 s−1, where the meter and the second are defined by the fixed values of the speed of light in vacuum and frequency of the ground-state cesium hyperfine splitting [9].

      With the new SI definition, the mass of an atom can be expressed in unit 'kg' with higher precision. Recently, the mass of 87 Rb atom was determined with a precision of 142 ppt in unit 'kg' [10]. This result is not included in AME as it will be used to determine the fine-structure constant by combining with the atomic mass of 87 Rb. In the present evaluation, the atomic mass of 87 Rb is known with a precision of 69 ppt in unit ‘u’.

      In general, the atomic mass of a particular nuclide can be obtained as an inertial mass from the movement of an ionized atom in an electro-magnetic field, with some other masses used as references. Thus, the mass is derived from the ratio of masses and it is expressed in units of 'u'. 12 C serves as the ultimate, absolute reference in the mass determination. In other cases, the atomic mass can be determined from an energy relation between the mass of the nuclide of interest and that of one or more well-known masses associated with a nuclear decay or reaction measurement. This energy relation is then expressed in units of electron volts, eV. In AME1993 through AME2016, the unit of the maintained volt V 90 was used, which was defined in 1990 by 2e/h=483597.9 (exact) GHz/V 90 . The γ -ray energies determined in wavelength measurements can be expressed in eV 90 without any loss in precision, since the conversion factor is an exact quantity. These energies serve as standards in other energy measurements, so the reaction and decay energies used in AME can be more accurately expressed in maintained volts, as discussed by Cohen and Wapstra [11]. At that time, the precision of the conversion factor between mass units and maintained volt (V 90 ) was also higher than that between the former and international volt.

      Since in the most recent CODATA evaluation [8] the Plank constant, h and the elementary charge, e are exact quantities, the international volt is used in AME2020. The relation between maintained and international volts is given as V 90 = 1.000 000 106 66 (exact) V, a difference of 106.66 ppb.

      Here we discuss the influence of this new definition by using the reaction energy for 1 H(n, γ ) 2 H as an example. In an experiment at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL)[1999Ke05], the wavelength of the emitted γ ray was determined by using a high-resolution, silicon crystal spectrometer. In AME2003, the recommended value was 2224.5660(4) keV 90 , based on the work of Kessler et al. [1999Ke05]. This result had the highest precision for energy measurement in the input data of AME, with a relative uncertainty of 180 ppb. In the later work by the same group [2006De21], the value was determined as 2224.55610(44) keV, using new evaluation on the lattice spacing of the crystal. The latter is used as an adjusted parameter in the CODATA evaluation, but it is not expressed explicitly. Using the same value for the wave length as in [2006De21] and the length-energy conversion coefficient, we derived 2224.55600(44) keV 90 as an input to AME2016. In the present work, we recalibrated the result and obtained 2224.55624(44) keV as input value.

      In Table A, the relations between several constants of interest, obtained from the CODATA evaluation [8] are presented. The ratio of mass units to electronvolts is also given. In addition, values for the masses of the proton, neutron and alpha particle, as derived from the present evaluation, are also given, together with the mass difference between the neutron and the hydrogen atom.

      1 u = m(12 C )/12 = atomic mass unit
      1 u = 1 660 539.0666 ± 0.0005 ×1033 kg 0.3 ppb a
      1 u = 931 494.10242 ± 0.00028 keV 0.3 ppb a
      1 MeV = 1 073 544.10233 ± 0.00032 nu 0.3 ppb a
      me = 548 579.909065 ± 0.000016 nu 0.03 ppb a
      = 510 998.95000 ± 0.00015 eV 0.3 ppb a
      mp = 1 007 276 466.588 ± 0.014 nu 0.014 ppb b
      Mα = 4 001 506 179.13 ± 0.16 nu 0.04 ppb c
      mnmH = 839 884.01 ± 0.47 nu 560 ppb c
      = 782 347.00 ± 0.44 eV 560 ppb c
      a) derived from the work of the latest CODATA [8]. b) derived from this work combined with me and the ionization energy for 1 H and 4 He from [8]. c) this work.

      Table A.  Constants used in this work or resulting from the present evaluation

      The recommended 2e/h values and mass-energy conversion factors are given in Table B.

      2e/h u
      1983 483594.21 (1.34) GHz/V 931501.2 (2.6) keV
      1983 483594 (exact) GHz/V 86 931501.6 (0.3) keV 86
      1986 483597.67 (0.14) GHz/V 931494.32 (0.28) keV
      1990 483597.9 (exact) GHz/V 90 931493.86 (0.07) keV 90
      1999 483597.9 (exact) GHz/V 90 931494.009 (0.007) keV 90
      2010 483597.9 (exact) GHz/V 90 931494.0023 (0.0007) keV 90
      2012 483597.9 (exact) GHz/V 90 931494.0038 (0.0004) keV 90
      2018 483597.8484 (exact) GHz/V 931494.10242 (0.00028) keV

      Table B.  Definition of Volt unit, and resulting mass-energy conversion constants

      Some more historical points are worth mentioning.

      In 1986, Taylor and Cohen [12] showed that the empirical ratio between the maintained and international volts, which had of course been selected to be nearly equal to 1, had changed by as much as 7 ppm. For this reason, a new value to define the maintained volt V 90 was introduced in 1990 [13]. Since older high-precision, reaction-energy measurements were essentially expressed in keV 86 , the difference in voltage definition had to be taken into account. In 1990, A.H. Wapstra [14] discussed the need for recalibration of several γ rays produced in (n, γ ) and (p, γ ) reactions, which are often used as calibration standards and have precisions better than 8 ppm. This work has been updated in AME2003 to evaluate the influence of new calibrators, as well as of the fundamental constants for γ -ray and particle energies used in (n, γ ), (p, γ ) and (p,n) reactions [15]. In doing this, the calibration work of Helmer and van der Leun [16], based on the fundamental constant values at that time, was used. For each of the data concerned, the changes were relatively minor.

      For α -particle energies, Rytz has taken this change into account, when updating his earlier evaluation of α -particle energies [17]. The calibration for proton energies has also been undertaken in AME2003 [15]. These recalibrated data are used in the present work and marked by "Z" behind the reference key-number in Table I. When it was not possible to do so, for example when this position was used to indicate that a remark was added, the same "Z" symbol was added to the uncertainty value mentioned in the remark.

      The adoption of the international unit eV in the present evaluation, instead of eV 90 used in earlier AME, does not influence the input data except for the four results from [2006De21], which have been recalibrated as discussed above. For all the other energy measurements, the uncertainties are far larger than the difference of the two units.

      Until the end of the last century, the relative precision of MA expressed in keV was for several nuclides worse than the same quantity expressed in mass units. Due to the increased precision of fundamental constants, now the relative precision of MA expressed in keV is as good as the same quantity expressed in mass units. In the earlier mass tables (e.g. AME1993 [18]), the binding energies, ZMH+NMnM , were presented. The main reason for this was that the uncertainty of this quantity (in keV 90 ) was larger than that of the mass excess, MA . However, due to the increased precision of the neutron mass, this is no longer important. Since AME2003, we give instead the binding energy per nucleon for educational reasons, connected to the Aston Curve and the maximum stability around the 'iron-peak' which is of importance in astrophysics.

    3.   Input data
    • In general, two different methods are used in atomic mass measurements: the mass-spectrometric one (often called a "direct method"), where the inertial mass is determined from the trajectory or cyclotron frequency of an ion in a magnetic field, or from its time of flight; and the so-called "indirect method" where the reaction energy, i.e. the difference between two or more masses, is determined using a specific nuclear reaction or a decay process. Regardless of which method is used, it is the relation between atomic masses that is determined experimentally. In the AME data treatment, we try our best to include only the primary experimental information, rather than the absolute mass values reported in the literature. In this way, the masses can be recalibrated automatically for any future changes, and the original correlation information can be properly preserved.

      In the present work all available experimental data related to atomic masses (both energy and mass-spectrometric data) are considered. The input data are extracted from the available literature, compiled in an appropriate format and then carefully evaluated. The data are compared with other results and with values obtained from the trends from the mass surface (TMS) in the region, and the calibrations are checked, if necessary. As a consequence, some of the input data are accepted directly or after appropriate corrections and used in the subsequent mass adjustment procedure. There are also data that are not used due to large uncertainties or other reasons, as explained in section 4.5. All input data are given in Table I, and these used in the mass adjustment are also presented graphically in Fig. 1.

      Figure 1b.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1c.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1d.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1e.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1f.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1g.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1h.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      Figure 1i.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

    • 3.1.   Connection diagram

    • Fig. 1 shows a connection diagram of ( NZ ) versus ( N+Z ), where each dot represents a nuclide and each line connecting the dots an experimentally established relation. It is straightforward to show many mass measurements results that way, including these from mass-doublet spectroscopy or decay energy measurements. For example, mass measurements using Penning-trap almost always give a ratio of masses of two ions, as the inverse proportion to their cyclotron frequencies in the trap. Thus, in most case those measurements can be represented as a connection of two masses. For a relation of several atomic masses determined by reaction energy measurements, usually one mass difference between two nuclides is the most important one and it is then presented in the diagrams. Most lines in Fig. 1 link two nuclides, with exceptions for five mass-spectrometric "triplet" measurements of Rb and Cs isotopes from [1982Au01, 1986Au02], which can be best represented as a linear combination of three isotopes with non-integer coefficients [1982Au01].

      However, not all of the experimental results can be clearly represented in Fig. 1. For example, direct experimental results from 'Smith-type', 'Schottky', 'Isochronous', 'Time-of-flight' and some 'Multi-reflection Time-of-flight' mass spectrometers, are calibrated in a more complex way, and are thus published by their authors as absolute mass values. They are then shown as open squares in Fig. 1, and presented in Table I as a difference A El—u, where A El represents the nuclide with the mass number A and element name El.

      Atomic masses are exacted from the network in Fig. 1. The absolute mass values in the unit 'u' can be determined experimentally for nuclides that are eventually connected to 12 C, the anchor point of the network. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the accepted data may allow determination of the mass of a particular nuclide using several different routes; such a nuclide is called primary. Their mass values in the table are then derived by a least squares method. In the other cases, the mass of a nuclide can be derived from only one connection to another nuclide; it is called a secondary nuclide. This classification is of importance for our calculation procedure.

      The diagrams in Fig. 1 also show many cases where the relation between two atomic masses is experimentally known, but none of them are connected to 12 C. Since it is our policy to include all available experimental results, in such cases we have produced estimated mass values that are based on TMS in the neighborhood. Using this data representation, vacancies also occur, and these are filled with estimated values produced by the same TMS procedure. Estimates of unknown masses are further discussed in section 5.2.

      Excited isomeric states may be involved in mass measurements and the related information is included in this work. Although some isomeric states are indicated in Fig. 1, the diagram itself is two-dimensional and cannot represent the experimental results involving isomers completely. Instead, all relevant information is given in Table I.

    • 3.2.   Representation of the input data

    • All input data are given as linear equations in Table I. Penning-trap mass spectrometers provide cyclotron frequencies of charged ions in the trap, which are always compared to that of a well known reference nuclide in order to determine the ratio of two masses. The mass ratios are converted to a linear combination of masses of electrically neutral atoms without any loss of accuracy. The procedure for converting frequency ratios to linear equations can be found in Appendix A. Some authors publish their results directly as masses, but this is not a recommended practice for high-precision mass measurements since the mass values could be modified due to change of the reference mass. An energy measurement of nuclear reaction or decay can be easily represented with a linear equation, too.

      When it is too difficult to express a primary experimental result in a simple equation, the absolute mass value is given in Table I as a difference A El—u and it is usually accompanied with the relevant comment to explain the original information. Such comment is not applied for results from time-of-flight mass spectrometry, where the mass of interest is obtained using complex calibrations with many reference masses and reported as an absolute mass value in the original literature.

      Values in the equations listed in Table I and the corresponding uncertainties are given in ' μ u' for results from mass spectrometry and in 'keV' for energy measurements.

    • 3.3.   New input data

    • A total of 777 pieces of new experimental data are included in AME2020 in comparison to AME2016. Among them, 477 data are from mass spectrometry measurements, and 300 data from energy measurements.

      Updated values for the masses of π + and π are included from the latest Particle Data Group publication [19]. These two mesons are present since they are involved in some atomic mass experiments, although they are not considered as "nuclides" themselves.

    • 3.3.1.   Most precise results
    • The most precise input data are provided by Penning traps, where the cyclotron frequencies of the ion of interest and a reference ion are measured in a uniform magnetic field. Three traps, namely LIONTRAP at Mainz, PENTATRAP at Heidelberg and FSU-MIT-TRAP at Florida, are dedicated for mass measurements of stable or long-lived nuclides with ultra-high accuracy, and provide 15 results with precisions of 0.04 nu (10 9 u) for light ions [2020Fi05], and 1.5-2.8 nu for xenon isotopes [2020Ri04]. These results provide reliable reference standards for other mass measurements.

      For measurements with such high precisions, not only the electronic binding energy (single or multiple ionization), but also the molecular binding energy (dissociation energy) should be considered in the data treatment. As described for example in Ref. [2018Sm03], even the rotational energy of the molecule has to be taken into account. For most molecules used in the experiments, the binding energy represents typically a correction of a few parts in 1010 and its uncertainty only limits the accuracy of the neutral atomic mass to a few parts in 1012 . For measurements with precisions not better than 109 (100 eV/100 u), the molecular binding energy could be neglected without loss of accuracy. In cases where the precision is better than 1010 (10 eV/100 u), e.g. at MIT [1995Di08] and FSU [2015My03], it is necessary to take into account the molecular binding energy. More details on the binding energy corrections can be found in Appendix A.

    • 3.3.2.   Mass spectrometry away from β -stability
    • The domain of nuclides with experimentally known masses has extended impressively over the last few years, thanks to the developments of radioactive nuclear beam facilities and novel mass spectrometers. Around 20 years ago, masses of short-lived nuclides were mainly known from Qβ end-point measurements, while in the present evaluation, mass spectrometry dominates. It can be concluded that the shape of the atomic mass surface, and hence understanding of nuclear interactions, has been changed significantly over the last 10-20 years.

      In the past, several types of mass spectrometry have provided some important results for radioactive nuclides, but are not used any more. Among them, the classical double-focussing mass spectrometry and the 'Smith-type' Radio-frequency mass spectrometry MISTRAL at CERN, Cyclotron time-of-flight mass spectrometry at SARA-Grenoble and at CSS2-GANIL, were described in AME2016 and will not be discussed here. The Schottky mass spectrometry at ESR-GSI, which measures the revolution frequency of cooled nuclides in a storage ring, has not provided new data either.

      All new mass-spectrometry results included in AME2020 are obtained by using one of the four methods, namely Penning traps and Multi-Reflection Time-of-Flight spectrometers (MR-TOF) for low-energy radioactive nuclides, the Magnetic-Rigidity time-of-flight (B ρ -ToF) mass spectrometry and storage-ring based isochronous-mass-spectrometry (IMS) at high-energy facilities.

      Penning trap spectrometers  Nowadays, seven Penning traps are being operated at major facilities for radioactive nuclide research around the world: ISOLTRAP-Cern, CPT-Argonne, JYFLTRAP-Jyväskylä, LEBIT-East-Lansing, SHIPTRAP-Darmstadt, TITAN-Vancouver, and TRIGA-TRAP-Mainz. Conventionally the Time-of-Flight Ion-Cyclotron-Resonance (ToF-ICR) method is used to determine the cyclotron frequencies of ions in the trap. High resolving power ( 106 ) and accuracies (to 108 ) are routinely achieved for nuclides located quite far from the line of β -stability. Recently, a novel method of Phase-Imaging Ion-Cyclotron-Resonance (PI-ICR) was firstly developed at SHIPTRAP using a position-sensitive detector [2013El01]. This method is more efficient and more precise than the conventional ToF-ICR. In AME2016 only SHIPTRAP reported results using PI-ICR, while in the current work ISOLTRAP, CPT and JYFLTRAP also reported such results. Thanks to the high resolving power of PI-ICR, many low-lying isomeric states can be clearly identified. For example, the isomeric state in 104 Nb with an excitation energy of 9.8(2.3) keV was measured by CPT [2018Or.A].

      Multi-Reflection Time-of-Flight spectrometers  The Multi-Reflection Time-of-Flight spectrometer (MR-TOF) was initially developed for beam purification for ISOLTRAP and then used as an independent mass spectrometer. This method started to provide mass results of short-lived nuclides in 2013 and results from four MR-TOF's, operated at ISOLDE-CERN, RIBF-RIKEN, GSI and TRIUMF, are included in AME2020.

      The MR-TOF mass measurements are based on time-of-flight, aiming at extending the flight path by reflecting ions back and forth in a static electric field. With this method, a relative mass precision of 107 is routinely achieved with a typical resolution of 105 . MR-TOF spectrometer is in principle more sensitive than Penning trap and it can be used in measurements of nuclides with very short half-lives and/or low production rates. As demonstrated at ISOLDE-CERN, it can always extend the measured region by one more nuclide further away from stability compared with PENNING TRAP [2017We16, 2018Mo14, 2020Ma09].

      For mass determination with MR-TOF, the general relation between mass-to-charge ratio ( m/q ) and time-of-flight t is [2013Wi06]:

      t=αm/q+β,

      (1)

      where α and β are constants related to the experimental set-up and are the same for the ion of interest and for the reference ions.

      At RIKEN, GSI and TRIUMF, the β parameter can be determined independently, thus only one reference nuclide is needed for mass calibration. In this way, the ratio of time-of-flight between the ion of interest and the reference ion is used to extract the linear equation, as it is the case for Penning trap measurement. However, at ISOLDE-CERN, two reference masses are used to determine the mass of interest, and the so-called Ctof method is used. When using this method, we express the linear equation in term of absolute mass.

      Magnetic-Rigidity Time-of-Flight spectrometers Projectile fragmentation and in-flight fission reactions are powerful tools to produce exotic nuclides far from the stability. Masses of almost undecelerated fragment products, produced in bombardment of thin targets with beams of heavy ions, can be determined from a combination of magnetic deflection and time-of-flight measurements. Nuclides in an extended region in A/Z and Z are analyzed simultaneously. Each individual ion, even very short-lived ( 1μs ) one, can be identified and its mass measured. The limited resolving power of m/ δ m 104 and cross-contaminations can cause significant shifts in masses. Using this method, mass values with precisions of 3-50 ppm have been obtained for a large number of neutron-rich nuclides up to A70 .

      One difficulty in such experiments is the presence of isomeric states with half-lives comparable or longer than the time of flight (about 1 μ s) which may affect the mass of the ground state. In the recent work at RIKEN [2020Mi13], the isomeric ratios are also measured using γ -ray detectors at the experimental counting station, providing corrections for isomeric contamination. The most critical part in these experiments is the calibration, since it is frequently from an empirically determined function, which, in several cases, had to be extrapolated rather far from the calibrating masses. The MSU group re-evaluated their old B ρ -ToF experimental data [2015Me01, 2015Me08, 2016Me07], by incorporating recently published high precision Penning trap mass data [2018Le03, 2018Mo14] as additional calibration nuclides. This allowed to reduce the systematic uncertainty in previously measured data and to expand the number of nuclides for which masses were obtained [2020Me06].

      Isochronous Mass Spectrometry  If the flight path length of the spectrometer can be extended, then the resolving power can be improved. This is the basic idea of the storage-ring based spectrometer, which has been proven to be a powerful tool for direct mass measurement of short-lived nuclides. In an Isochronous Mass Spectrometry (IMS) experiment, the revolution times of the ions stored in the storage ring are measured, from which the nuclear masses can be extracted. Since no beam cooling is needed, the IMS method is suitable to mass measurements of nuclei with half-lives as short as several microseconds. The first set-up of this type was operated at GSI-ESR at Darmstadt, but there are no new results from that group in recent years. The Cooler Storage Ring for experiment (CSRe) at the IMP-LANZHOU is the second spectrometer for IMS mass measurements. In these experiments, the drifts of the revolution times caused by instabilities of the magnetic fields are carefully corrected, and as a consequence the appropriate statistical uncertainty is assigned to each ion by evaluating the revolution times. In this way no apparent systematic uncertainty is observed, and a relative precision of 1 ×107 can be routinely achieved. A new isomeric state in 101 In has been discovered recently, demonstrating the excellent resolving power [2019Xu13]. This result was later confirmed by MR-TOF at GSI [2020Ho03].

    • 3.3.3.   Energy measurement
    • Although mass spectrometry dominates the field of high-precision mass measurements, decay energy measurements play an indispensable role in discovering new nuclides and in determining their masses.

      Presently, many nuclides beyond the driplines can be accessed in the light-mass region. They can decay via direct proton or neutron emission. The half-lives of some unbound nuclides are too short to acquire their outer electrons (which takes around 10 14 s), and to form atoms. However, we still convert their masses to "atomic masses" so we can treat them consistently with other nuclides. It is challenging to experimentally study these unbound nuclides far from stability where only a very few events can be observed. Frequently, theoretical calculations are required to extract their properties from the experimental data. For example, light unbound nuclides 20 B and 21 B [2018Le18], and 31 K [2019Ko18] have been discovered using complete kinematic measurement of all decay products, and their masses determined with the invariant mass spectrum. Another example is the mass of 73 Rb which was determined in β -delayed proton measurement [2020Ho17].

      Of the 300 newly included energy results in AME2020, 237 are α decay energy measurements. Fusion reactions are frequently used for the synthesis of new neutron-deficient nuclides in the medium and heavy mass regions. Several new neutron-deficient uranium and neptunium isotopes were discovered using this approach in Lanzhou. The nuclides were identified by the characteristic α decays along the decay chains, and their masses are deduced from the measured α -decay energies [2019Zh23, 2020Ma09].

    • 3.4.   Corrections of the input data

    • In most cases, values given by authors in the original publication are accepted by the AME evaluators, but there are exceptions. One example is the performed recalibration due to the change in the definition of volt, as discussed in Section 2. For more complex cases, a remark is added in Table I at the end of the concerned A-group.

      Changes in the uncertainties of the α -decay energies are also introduced, when it is not clear if the final state is the ground state or an excited one. For these cases, an extra 50 keV is added in quadrature to the original uncertainty.

    • 3.4.1.   Isomeric mixtures
    • The resolving power of mass spectrometers improved significantly in recent years and many isomers can be clearly identified and their masses unambiguously measured. However, there are cases where a mixture of isomers is actually measured. Since the mass of the ground state is the primary aim of the present evaluation, it can be derived only in cases where information on the excitation energies and production rates of the isomers is available. In AME, we use a special treatment of isomer mixtures (see Appendix B) and information about such changes is given as comments to the input data in Table I.

      The mass M0 of the ground state can be calculated if both the excitation energy E1 of the upper isomer and its relative production rates are known, as discussed in [2020Ca08]. However, such detailed information is usually lacking in the literature. In such cases, if E1 is known but not the production ratio, one must assume equal probabilities for all possible relative intensities. The estimated mass of the ground state is then M0 = MexpE1/2 , and the uncertainty is 0.29 E1 (see Appendix B). For cases where two or more excited isomers are involved, the correction method is discussed in Appendix B.

      A further complication arises when E1 is not known. In such a case, we use an estimate value for E1, flagged with '#', which is incorporated in the NUBASE evaluation. When estimating the E1 values, we first consider the available experimental data possibly giving lower limits: e.g. if it is known that one of two isomers decays to the other; or if γ rays of known energy occur in such decays. If not, we try to interpolate between E1 values in neighboring nuclides that can be expected to have the same spin and configuration assignments. If such a comparison does not yield useful results, theoretical predictions were sometimes accepted, including upper limits for transition energies following from the measured half-lives. Values estimated this way are provided with somewhat generous uncertainties.

      In general, an isomer can affect the mass of the ground state if its lifetime is relatively long (hundreds of milliseconds or longer). However, half-life values given in NUBASE are those for neutral atoms. For bare nuclides, where all electrons are fully stripped from the atom, the lifetimes of such isomers can be considerably longer, since the decay by conversion electrons is switched off. One example is the half-life measurement of the fully-stripped 94m Ru 44+ by means of IMS at CSRe [2017Ze02].

    • 3.4.2.   Particle energy vs. decay energy
    • Sometimes, conflicting meanings of particle and decay energies are given in the literature. For example, energy values are given by some authors as the particle energy E, while others quote it as decay energy Q, which is the sum of kinetic energies of the emitted particle and the recoiling daughter nuclide. In general, the α particle carries about 97-98% of its Q value and the recoiling nuclide accounts for about 2-3%. The relation between the Qα and Eα values is discussed in Appendix C.

      Some authors derive Qα value by not only correcting for the recoil energy, but also for the effect of screening by the atomic electrons (see Appendix C). In our adjustment procedure, the latter corrections have been removed.

      Recalibration of decay energies in implantation experiments  In experiments where α - and proton-emitting nuclei are implanted in a silicon detector, both the α particle and the recoiling daughter nuclide deposit energies in the detector. In such cases, α particles and protons with energies of a few MeV have almost 100% detection efficiency, which is not the case for the heavy recoiling nuclides, where only part of the recoiling energy contributes to the signal.

      This effect has been discussed in Ref. [2012Ho12] and the partial recoil energy of the daughter nuclide has been taken into account in the energy calibration. However, not all authors make such corrections to their published data. We have developed a procedure [20] to calculate the detection efficiency for heavy nuclides in silicon detectors based on the Lindhard's theory [21], which has been experimentally proven to be reliable [22,23].

      The correction has been applied only to a few experimental results in the present work and a remark is added in Table I. After discussions with the authors of the original publication, the α -decay energy of 255m Lr from Ref. [2008Ha31] has been corrected and the difference turns out to be 7 keV. Another example is the proton-decay energy of 53m Co from [2015Sh16], as discussed in Ref. [20].

    4.   Determination of the adjusted mass values
    • The atomic mass evaluation is unique when compared to the other evaluations of data, in the sense that all mass determinations are relative measurements, not absolute ones. Each experimental datum defines a relation involving two or more nuclides. The ensemble of these relations generates a highly entangled network, as represented in Fig. 1. All the input data are given as linear equations in Table I.

      To determine the mass values, we use a least-squares method weighed according to the uncertainty with which each piece of data is known. In the first step, we pre-average the same and parallel data to reduce the size of the system of equations, and then separate primary data from secondary ones. The primary data are used in the following least-squares calculations. At last, we recommend the atomic masses (Part II, Table I), the nuclear reaction and separation energies (Part II, Table III), the adjusted values for the input data (Table I), the influences of data on the primary nuclides (Table I), the influences received by each primary nuclide (Part II, Table II), and display information on the inversion errors, the correlations coefficients (Part II, Table B), the χ2 values, the distribution of the vi (see below), among others.

    • 4.1.   Compacting the set of data

      4.1.1.   Pre-averaging
    • Two or more measurements of the same physical quantities can be replaced without loss of information by their average value and precision, reducing thus the system of equations to be treated. By extending this procedure, we consider parallel data: reaction data occur that give values essentially for the mass difference of the same two nuclides, except in rare cases where the precision is comparable to that in the masses of the reaction particles. Example: 14 C( 7 Li, 7 Be) 14 B and 14 C( 14 C, 14 N) 14 B; or 22 Ne(t, 3 He) 22 F and 22 Ne( 7 Li, 7 Be) 22 F. For this kind of case, one of the two links is replaced by an equivalent value for the other, and the pre-averaging procedure works as for the same quantities.

      If the Q data to be pre-averaged are strongly conflicting, i.e. if the consistency factor (or Birge ratio) χn=χ2/(Q1) resulting in the calculation of the pre-average is greater than 2.5, the (internal) precision σi in the average is multiplied by the Birge ratio ( σe=σiχn ). The quantity σe is often called the ‘external error’. Un-weighted average is also used in some cases, where the corresponding remarks are given in Table I. The pre-averaged data with largest discrepancies are listed in Table C. Most of these have already been displayed in the similar table in AME2016 [2]. Only one new item, namely 12 O(2p) 10 C, is added in the current table due to the new input data. Six items shown in AME2016 are now removed and instead listed in Table D, where the resolution of the discrepancies is given.

      Item n χn σe Item n χn σe
      186 W(n, γ ) 187 W 2 2.44 0.11 177 Pt( α ) 173 Os 2 2.06 6.06
      144 Ce( β ) 144 Pr 2 2.44 2.18 244 Cf( α ) 240 Cm 2 2.03 3.97
      220 Fr( α ) 216 At 2 2.34 4.66 15 N(p,n) 15 O 2 2.03 1.28
      75 As(n, γ ) 76 As 2 2.32 0.17 58 Fe(t,p) 60 Fe 4 2.03 7.38
      110 In( β+ ) 110 Cd 3 2.29 28.4 204 Tl( β ) 204 Pb 2 2.03 0.39
      40 Cl( β ) 40 Ar 2 2.21 76.1 106 Ag( ε ) 106 Pd 2 1.98 6.63
      153 Gd(n, γ ) 154 Gd 2 2.16 0.39 78 Se(n, γ ) 79 Se 3 1.96 0.28
      113 Cs(p) 112 Xe 3 2.10 5.03 46 Ca(n, γ ) 47 Ca 2 1.94 0.56
      27 P i (2p) 25 Al 2 2.08 74.7 181 Pb( α ) 177 Hg 3 1.93 15.2
      12 O(2p) 10 C 2 2.08 26.8 145 Sm( ε ) 145 Pm 2 1.92 7.92
      204 Rn— 208 Pb 0.981 2 2.06 18.2 234 Th( β ) 234 Pa m 3 1.90 2.10

      Table C.  Worst pre-averagings. n is the number of data in the pre-average.

      Item n χn σe solution
      146 Ba( β ) 146 La 2 2.24 107.4 new data available for 146 Ba
      219 U( α ) 215 Th 2 2.18 38.5 new data available
      36 S( 11 B, 13 N) 34 Si 3 2.14 32.4 new data available for 34 Si
      223 Pa( α ) 219 Ac 2 2.09 10.0 uncertainty increased for ambiguous transition
      278 Mt( α ) 274 Bh 3 1.98 43.6 uncertainty increased for ambiguous transition
      167 Os( α ) 163 W 4 1.98 3.50 uncertainty increased for ambiguous transition

      Table D.  Worst pre-averagings shown in AME2016 and removed in the current work, together with the solutions

      In the present evaluation, we have replaced 2980 data by 1189 averages. As much as 21.8% of which have values of χn (Birge ratio) beyond unity, 1.34% beyond two and none beyond 3, giving an overall very satisfactory distribution for our treatment. As a matter of fact, in a complex system like the one here, many values of χn beyond 1 or 2 are expected to exist, and if the uncertainties were multiplied by χn in all these cases, the χ2 -test on the total adjustment would have been invalidated. This explains the choice we made here of a rather high threshold ( χ0n=2.5 ), compared e.g. to χ0n=1 used in a different context by the Particle Data Group [19], for departing from the rule of 'internal error' of the weighted average.

      Besides the computer-automated pre-averaging, we found it convenient, in some β+ -decay cases, to combine results stemming from various capture ratios in an average. These cases are 109 Cd( ε ) 109 Ag (average of 3 data), 139 Ce( ε ) 139 La (average of 10) and 195 Au( ε ) 195 Pt (5 results), and they are detailed in Table I. Four more cases ( 147 Tb, 152 Ho, 166 Yb and 207 Bi) occur in our list, but they carry no weight and are labeled with 'U' in Table I.

    • 4.1.2.   Used policies in treating parallel data
    • In averaging β - ( α -) decay energies derived from branches observed in the same experiment, to or from different levels in the decay of a given nuclide, the uncertainty we use for further evaluation is not the one resulting from the weighted average adjustment, but instead we use the smallest experimental one. In this way, we avoid decreasing artificially the part of the uncertainty that is not due to statistics. In some cases, however, when it is obvious that the uncertainty is dominated by weak statistics, we do not follow the above rule (e.g. 23 Al i (p) 22 Mg of [1997Bl04]).

      Some quantities have been reported more than once by the same group. If the results are obtained by the same method in different experiments and are published in regular refereed journals, usually only the most recent one is used in the calculation. There are two reasons for this policy. The first is that one might expect that the authors, who believe their two results are of the same quality, would have averaged them in their latest publication. The second is that if we accept and average the two results, we would have no control on the part of the uncertainty that is not due to statistics. Our policy is different when the newer result is published in a secondary reference (not refereed abstract, preprint, private communication, conference, thesis or annual report). In such cases, the older result is used in the calculations, except when the newer one is an update of the previous value. In some case, when the systematic uncertainties are discussed explicitly, all the independent results are used.

    • 4.1.3.   Insignificant data
    • Another feature to increase the meaning of the final χ2 in the least-squares procedure, is to not use data with weights at least a factor 10 smaller than the combination of all other data giving the same result. Such data were labeled with 'U' in the list of input data; comparison with the output values allows to check our judgment. Until the AME2003 evaluation, our policy was not to print data labeled 'U' if they already appeared in one of our previous tables, reducing thus the size of the table of data to be printed. This policy has been changed since AME2012 [24,25], and we try as much as possible to give all relevant data, also including insignificant ones. The reason for this is that conflicts might appear amongst recent results, and access to older ones might shed some light on evaluating the new data.

    • 4.2.   Separating secondary data

    • In Section 3, while examining the diagrams of connections (Fig. 1), we noticed that, whereas the masses of secondary nuclides can be determined uniquely from the chain of secondary connections going down to a primary nuclide, only the latter see the complex entanglement that necessitated the use of the least-squares method.

      In terms of equations and parameters, we consider that if, in a collection of equations to be treated with the least-squares method, a parameter occurs in only one equation, removing this equation and this parameter will not affect the result of the fit for all other data. Thus, we can redefine more precisely what was called secondary in Section 3: the parameter above is a secondary parameter (or mass) and its related equation is a secondary equation. After the reduced set has been solved, then the secondary equation can be used to determine the final value and uncertainty for that particular secondary parameter. The equations and parameters remaining after taking out all secondaries are called primary.

      Therefore, only the system of primary data is overdetermined, and thus will be improved in the adjustment, so that each primary nuclide will benefit from all the available information. Secondary data will remain unchanged; they do not contribute to χ2 . The diagrams in Fig. 1 show, that many secondary data exist. Thus, taking them out simplifies considerably the system. More importantly, if a better value is found for a secondary datum, the mass of the secondary nuclide can easily be improved. The procedure is more complicated for new primary data.

      We define DEGREES for secondary nuclides and secondary data. They reflect their distances along the chains connecting them to the network of primaries. The first secondary nuclide connected to a primary one will be a nuclide of degree 2; and the connecting datum will be a datum of degree 2 as well. Degree 1 is for primary nuclides and data. Degrees for secondary nuclides and data range from 2 to 17. It is the nuclide 291 Lv that has the highest degree number 17. Its mass is determined through a long α chain, although many of them are just estimates. In Table I, the degree of data is indicated in column 'Dg'. In the table of atomic masses (Part II, Table I), each secondary nuclide is marked with a label in column 'Orig.' indicating from which other nuclide its mass value is determined. The word primary used for these nuclides and for the data connecting them does not mean that they are more important than the others, but only that they are subject to the least-squares treatment above. The labels primary and secondary are not intrinsic properties of data or nuclides. They may change from primary to secondary or vice versa when other information becomes available.

      To summarize, separating secondary nuclides and secondary data from primaries significantly reduces the size of the system that will be treated by the least-squares method, and allows better insight into the relations between data and masses. After treatment of the primary data alone, the adjusted masses for primary nuclides can be easily combined with the secondary data to yield masses of secondary nuclides.

    • 4.3.   Least-squares method

    • Each piece of data has a value qi±dqi with the accuracy dqi (one standard deviation) and makes a relation between two, three or four masses with unknown values mμ . An overdetermined system of Q data to M masses ( Q>M ) can be represented by a system of Q linear equations with M parameters:

      Mμ=1kμimμ=qi±dqi,

      (2)

      e.g. for a nuclear reaction A(a,b)B requiring an energy qi to occur, the energy balance is written:

      mA+mambmB=qi±dqi.

      (3)

      Thus, kAi=+1 , kai=+1 , kbi=1 and kBi=1 .

      In matrix notation, K being the (Q,M) matrix of coefficients, Eq. 2 is written: K|m=|q . Elements of matrix K are almost all null: e.g. for A(a,b)B , Eq. 3 yields a line of K with only four non-zero elements.

      We define the diagonal weight matrix W by its elements wii=1/(dqidqi) . The solution of the least-squares method leads to a very simple construction:

      tKWK|m=tKW|q.

      (4)

      The NORMAL matrix A=tKWK is a square matrix of order M, positive-definite, symmetric and regular and hence invertible [26]. Thus the vector |¯m for the adjusted masses is:

      |¯m=A1tKW|qor|¯m=R|q.

      (5)

      The rectangular (M,Q) matrix R is called the RESPONSE matrix.

      The diagonal elements of A1 are the squared errors on the adjusted masses, and the non-diagonal ones (a1)νμ are the coefficients for the correlations between masses mμ and mν . Values for correlation coefficients for the most precise nuclides are given in Table B of Part II. Starting from AME2012 [24,25], we now give on the website of the AMDC [27] the full list of correlation coefficients, allowing any user to perform exact calculation of any combination of masses.

      One of the most powerful tools in the least-squares calculation described above is the flow-of-information matrix, discovered in 1984 [28]. This matrix allows to trace back the contribution of each individual piece of datum to each of the parameters (here the atomic masses). The AME uses this method since 1993.

      The flow-of-information matrix F is defined as follows: K , the matrix of coefficients, is a rectangular (Q,M) matrix. The transpose of the response matrix tR is also a (Q,M) rectangular one. The (i,μ) element of F is defined as the product of the corresponding elements of tR and of K . In Ref. [28], it is demonstrated that such an element represents the "influence" of datum i on parameter (mass) mμ . A column of F thus represents all the contributions brought by all data to a given mass mμ , and a line of F represents all the influences given by a single piece of data. The sum of influences along a line is the "significance" of that datum. It has also been proven [28] that the influences and significances have all the expected properties, namely that the sum of all the influences on a given mass (along a column) is unity, that the significance of a datum is always less than unity and that it always decreases when new data are added. The significance defined in this way is exactly the quantity obtained by squaring the ratio of the uncertainty on the adjusted value over that of the input one, which was the recipe used before the discovery of the F matrix to calculate the relative importance of data.

      A simple interpretation of influences and significances can be obtained in calculating, from the adjusted masses and Eq. 2, the adjusted data:

      |¯q=KR|q.

      (6)

      The ith diagonal element of KR represents then the contribution of datum i to the determination of ¯qi (same datum): this quantity is exactly what is called above the significance of datum i. This ith diagonal element of KR is the sum of the products of line i of K and column i of R . The individual terms in this sum are precisely the influences defined above.

      The flow-of-information matrix F , provides thus insight on how the information from datum i flows into each of the masses mμ .

      The flow-of-information matrix cannot be given in full in a printed table. It can be observed along lines, displaying for each datum, the nuclides influenced by this datum and the values of these influences. It can be observed also along columns to display for each primary mass all contributing data with their influence on that mass.

      The first display is partly given in the table of input data (Table I) in column 'Signf.' for the significance of primary data and 'Main infl.' for the largest influence. Since in the large majority of cases only two nuclides are concerned in each piece of data, the second largest influence could easily be deduced. It is therefore not felt necessary to give a table of all influences for each primary datum.

      The second display is given in Part II, Table II for the up to three most important data with their influence in the determination of each primary mass.

    • 4.4.   Consistency of data

    • The system of equations being largely over-determined ( Q>>M ) offers the evaluator several interesting possibilities to examine and judge the data. One might for example examine all data for which the adjusted values deviate significantly from the input ones. This helps to locate erroneous pieces of information. One could also examine a group of data in one experiment and check if the uncertainties assigned to them in the experimental paper were not underestimated.

      If the precisions dqi assigned to the data qi were indeed all accurate, the normalized deviations vi between adjusted ¯qi (Eq. 6) and input qi data, vi=(¯qiqi)/dqi , would be distributed as a Gaussian function of standard deviation σ=1 , and would make χ2 :

      χ2=Qi=1(¯qiqidqi)2orχ2=Qi=1v2i

      (7)

      equal to QM , the number of degrees of freedom, with a standard deviation of 2(QM) .

      One can define as above the NORMALIZED CHI, χn (or 'consistency factor' or 'Birge ratio'): χn=χ2/(QM) for which the expected value is 1±1/2(QM) .

      Another quantity of interest for the evaluator is the PARTIAL CONSISTENCY FACTOR, χpn , defined for a (homogeneous) group of p data as:

      χpn=QQM01p0pi=1v2i.

      (8)

      The χpn reduces to χn if the sum is taken over all the input data.

      One can consider groups of data related to a given laboratory and with a given method of measurement and examine the χpn of each of them. Since various methods are used in mass determination, possible systematic errors associated with a specific method, that are beyond control in experiments and not accounted for in the reported uncertainties, can be observed by the mass evaluators when considering the mass adjustment as a whole. There are presently 278 groups of data in Table I (among which 185 have at least one measurement used in determining the masses), identified in column 'Lab'. A high value of χpn might be a warning on the validity of the considered group of data within the reported uncertainties. We used such analyses to locate questionable groups of data. Each group of mass-spectrometric data is assigned a factor F according to its partial consistency factor χpn , due to the fact that its statistical uncertainties and its internal systematic error alone do not reflect the real experimental situation. From comparison to all other data and more specially to combination of reaction and decay energy measurements, we have assigned factors F of 1.5, 2.5 or 4.0 to the different labs. Example: the group of data H25 has been assigned F=2.5 , this means that the total uncertainty assigned to 155 Gd 35 Cl 153 Eu 37 Cl is 2.5× 2.4 μ u. The weight of this piece of data is then very low, compared to 0.79 μ u derived from all other data. This is why it is labeled "U".

      As in our previous works, we have estimated the average accuracy for 185 groups of data used in the evaluation that were related to a given laboratory and a specific method of measurement, by calculating their partial consistency factors χpn . As much as 98 groups have χpn larger than unity, and 2 groups larger than 2.

    • 4.5.   Treatment of undependable data

    • The important interdependence of most data, as illustrated by the connection diagrams (Figs. 1a1j), allows local and global consistency tests. These can indicate that something may be wrong with the input values. We follow the policy of checking all significant data that differ by more than two (sometimes 1.5) standard deviations from the adjusted values. Fairly often, examination of the experimental results shows that a correction is necessary. Possible reasons could be that a particular decay has been assigned to a wrong final level or that a reported decay energy belongs to an isomer, rather than to a ground state, or even that the mass number assigned to a decay was incorrect. In such cases, the values are corrected and remarks are added below the corresponding A-group of data in Table I, in order to explain the reasons for the corrections.

      Figure 1j.  Diagram of connections for input data — continued.

      It also happens that a careful examination of a particular paper would lead to serious doubts about the validity of the results within the reported precision, but could not permit making a specific correction. Doubts can also be expressed by the authors themselves. The results are given in Table I and compared with the adjusted values. They are labeled 'F', and not used in the final adjustment, but always followed by a comment to explain the reason for this label. The reader may observe that in several cases the difference between the experimental and adjusted values is small compared to the experimental uncertainty: this does not disprove the correctness of the label 'F' assignment.

      It happens quite often that two (or more) pieces of data are discrepant, leading to important contribution to the χ2 . A detailed examination of the papers may not allow correction or rejection, indicating that at least the results in one of them could not be trusted within the given uncertainties. Then, based on past experience, we use in the calculations the value that seems to be the most reliable, while the other is labeled 'B', if published in a regular refereed journal, or 'C' otherwise.

      In some cases, detailed analysis of strongly conflicting data could not lead to reasons to assume that one of them is more dependable than the others or could not lead to a rejection of a particular data entry. Also, bad agreement with other data is not the only reason to doubt the correctness of the reported data. As in previous AME, and as explained above (see Section 4), we made use of the property of regularity of the surface of masses in making a choice, as well as in further checks on the other data.

      When one mass is only determined by one single experimental result, but the result is strongly doubted, the policy defined for 'irregular masses' with 'D'-label assignment may apply and discussed in section 5.1.

      We do not accept experimental results if information on other quantities (e.g. half-lives), derived in the same experiment and for the same nuclide, were in strong contradiction with well established values.

      Data with labels 'F', 'B', 'C' or 'D' are not used in the calculations. The least-squares calculations are then done in iterations. This recipe is unavoidably subjective, but has proven to be efficient through the agreement of these estimates with newly measured masses in a great majority of cases.

    • 4.6.   Results of the calculation

    • In this evaluation, we have 13812 experimental data of which 6023 are labeled 'U' (see above), 997 are labeled 'O' (old result from same group) and 951 are not accepted and labeled 'B', 'C', 'D' or 'F' (respectively 533,161, 81 and 176 items). In the calculation we have thus 5841 valid input data, compressed to 4050 in the pre-averaging procedure. Separating secondary data, leaves a system of 2201 primary data, representing 1135 primary reactions and decays, and 1066 primary mass-spectrometric measurements. These primary data are used to determine 1304 primary masses ( 12 C not included). Thus, we have to solve a system of 2201 equations with 1304 parameters. Theoretically, the expectation value for χ2 should be 897 ± 42 (and the theoretical χn=1±0.024 ). The total χ2 of the adjustment is actually 938 ( χn=1.023 ), thus showing that the ensemble of evaluated data was of good quality, and that the adopted criteria of selection and rejection of input data were adequate.

      In the present AME, there are 2550 masses for ground state and 406 masses for excited isomers derived from experimental results. Among the 2550 experimental ground state masses, 122 nuclides have a precision better than 0.1 keV, 402 better than 1 keV, 1532 better than 10 keV, 2407 better than 100 keV (respectively 107,366, 1499 and 2340 in AME2016). There are 143 nuclides known with uncertainties larger than or equal to 100 keV (158 in AME2016).

      The mass precision has been improved for 427 nuclides in comparison with AME2016, as illustrated in Fig. 2, where the ratios of their mass uncertainties in AME2016 and AME2020 are displayed in a color code. Meanwhile, masses of 74 nuclides, which were unknown experimentally in AME2016, are measured and provided in the current mass table, as shown with black squares in Fig. 2.

      Figure 2.  Ratios of mass uncertainties in AME2016 and AME2020 for nuclides whose mass precisions have been improved. The new experimental masses in AME2020 are shown as the black squares.

    5.   Mass Estimation
    • We recommend the estimated mass values for some nuclides whose mass is not determined experimentally as well as for nuclides where the experimental value is seriously questioned. The values are estimated based on the trends from the mass surface (TMS), with the assumption that the mass surface is generally smooth. An interactive graphical program is used [29] that allows a simultaneous observation of four graphs, either for the particle energies or for the differences compared with a mass model, as a function of any of the variables N, Z, A, NZ or N2Z , while drawing iso-lines (lines connecting nuclides having same parameter) of any of these quantities. The mass of a nuclide can be modified or created in any view and we can determine how much freedom is left in setting a value for this mass. At the same time, interdependence through secondary connections are taken into account. In cases where two tendencies may alternate, following the parity of the proton or of the neutron numbers, one of the parities may be deselected.

      The replaced values for data yielding the ‘irregular masses' as well as the 'estimated unknown masses’ (see below) are thus derived by observing the continuity property in several views of the mass surface, with all the consequences due to connections to masses in the same chain. The estimated values are also compared with the predictions of available mass models. All values not derived from experimental data alone, have been clearly marked with the hashmark '#' symbol in all tables, here and in Part II. Since publication of AME1983 [30], the uncertainties are also given for the estimated data derived from TMS. These uncertainties are obtained by considering several graphs of TMS with a guess on how much the estimated mass may change without the extrapolated surface looking too much distorted.

    • 5.1.   Irregular mass values

    • As mentioned in section 4.5, we label some questioned results as 'D' and do not use them in mass calculation. When a single mass deviates significantly from regularity with no similar pattern for nuclides with same N or with same Z values, then the correctness of the data determining this mass may be questioned. Following the policy defined in AME1995 [31], in order to avoid strongly fluctuating plots, we replace seriously irregular masses by values derived from trends from the mass surface (TMS), when they are derived from a unique mass relation, without verification by a different experimental method. In most of the cases only one measurement is reported for such unique mass relation. But sometimes there are two or more measurements that are treated the same way, since use of the same method and the same type of relation may well lead to the same systematic uncertainty.

      In the last evaluation AME2016, there were 33 such physical quantities, as listed in Table C of Ref.[2]. In that list, 4 items have been superseded by new experimental data in this work. The new results available justify our earlier treatment, as shown in Table E. The rest 29 irregular experimental values are treated similarly as in AME2016. Meanwhile, we use the estimated values in a larger extent in the present evaluation, by adding 48 more items in such a list in the present evaluation. Thus there are 77 such irregular experimental values replaced by estimated ones, as shown in Table F. Such data, as well as other local irregularities that can be observed in the figures in Part II could be considered as incentive to remeasure the masses of the involved nuclides, preferably by different methods, in order to remove any doubt and possibly point out true irregularities due to physical properties.

      Item Experimental data In AME2016 In AME2020
      70 Co-u -50370 320 -50060# 320# -49947 12
      101 Rb( β ) 101 Sr 11810 110 12480# 200# 12757 22
      150 Ba u -55309 371 -53570# 320# -53559 6
      220 Pa( α ) 216 Ac 9829 50 9650# 50# 9704 11

      Table E.  Experimental data replaced by estimated values in AME2016, and the adjusted values in AME2020. The unit for the type AEl-u is μu, while for others is keV.

      Item Reference Experimental value Recommended value
      28 Cl(p) 27 S 18Mu18 1600 80 3190# 300#
      29 Cl(p) 28 S 18Xu04 1800 100 2260# 100#
      29 Ar(2p) 27 S 18Mu18 5500 100 5900# 180#
      30 Ar(2p) 28 S 18Xu04 2420 80 3420# 80#
      31 K-u 19Ko18 32783 275 35320# 322#
      38 Al-u 07Ju03 17402 268 17681# 161#
      39 Al-u 07Ju03 21653 676 23070# 322#
      41 Si-u 07Ju03 13011 397 13698# 322#
      42 Si-u 07Ju03 16275 623 17896# 322#
      43 P-u 07Ju03 5024 397 5411# 322#
      44 P-u 07Ju03 10070 966 11927# 429#
      45 S-u 07Ju03 -4283 741 -3586# 322#
      45 Fe(2p) 43 Cr 18Xu04 1154 16 1800# 200#
      47 Cl-u 07Ju03 -9576 1074 -10285# 215#
      48 Ni(2p) 46 Fe 14Po05 1290 40 2390# 300#
      49 Ar-u 20Me06 -17499 1180 -18454# 429#
      54 Zn(2p) 52 Ni 05Bl15 1480 20 2280# 200#
      57 Ca-u 18Mi08 -7912 1063 -7171# 429#
      59 Ti-u 20Me06 -27075 290 -27783# 322#
      59 Ti-u 20Mi13 -27053 258 -27783# 322#
      60 Sc-u 20Mi13 -3811 1116 -4885# 537#
      61 Ti-u 20Mi13 -17370 483 -17005# 322#
      62 Ti-u 20Mi13 -14278 483 -12700# 429#
      64 V-u 20Mi13 -17917 548 -17520# 429#
      65 Cr-u 20Me06 -29286 837 -30392# 215#
      67 Mn-u 20Me06 -36458 354 -36050# 215#
      67 Kr(2p) 65 Se 16Go26 1480 20 2280# 200#
      68 Mn-u 20Me06 -29748 1406 -31047# 322#
      68 Fe-u 20Me06 -47622 344 -47408# 215#
      69 Fe-u 20Me06 -43232 429 -42082# 215#
      70 Fe-u 20Me06 -40483 526 -39603# 322#
      74 Ni-u 11Es06 -52830 1060 -52282# 215#
      80 Zr-u 98Is06 -59600 1600 -58358# 322#
      90 Rh( ϵ ) 90 Ru 19Pa16 13410 1330 13250# 200#
      91 Pd( ϵ ) 91 Rh 18Pa20 11800 2200 12400# 300#
      94 Br-u 16Kn03 -50242 429 -51047# 215#
      94 Ag( ϵ ) 94 Pd 19Pa16 13400 650 13700# 400#
      95 Cd( ϵ ) 95 Ag 18Pa20 10200 1700 12750# 400#
      96 Cd( ϵ ) 96 Ag 19Pa16 8480 460 8940# 400#
      98 In( ϵ ) 98 Cd 19Pa16 12930 400 13730# 300#
      99 Sn( ϵ ) 99 In 18Pa20 14700 3600 13400# 500#
      103 Sn( β ) 103 In 05Ka34 7660 70 7540# 100#

      Table F.  Experimental data that we recommend replaced by values derived from TMS in AME2020. The unit for the type AEl-u is μu, while for others is keV.

      Because of the treatment, masses of 22 nuclides that were deemed to be known experimentally in AME2016, are now replaced with the estimated values. 17 nuclides among them, namely, 29 Cl, 38 Al, 41 Si, 43 P, 45 S, 59 V, 68 Fe, 103 Sn, 105 Y, 106 Zr, 107 Zr, 115 Tc, 138 Sb, 184 Bi, 188 Ta, 189 W and 228 Np, are displayed in Table F. Masses of 5 nuclides that are not listed in Table F, namely, 104 Sb, 107 Te, 108 I, 111 Xe, 112 Cs, are also experimentally unknown because they are connected to 12 C through 103 Sn, whose mass is now an estimated value. Other irregular experimental data do not change the number of known masses, because they involve only nuclides with unknown mass, i.e., none of them is connected to 12 C eventually. The item of 130 Eu(p) 129 Sm shown in Table F is such an example. Six experimental results for 2-proton separation energies are also listed in Table F as it seems that they distort the mass surface in neighboring regions. The mass surface looks more smooth by using the estimated values. It is noted that the experimental proton-decay energies of five proton emitters, namely 131 Eu, 135 Tb, 140 Ho, 146 Tm and 150 Lu, are about 150-300 keV smaller than expected values from TMS. It is likely that this is due to the effect of the Thomas-Ehrmann shift, which makes proton-emitting nuclides more bound than suggested by TMS [32]. Nuclides at the proton dripline show different wave functions than its neighboring particle-bound nuclides and the assumption of regularity might not be applicable to these cases. Thus, we decided not to replace these experimental results.

      Item Reference Experimental value Recommended value
      105 Y-u 16Kn03 -55041 574 -54452# 429#
      106 Zr-u 16Kn03 -62856 186 -63070# 215#
      107 Zr-u 16Kn03 -58379 482 -57993# 322#
      107 Zr-u 16Kn03 -58379 482 -57993# 322#
      113 Mo-u 16Kn03 -57317 337 -56522# 322#
      115 Tc-u 16Kn03 -60462 339 -59900# 210#
      116 Cs( ϵ α ) 112 Te 77Bo28 12300 400 13100# 100#
      116 Cs( ϵ α ) 112 Te 76Jo.A 12400 900 13100# 100#
      118 Ru-u 16Kn03 -61879 196 -61192# 215#
      118 In m ( β ) 118 Sn 64Ka10 4270 100 4525# 50#
      120 In m ( β ) 120 Sn 64Ka10 5280 200 5420# 50#
      120 In m ( β ) 120 Sn 78Al18 5340 170 5420# 50#
      124 Pd-u 16Kn03 -64617 399 -62695# 322#
      126 Ag-u 16Kn03 -65926 329 -65186# 215#
      129 Nd( ϵ p) 128 Ce 78Bo.A 5300 300 5870# 200#
      130 Eu(p) 129 Sm 04Da04 1028.0 15.0 1528# 200#
      135 Pm m ( β + ) 135 Nd 95Ve08 6040 150 6386# 50#
      138 Sb-u 16Kn03 -58208 457 -58562# 322#
      142 Dy( β + ) 142 Tb 91Fi03 7100 200 6440# 200#
      143 I-u 16Kn03 -53849 495 -54461# 215#
      154 Ce-u 16Kn03 -56404 619 -56060# 215#
      166 Eu( β ) 166 Gd 14Ha38 7322 300 7422# 100#
      184 Bi( α ) 180 Tl 03An27 8024.8 50 8220# 100#
      188 Ta-u 13Sh30 -36084 59 -36329# 215#
      189 W( β ) 189 Re 65Ka07 2500 200 2170# 200#
      228 Np( α ) 224 Pa 03Ni10 7308.5 36. 7538# 100#
      235 Cm( α ) 231 Pu 20Kh.A 7131.6 20.0 7280# 100#
      236 Bk( α ) 232 Am 20Po07 7447 14 7797# 200#
      268 Hs( α ) 264 Sg 10Ni14 9622.9 16. 9760# 100#
      270 Db( α ) 266 Lr 14Kh04 8019.0 30.5 8310# 200#
      270 Mt( α ) 266 Bh 12Mo25 10414.5 71. 10180# 100#
      281 Rg( α ) 277 Mt 17Og01 9410 50 9904# 400#
      282 Mt( α ) 278 Bh 16Ho09 8960. 180. 8660# 200#
      284 Cn( α ) 280 Ds 17Ka66 9869.2 192.7 9670# 150#
      286 Rg( α ) 282 Mt 16Ho09 8793. 45. 8630# 100#
      290 Nh( α ) 286 Rg 16Ho09 9846. 45. 9320# 100#

      Table F.  Experimental data that we recommend replaced by values derived from TMS in AME2020. The unit for the type AEl-u is μu, while for others is keV. Continued

      As shown in Table F, the Qα value of 284 Cn from [2017Ka66] is replaced by the estimated value which is lower by 200 keV. The relevant results in [2017Ka66] can be alternatively interpreted. Recently, the decay from 284 Cn has been firmly established and the decay energy is reported to be 9.46(1) MeV [33]. This result supports the general trend of a smaller value, but is even smaller by 210 keV than the estimated value. It is too late to include the new results but we mention it nonetheless.

      We replace the irregular experimental values by the ones we recommend in all tables and graphs in AME2020. Data which are not used following this policy, can be easily located in Table I where they are flagged 'D' and always accompanied by a comment explaining in which direction the value has been changed and by what amount.

    • 5.2.   Estimates for unknown masses

    • Estimates for unknown masses are also made with use of trends from the mass surface, by demanding that all graphs should be as smooth as possible, except where they are expected to show the effects of shell closures or nuclear deformations effects. Therefore, we warn the user of our tables that the present extrapolations, based on trends in known masses, will be wrong if unsuspected new regions of deformation or (semi-) magic numbers occur.

      In addition to the rather severe constraints imposed by the requirement of simultaneous REGULARITY of all graphs, all available experimental information is considered in the estimates. Knowledge of stability or instability against particle emission, or limits on proton or α emission, contribute to upper or lower limits on the separation energies. For example, the proton separation energy S p of 64 As is estimated to be from its halflife, and S p of 97 In is estimated based on the experimental information from [2019Pa20].

      For proton-rich nuclides with N<Z , mass estimates can be obtained from the charge symmetry. This feature gives a relation between masses of isobars around the one with N=Z .

      Another often good estimate can be obtained from the observation that masses of nuclidic states belonging to an isobaric multiplet are represented quite accurately by a quadratic equation of the charge number Z (or of the third component of the isospin, T3=12(NZ) ): the Isobaric Multiplet Mass Equation (IMME) [34]. Use of this relation is attractive since it uses experimental information of the isobaric analogues states. Up to the AME1983, the IMME was used for deriving mass values for nuclides where little experimental information was available. This policy was questioned with respect to the correctness in stating as 'experimental' a quantity that was derived by combination with a calculation. Since AME1993, it was decided not to present any IMME-derived mass values in our evaluation, but rather use the IMME as a guideline when estimating masses of unknown nuclides. We continue this policy here, and do not replace experimental values by one estimated from IMME, even if more precise. Typical examples are 28 S and 40 Ti, for which the IMME predicts masses with precisions of respectively 24 keV and 22 keV, whereas the experimental masses are known both with 160 keV precision, from double charge-exchange reactions.

      Our estimates ensure that every nuclide for which there is any experimental Q-value is connected to the main group of primary nuclides. In addition, we seek continuity of the mass surface. Therefore an estimated value is included for any nuclide if it is between two experimentally studied nuclides on a line defined by either Z= constant (isotopes), N= constant (isotones), NZ= constant (isodiaspheres), or, in a few cases N+Z= constant (isobars). It would have been desirable to give also estimates for all unknown nuclides that are within reach of the present accelerator and mass separator technologies. Unfortunately, such an ensemble is practically not easy to define. Instead, we estimate mass values for all nuclides for which at least one piece of experimental information is available (e.g. identification or half-life measurement or proof of instability towards proton or neutron emission). This way, the ensemble of experimental masses and estimated ones has the same contour as in the NUBASE2020 evaluation.

      We add 911 data estimated from TMS, some of which are essential for linking unconnected experimental data to the network of experimentally known masses (see Figs. 1a1j). Thus a total of 1008 masses for the ground state and 101 masses for excited isomers are deduced due to the estimated values. Combining the experimental and the estimated mass values, there are in total 3557 ground state masses in the atomic mass table (Part II, Table I).

    6.   Special cases
    • Special cases have been discussed in the AME series to highlight the issues raised in the evaluation and to call for more efforts to solve them. Some of the special cases discussed in AME2016 have been solved so we removed them from the current list. Meanwhile some new cases have been added.

    • 6.1.   Evaluation in the lightest mass region

    • The precise knowledge of the atomic masses of lightest nuclei is important for several fundamental tests in physics. Nowadays, Penning traps provide the most precise values for the masses of light nuclei. Local adjustments in AME2016 for the lightest masses, i.e., hydrogen 1 H, deuterium D, tritium 3 H, and helium-3 3 He, gave rise to a consistency factor χ n = 3.4, which indicates underestimation of systematic uncertainties in some experiments. Given the limited information at that time, the results from the FSU group were adopted, while the ones from [2015Za13] were not used.

      Since AME2016, significant effort has been put into mass measurements of the lightest nuclei, which allows us to examine the sources of inconsistency. The FSU group remeasured the frequency ratio of 3He+ to HD. The new result agrees with the previous one in [2015My03] and the precision is improved by a factor of two, validating our choice of their results in AME2016. Later on, three more frequency ratios of H+3 /HD+ [2018Sm03], H+2 /D+ [2020Fi05], and H+3 /3He+[2018Sm03] were measured, which gave precise values of the mass differences for H2 D and H3 3He. Note that H2 and H3 are the hydrogen molecules, while in the linear equations they stand for 2 and 3 times of the hydrogen mass since the dissociation energies of the molecules have been corrected. The upper limit derived for the mass difference from [2018Sm03] is assumed to correspond to the ground state of H3 . The new mass difference of H2 D obtained in this experiment differs from the recommended values in AME2016 by 1.9 σ , and the new mass difference of H33He agrees with the recommended one in AME2016 within 1 σ .

      LIONTRAP at Mainz uses 12 C as reference ions and obtains the "absolute" masses for the ions of interest. In [2017He14], the frequency ratio of H + / 12 C 6+ is measured and the mass of H is deduced. This value is three times more precise than our previous adjusted value in AME2016 but differs by 3.4 σ . In [2020Ra.1], the frequency ratio of 2 H + / 12 C 6+ is measured and we can derive the mass of deuterium to be 2.014 101 777 842(17) u (the most precise value (8 ppt)). This value differs from the recommended value in AME2016 by 2.2 σ but is 7 times more precise. One should note that the experimental data from the Washington group played an important role in mass determination for H and D in AME2016, meaning there exists strong conflict between the ones from LIONTRAP and those from Washington. For a crosscheck, LIONTRAP also measured the frequency ratio of HD/ 12 C 4+ [2020Ra.1], which results in a sum of the individual masses of H and D. Subtracting the summed masses by their reported H mass gives an independent mass of D, which agrees with the deuterium mass determined directly in the same experiment.

      Fig. 3 shows the connection diagram in the lightest mass region. Note that hydrogen also connects to 16 O by frequency ratio 16 O 8+ /H + [2019He19]. Given the large inconsistency found from the Washington group, and the consistent adjustment between the FSU trap and LIONTRAP, the results from the Washington group are not used. Based on the statistical analysis, we also assigned a factor F=2.5 for the Washington group. The new assignment also affects other nuclides that are measured by the Washington group. As a result, the uncertainty for 4 He increases from 63 pu in AME2016 to 158 pu in AME2020, and 16 O from 173 pu to 319 pu.

      Figure 3.  The connection diagram in the lightest mass region.

    • 6.2.   The mass of 52 Co

    • The mass of 52 Co was measured firstly with the CSR-IMS in Lanzhou [2016Xu10], and the value was adopted in AME2016 as the only available experimental result. After the publication of AME2016, the JYFLTRAP group published their result for 52 Co [2017Ne05]. The two results deviate with each other by 2.8 σ . In both measurements, an isomeric state of 52 Co was observed and can be separated fairly well from the ground state. The resolving powers of these two measurements are comparable. From the spectra in the two papers, it is difficult to identify possible problems. We keep both results in the present evaluation and appeal for new studies to solve this issue.

    • 6.3.   The Q-value for 99 Rh( β+ ) 99 Ru

    • This case has been discussed in AME2012 and AME2016. The Q-value for 99 Rh( β+ ) 99 Ru was adjusted to be 2044(7) keV in AME2016, where the Qβ+ was mainly determined from the two β -decay results in Ref. [1952Sc11] and [1959To25]. A higherQ-value of 2170(30) keV was reported in the later work [1974An23], but was not used in AME due to its large uncertainty. However, it was found that the Q-value should be larger than 2059.34 keV because this state was populated in beta-decay experiments.

      Both 99 Rh and 99 Ru are primary nuclides in our evaluation. The mass of 99 Ru is mainly determined by (n, γ ) reaction to 100 Ru, which in turn is determined from Penning trap measurement. The uncertainty of the adjusted 99 Rh mass is 6.7 keV. The mass of 99 Rh can also be determined through the Qβ+ value of 99 Pd, which in turn is measured with a Penning trap with an uncertainty of 5.4 keV. Consequently, even if we do not use any of the experimental results from the beta-spectrum measurements of 99 Rh, we can still determine the Q-value of 99 Rh( β+ ) 99 Ru to be 2032(21) keV. If we increase the Q-value of 99 Rh( β+ ) 99 Ru, then strong tension will be built around this region.

      In AME2020, we discard the result from [1952Sc11]. The unweighted average of results from [1959To25] and [1974An23] is then used in the evaluation. The adjusted value is 2041(19) keV, still marginally smaller than the required decay energy, as discussed above.

    • 6.4.   The 102 Pd double-electron capture energy

    • In the AME2012 evaluation, we found large discrepancies between data coming from combinations of the very precise (n, γ ) reactions with β+ , β and ε decay energies versus direct Penning-trap data [2011Go23]. We finally decided at that time to provisionally not use the new Penning trap result and called for more measurements in order to clarify this issue. In the AME2016 evaluation, we were aware of the experimental results for 102 Pd and 103 Pd from the ESR mass measurements through a private communication [2014Ya.A]. Their results support the SHIPTRAP datum, although with relatively large uncertainties. We therefore decided to discard two pieces of data: 102 Rh( β ) 102 Pd and 103 Pd( ε ) 103 Rh, and to use the SHIPTRAP result. The local consistency was then restored.

      The treatment is now further supported by the recent results from JYFLTRAP [2019Ne04]. The mass difference of 102 Pd and 102 Ru was measured using both the Time-of-Flight and the Phase-Imaging Ion Cyclotron Resonance techniques. The obtained result is around 8 times more precise and in excellent agreement with the value obtained at SHIPTRAP, verifying the reliability of the Penning trap mass spectrometry. This issue is thus considered to be resolved.

    7.   General information
    • The full content of the present issue is accessible on-line at the AMDC website [27]. In addition to several graphs representing the mass surface, beyond the main ones given in Part II, are available on the AMDC website.

      Tables of masses (Part II, Table I) and nuclear reaction and separation energies (Part II, Table III) are available in ASCII format to simplify their input to computer programs. The headers of these files give information on the formats. The first file, named mass.mas20, contains the table of masses. The next two files correspond to the table of reaction and separation energies, in two parts of 6 entries each, as in Part II, Table III: rct1.mas20 for S2n , S2p , Qα , Q2β , Qεp and Qβn (odd pages in this issue); and rct2.mas20 for Sn , Sp , Q4β , Qd,α , Qp,α and Qn,α (facing even pages).

    8.   Acknowledgments
    • This work is supported in part by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFA0400504), the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS, Grant No. XDB34000000), the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. W.J.H. acknowledges financial support by the Max-Planck-Society. S.N. acknowledges the support of the RIKEN Pioneering Project Funding.

      We wish to thank our many colleagues who provided answers to our questions regarding specific experimental data, as well as those who sent us preprints of their work prior to publication. Continuing interest, discussions, suggestions and encouragements from D. Lunney are highly appreciated.

    Appendix A.   Converting frequency ratios to linear equations
    • Primary data from Penning-trap measurement are typically given in the form of a frequency ratio, which is converted to a linear equation of atomic masses in the AME. The code of a Fortran program for converting frequency ratios to linear equations was given in AME2016 [2]. Here we just describe the principle of this method.

      In the following, quantities with the subscript r describe the characteristics of the reference ion in the Penning trap. Equivalent quantities, with no subscript, describe characteristics of the ion being measured.

      In AME2012 [24], the frequency ratio was described as:

      R=frf=Mmeq+BMrmeqr+Brqrq,

      (9)

      This function is only valid for atoms. When molecules are involved, an extra term for the molecular binding energy should be included. Therefore in AME2016 [2], the equation was rewritten as:

      R=frf=MDmeq+BMrDrmeqr+Brqrq,

      (10)

      where q is the charged state of the given ion, D is the molecular binding energy (dissociation energy), B is the electron binding energy, me is the mass of the electron and M the total atomic mass. All masses and energies are in atomic mass units u and so, u = 1.

      This expression can be written in terms of the mass excess M and atomic mass number A:

      A+MDmeq+B=Rqqr(Ar+MrDrmeqr+Br)

      (11)

      or, alternatively:

      MRqqrMr=meq(1R)+Ar(qqrRAAr)+Rqqr(BrDr)(BD).

      The general aim is to establish some quantity y and its associated precision dy . We define C to be a truncated, three-digit decimal approximation of the ratio A to Ar , and then we can write:

      y=MCMr

      (12)

      and so

      y=y1+y2+y3+y4,

      (13)

      where

      y1=Mr(RqqrC),

      (14)

      y2=meq(1R),

      (15)

      y3=Ar(qqrRAAr),

      (16)

      and

      y4=Rqqr(BrDr)(BD).

      (17)

      To fix relative orders of magnitude, Mr is generally smaller than 0.1 u, RC is a few 10 4 , (1R) is usually smaller than unity (and typically 0.2 for a 20% mass change), RAAr varies from 1 to 100 ×106 , (BrDr) is generally smaller than 0.1 μ u, and Ar is typically 100 u for atomic mass A=100 . The four terms y1 , y2 , y3 , and y4 take values of the order of 10 μ u, 100 μ u, 10 to 10000 μ u, and 0.1 μ u, respectively.

      The associated precision dy is written:

      dy=dy1+dy2+dy3+dy4,

      (18)

      where

      dy1=qqrMrdR+(RqqrC)dMrdR×105μu,

      (19)

      dy2=meqdRdR×103μu,

      (20)

      dy3=qqrArdRdR×108μu,

      (21)

      and

      dy4=qqr(BrDr)dR+Rqqr(dBrdDr)(dBdD)dR×101μu.

      (22)

      Consequently, only the 3rd term contributes significantly to the precision of the measurement, and so we write: dy=dy3 .

      If the two frequencies are measured with a typical precision of 107 for ions at A=100 , then the precision on the frequency ratio R is 1.4×107 and the precision on the mass is approximatively 14μ u.

      Next we will illustrate how to calculate the molecular binding energy for the most precise Penning trap experiment.

    • A.1.   Bond Dissociation Energy

    • The bond dissociation energy D is a quantity which signifies the strength of a chemical bond. The bond dissociation energy for a bond A—B, which is broken through reaction:

      ABA + B

      is defined as the standard enthalpy change at a specified temperature[35]:

      Do(AB)=ΔHfo0(A)+ΔHfo0(B)ΔHfo0(AB),

      (23)

      where ΔHfo0 is the standard heat of formation and its value is available for a large number of atoms and compounds on NIST Chemistry Webbook [36]. All Do values refer to the gaseous state at temperature either 0 K or 298 K. When data on the standard heat of formation is absent at 0 K, Do(AB) will be converted to Do298(AB) by the approximation:

      Do298(AB)Do(AB)+3.72kJ/mol.

      (24)

      Unlike diatomic molecules which involve only one bond, polyatomic molecules have several bonds and their D's are the sum of all the single bonds. For example, if one wants to know the dissociation energy of CH 4 , one needs to calculate the dissociation energy of the four bonds CH 3 —H, CH 2 —H, CH—H, and C—H, respectively:

      Do(CH3H)=ΔHfo0(CH3)+ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(CH4),Do(CH2H)=ΔHfo0(CH2)+ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(CH3),Do(CHH)=ΔHfo0(CH)+ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(CH2),Do(CH)=ΔHfo0(C)+ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(CH).

      (25)

      Summing over all four bonds above, we can obtain:

      Do(CH4)=D(CH3H)+D(CH2H)+D(CHH)+D(CH)=ΔHfo0(C)+4×ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(CH4).

      The dissociation energy can be generalized for a polyatomic molecule which has the form AnBkCi :

      Do(AnBkCi)=nΔHfo0(A)+kΔHfo0(B)+iΔHfo0(C)ΔHfo0(AnBkCi).

      (26)

      The ionization energies for molecules are available on NIST Atomic Spectra Database [37]. We now illustrate this treatment with one example.

    • A.1.1.   13 C 2 H +2 and 14 N +2 mass doublet
    • In the work of [2004Ra33], a cyclotron frequency ratio R = 0.999421460888(7) of relative precision 7×1012 has been obtained for ions 13 C 2 H +2 and 14 N +2 . We first calculate Do(C2H2 ) by applying Eq. 26:

      Do(C2H2)=2×ΔHfo0(C)+2×ΔHfo0(H)ΔHfo0(C2H2)=2×716.68+2×218.998227.40=1641.956kJ/mol=17.018eV.

      Do(N2)=944.9 kJ/mol =9.793 eV is obtained from Ref. [38], since ΔHfo0(N2 ) is not on the list of [36]. Combining the ionization energy B(C2H2)=11.400 eV and B(N2)=15.581 eV, we obtain the mass difference:

      13C+H14N=8105.862995(98)μu.

      In the original paper [2004Ra33], this equation is given as:

      13C+H14N=8105.86288(10)μu,

      which differs by 12(10) nu from our calculation. The difference is because we used the updated molecular binding energy from Ref. [36,38]. In this case, the molecular binding energy is 170 times larger than the uncertainty, and even the updates of the molecular energies have significant impact on the deduced values.

    Appendix B.   Mixtures of isomers or of isobars in mass spectrometry
    • In cases where two or more unresolved lines may combine into a single one in an observed spectrum, while one cannot decide which ones are present and in which proportion, a special procedure has to be used.

      The first goal is to determine what is the most probable value Mexp that will be observed in the measurement, and what is the uncertainty σ of this prediction. We assume that all the lines may contribute and that all contributions have equal probabilities. The measured mass reflects the mixing. We call M0 the mass of the lowest line, and M1,M2,M3, the masses of the other lines. For a given composition of the mixture, the resulting mass m is given by

      m=(1ni=1xi)M0+ni=1xiMi,with{0xi1ni=1xi1

      (27)

      in which the relative unknown contributions x1,x2,x3, have each a uniform distribution of probability within the allowed range.

      If P(m) is the normalized probability of measuring the value m, then :

      ¯M=P(m)mdm

      (28)

      and    σ2=P(m)(m¯M)2dm.

      (29)

      It is thus assumed that the experimentally measured mass will be Mexp=¯M , and that σ , which reflects the uncertainty on the composition of the mixture, will have to be quadratically added to the experimental uncertainties.

    • B.1.   Case of 2 spectral lines

    • In the case of two lines, one simply gets

      m=(1x1)M0+x1M1  with   0x11.

      (30)

      The relation between m and x1 is biunivocal so that

      P(m)={1/(M1M0)if M0mM1,0elsewhere

      (31)

      i.e. a rectangular distribution, and one obtains:

      Mexp=12(M0+M1),σ=36(M1M0)=0.290 (M1M0).

      (32)

      Therefore, the ground state mass M0±σ0 can be determined from the measured mass Mexp±σexp and the knowledge of the excitation energies E1±σ1 with following equations:

      M0=Mexp12E1,

      σ2=112E21orσ=0.29E1,

      σ20=σ2exp+(12σ1)2+σ2.

    • B.2.   Case of 3 spectral lines

    • In the case of three spectral lines, we derive from Eq. 27:

      m=(1x1x2)M0+x1M1+x2M2,

      (33)

      with{0x110x210x1+x21.

      (34)

      After normalization, one gets:

      P(m)=2kM2M0,

      (35)

      with{k=(mM0)/(M1M0)  if  M0mM1k=(M2m)/(M2M1)  if  M1mM2

      (36)

      and finally:

      Mexp=13(M0+M1+M2)

      (37)

      σ=26M20+M21+M22M0M1M1M2M2M0.

      The ground state mass M0±σ0 can be determined from the measured mass Mexp±σexp and the knowledge of the excitation energies E1±σ1 and E2±σ2 :

      M0=Mexp13(E1+E2),σ2=118(E21+E22E1E2)orσ=0.236E21+E22E1E2,σ20=σ2exp+(13σ1)2+(13σ2)2+σ2.

      If the levels are regularly spaced, i.e. E2=2E1 ,

      σ=612E2=0.204E2,

      while for a value of E1 very near 0 or E2 ,

      σ=26E2=0.236E2.

    • B.3.   Case of more than 3 spectral lines

    • For more than 3 lines, one may easily infer Mexp=ni=0Mi/(n+1) , but the determination of σ requires the knowledge of P(m) . As the exact calculation of P(m) becomes rather difficult, it is more simple to do simulations.

      However, care must be taken that the values of the xi 's are explored with an exact equality of chance to occur. For each set of xi 's, m is calculated, and the histogram Nj(mj) of its distribution is built. Calling nbin the number of bins of the histogram, one gets :

      P(mj)=Njnbinj=1Nj,

      (38)

      and

      Mexp=nbinj=1P(mj)mj,σ2=nbinj=1P(mj)(mjMexp)2.

      For three excited isomers, the ground state mass M0±σ0 can be determined from the measured mass Mexp±σexp and the knowledge of the excitation energies E1±σ1 , E2±σ2 and E3±σ3 as:

      M0=Mexp14(E1+E2+E3),σ20=σ2exp+(14σ1)2+(14σ2)2+(14σ3)2+σ2.

      An example of a Fortran program based on the CERN library was given for the cases of two, three and four lines in AME2016 [2].

    Appendix C.   Definition of decay energies
    • Conventionally, the total energy released in α decay, Qα , is defined as the difference between the atomic masses of the mother and daughter nuclides:

      Qα=MmotherMdaughterM4He.

      (39)

      This value equals the sum of the observed energy of the α particle and that of the recoiling nuclide (with only a minor correction for the fact that the cortège of atomic electrons in the latter may be in an excited state). Unfortunately, some authors in the literature quote Qα as a value 'corrected for screening', which essentially means that they take the masses of bare nuclides for the M values in the above equation.

      A similar bad habit has been observed for some published proton-decay energies. We very strongly object to this custom; at the very least, the symbol Q should not be used for the difference in nuclear masses.

      High precision α -decay energies

      The most precise α -decay energies are those measured absolutely using magnetic spectrographs, as summarized in Ref. [1991Ry01] and references therein. All α -energy standards are determined using this method. The relation between the α -particle energy Eα and the decay energy, Qα is:

      Qα=(Mmα)(Mmα)22×M×Eα+78.6eV.

      (40)

      where M is the mass of the parent nuclide, mα is the mass of the doubly ionized α particle and 78.6 eV is the binding energy of two electrons in helium. This formula had been discussed in AME1977 and has been used since then. The electron binding energy of helium has just been taken into account since AME2016.

Reference (38)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return