Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Deep learning for nuclear masses in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The shape of a nucleus can change r-process element yields by a factor of 100.

desk verdict A useful DNN-completed odd-Z DRHBc mass table with a genuine out-of-sample check, but the r-process sensitivity claim is a mass-difference study between models differing in pairing as well as deformation, so the deformation attribution needs a control. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19470 v1 pith:5ALPO6MH submitted 2024-11-29 nucl-th

Soonchul Choi , Kyungil Kim , Zhenyu He , Youngman Kim , Toshitaka Kajino This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords deepneuralnetworknuclearmasstableDRHBcRCHBr-processnucleosynthesisdeformationsensitivityneutron-richnuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether nuclear deformation, not just nuclear mass, matters for the astrophysical r-process that builds half of the heavy elements. To answer it, the authors first use a deep neural network to extend the deformed DRHBc mass table to odd-Z nuclei, reaching an RMS deviation of 0.842 MeV against AME2020. They then feed two mass tables, one spherical (RCHB*) and one deformed (DRHBc*), into r-process network calculations for magnetohydrodynamic jets and collapsar jets. The resulting abundance patterns differ by up to two orders of magnitude in the mass range A = 80-120, leading the authors to conclude that deformation is a significant input for r-process predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a deep neural network with five inputs (Z, N, pairing term delta, and shell-effect terms Pn and Pp) that interpolates binding energies for odd-odd and odd-even nuclei using even-Z DRHBc results plus AME2020 data. The sensitivity analysis then rests on the mass difference between the spherical RCHB* and deformed DRHBc* tables for a set of neutron-rich isotopes in the A = 80-120 range, where the difference exceeds 5 MeV. These mass shifts change neutron-capture Q-values, which in turn alter reaction rates and shift the abundance pattern; for example, the Q-value of 90As(n,gamma)91As changes from 1.04 MeV to 6.22 MeV between the two tables.

What would settle it

Compute the same r-process abundance comparison using RCHB and DRHBc versions with identical pairing strength; if the A = 80-120 abundance differences disappear, the observed sensitivity is due to pairing, not deformation. Alternatively, measure the masses of the key deformed isotopes such as 93As with high precision and check which mass table, RCHB* or DRHBc*, agrees with experiment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that r-process abundances are sensitive to nuclear deformation, particularly in the mass region A = 80-120. This is demonstrated by comparing abundance yields computed with the spherical RCHB* mass table and the axially deformed DRHBc* mass table in two r-process sites, magnetohydrodynamic jets and collapsar jets. In the MHD jet model the yields differ by up to two orders of magnitude in that mass window, with the deformed table producing more neutron-rich nuclei beyond A = 92. A supporting result is that a five-input deep neural network, using proton number, neutron number, pairing, and separate proton and neutron shell effects, can extend the even-Z DRHBc table to odd-Z nuclei with an RMS deviation of 0.842 MeV from AME2020.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the mass difference between the RCHB* and DRHBc* tables is caused primarily by nuclear deformation, even though the two base models also use different pairing strengths (-342.5 vs -325.0 MeV $fm^{3}$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A complete DRHBc mass table, extended by machine learning, becomes usable for r-process nucleosynthesis studies that include odd-Z nuclei.
  • Nuclear deformation should be treated as a first-order input in r-process sensitivity analyses, not just an adjustment to mass.
  • The abundance patterns from MHD jet models differ by up to two orders of magnitude between spherical and deformed mass tables, so deformation can change predicted yields of elements near A = 80-120.
  • In collapsar jet environments, fission recycling largely erases the deformation-induced differences at A = 100-120, showing that the astrophysical site determines how strongly deformation is imprinted on final abundances.
  • Improved solar r-abundance measurements near A = 104 and a complete DRHBc table would allow a direct test of the deformation-abundance connection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the deformation sensitivity is confirmed, r-process abundance patterns could become a probe of the ground-state deformations of exotic neutron-rich nuclei in the A = 80-120 region.
  • The DNN extension is only as reliable as its training data; future mass measurements of neutron-rich odd-Z nuclei such as As, Ga, and Se isotopes would test whether the 0.842 MeV RMS deviation holds outside the training set.
  • The pairing strength is different in the two base models (DRHBc uses -325.0 MeV fm^3, RCHB uses -342.5 MeV fm^3), so a cleaner test of the deformation claim would compare two tables built with identical pairing parameters.
  • The same DNN approach could be applied to separately predict beta-decay Q-values or neutron-capture rates, not just masses, to propagate deformation effects more directly into the reaction network.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses a deep neural network (DNN) to extend the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov in continuum (DRHBc) mass table, which is otherwise available only for even-Z nuclei, by training on DRHBc even-Z binding energies together with AME2020 experimental masses for odd-Z and odd-odd nuclei. The resulting DRHBc* and RCHB* tables are then used in r-process network calculations for MHD jet and collapsar jet environments, selecting nuclei where the two mass tables differ by more than 5 MeV. The authors report an RMS deviation of 0.842 MeV between DRHBc* and AME2020 and find r-process abundance differences of up to two orders of magnitude in the A=80-120 region, which they attribute to nuclear deformation.

Significance. If the deformation attribution were cleanly established, this would be a useful contribution to the discussion of deformation effects in r-process nucleosynthesis, and the DNN extension of the DRHBc table addresses a genuine gap. The out-of-sample comparison against newly measured isotopes in Table II is a genuine positive result: those 34 nuclei were not in AME2020, and the reported 0.725 MeV RMS is informative, albeit for a narrow region (Z=32-37). The manuscript also makes good use of two astrophysical sites, MHD and collapsar jets, and includes mass-only, mass-plus-beta, mass-plus-neutron-capture, and combined sensitivity cases. However, the significance is substantially weakened by the circularity of the main DNN performance metric and by the lack of a controlled comparison between the spherical and deformed mass tables.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Table I] The reported RMS deviation of 0.842 MeV for DRHBc* is an in-sample training error, not a predictive test. Section II states that the DNN uses AME2020 binding energies as part of the training set, and Section III then compares the predicted masses with the same AME2020 data. The comparison with the even-Z DRHBc value of 1.433 MeV is therefore misleading, because that value is an out-of-sample deviation of the original DRHBc table, whereas 0.842 MeV measures how well the network reproduces data it was trained on. The only out-of-sample evidence is Table II, with 34 newly measured isotopes and an RMS of 0.725 MeV; this should be presented as the primary DNN validation, and the in-sample RMS should not be quoted as an improved predictive accuracy.
  2. [Section V and Section I] The central attribution of the r-process abundance differences to nuclear deformation is confounded by the different pairing strengths of the two base models. Section I explicitly states that the pairing strength is -342.5 MeV fm^3 in RCHB and -325.0 MeV fm^3 in DRHBc. Section V asserts that 'the primary difference between the two mass tables lies in nuclear deformations' without providing any control calculation that holds the pairing strength fixed. Since pairing strength directly affects binding energies, beta-decay Q-values, and neutron-capture Q-values, the abundance differences seen in Figs. 3-5 could be driven entirely or partly by the pairing mismatch rather than by deformation. The manuscript needs a same-pairing spherical-versus-deformed comparison, or an equivalent explicit control, before the deformation conclusion can be drawn.
  3. [Section IV and Figure 2] The sensitivity study uses mass differences between RCHB* and DRHBc* that exceed 5 MeV, but both starred tables are DNN products trained partly on AME2020. For the selected exotic nuclei, the mass differences in Figure 2 and Table III are therefore DNN extrapolations (or interpolations), not direct outputs of either RCHB or DRHBc. This means the selected differences may include DNN prediction error rather than a physical deformation effect. The authors note that the 5 MeV threshold is larger than the 1-2 MeV variations used in prior sensitivity studies (Refs. [8,10]), but no uncertainty quantification is provided for the DNN-extrapolated masses, so the significance of the two-order-of-magnitude abundance changes cannot be assessed reliably.
  4. [Section II] The DNN architecture and training details are not reported. Equations (1)-(5) define a generic feed-forward network with an unspecified number of hidden layers and nodes, and no values are given for the number of layers, number of nodes per layer, learning rate, number of epochs, batch size, regularization, or train/validation split. The statement that 'we use a deep neural network consisting of the first hidden layer, intermediate hidden layer, last hidden layer and output layer' is not sufficient to reproduce the results. Given that the DNN extension is one of the two central contributions, these details are necessary for reproducibility.
  5. [Section II (validation procedure)] There is an internal inconsistency in the reported RCHB* RMS values. The text first gives RMS deviations of 1.599 MeV and 2.457 MeV for the comparison with AME2020 and with RCHB+AME2020, respectively, but later states that with the five-input case the corresponding RMS deviations are 1.862 MeV and 1.957 MeV. Table I lists yet another set of values (1.779, 1.584, and 1.862 MeV for two-, four-, and five-input RCHB*). The reader cannot determine which numbers correspond to which input configuration, and this discrepancy should be resolved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III caption] The caption says the quadrupole deformation beta2 values are 'taken from AME2020 [39] and from FRDM(2012) [56]', but AME2020 is a mass evaluation and does not provide deformation parameters. The source of the first beta2 column should be clarified.
  2. [Section III] The sentence 'For comparison, the RMS deviation between AME2020 and the even-Z DRHBc⋆ mass table is 1.433 MeV' conflates the original even-Z DRHBc mass table with the DNN-produced DRHBc* table. Since the DNN output is not the same as the original DRHBc table, the terminology should distinguish them clearly.
  3. [Equation (7)] The text has a typo: 'Eref i denotes the binding available binding energies' should be 'Eref i denotes the available binding energies'.
  4. [Abstract and Section V] The conclusion states that r-process abundances are sensitive to 'nuclear deformation', but the study actually compares two mass tables that differ in pairing strength, deformation, and DNN extrapolation. The wording should be softened to 'mass sensitivity' unless the deformation control is added.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported 0.842 MeV RMS improvement is an in-sample fit because AME2020 odd-Z masses are included in the DNN training set; the deformation conclusion is separately confounded by differing pairing strengths, though that confound is not itself a circular reduction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II (Neural Network Model); Section III (DNN Results), Table I]
    "To obtain the odd-even and odd-odd binding energies using a deep neural network, the binding energies of even-even and even-odd isotopes from DRHBc calculations are used as a training set. In addition, to include information about odd-odd and odd-even isotopes to the deep neural network system we also use the binding energies in AME2020 [39] as a training set. ... In Table I, we show the RMS deviation of RCHB* and DRHBc* compared with the AME2020 data sets, where it can be seen that the case with the five-inputs results in the smallest RMS deviation (0.842 MeV) for DRHBc*."

    AME2020 binding energies for odd-Z and odd-odd nuclei are explicitly part of the DNN training labels. The improvement claimed in Section III, from the even-Z DRHBc RMS of 1.433 MeV to the DRHBc* RMS of 0.842 MeV against AME2020, is therefore a comparison of the network output to the very labels on which it was trained for those nuclei. It measures training-set reproduction, not predictive generalization, so the claim that the DNN reliably extends the DRHBc mass table to odd-Z nuclei reduces, at this step, to a fit by construction. The independent check in Table II against newly measured masses is genuine out-of-sample evidence, but it does not convert the Table I RMS into an independent prediction.

full rationale

The clearest circular step is the DNN evaluation: AME2020 odd-Z binding energies are used as training data (Section II), and the same AME2020 values are then used as the reference for the reported RMS deviations in Table I and Section III. The drop from 1.433 MeV (even-Z DRHBc) to 0.842 MeV (DRHBc*) mainly reflects how well the network has memorized its odd-Z training labels, not an independent prediction. The RCHB validation subsection has the same design: odd-Z RCHB data are excluded, but AME2020 odd-Z data are included in training, and the resulting predictions are compared against AME2020. The paper does include a genuine out-of-sample check in Table II, where newly measured masses from Ref. [55] are compared with DRHBc* (RMS 0.725 MeV); this provides non-circular support for the mass table, though it does not validate the in-sample Table I claim. The r-process sensitivity conclusion is not itself a definitional circularity: the abundance differences between RCHB* and DRHBc* are real network outputs. However, the attribution of those differences to nuclear deformation is weakened by a confound, because Section I states that the pairing strengths differ (-342.5 MeV fm^3 for RCHB vs -325.0 MeV fm^3 for DRHBc), while Section V asserts without a controlled same-pairing comparison that 'the primary difference between the two mass tables lies in nuclear deformations.' That is an internal-validity problem, not a circular derivation, so it is noted here rather than counted as a separate circular step. Overall the paper has one partial circularity in its headline DNN accuracy claim, plus a non-circular but confounded astrophysical attribution, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on pre-existing nuclear mass models, empirical beta-decay rates, and astrophysical trajectories. The main free parameters are the unreported DNN hyperparameters and the post-hoc 5 MeV threshold. The key assumptions are that the DNN can generalize across parity and that the RCHB/DRHBc differences are dominated by deformation.

free parameters (2)
  • DNN hyperparameters (number of layers, nodes, learning rate, epochs) = not reported
    The DNN architecture beyond the use of the ELU activation and RMS loss is not specified. These choices affect the predicted masses and are not constrained by any theory.
  • Mass difference threshold for sensitivity study = 5 MeV
    The r-process sensitivity study includes only nuclei where RCHB* and DRHBc* differ by more than 5 MeV (Section IV). This post-hoc threshold determines which nuclei are used and can bias the result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DRHBc and RCHB mass tables and their density functionals (PC-PK1) are accurate enough for even-Z nuclei
    The paper builds on existing mass tables and parameters from prior work (refs 20, 21, 37, 38). If these are systematically biased, the DNN extension inherits that bias.
  • domain assumption The empirical beta-decay formula log t1/2 = c1 - c2 log Q with parity-dependent constants from Ref [65] is valid for the neutron-rich nuclei considered
    Beta-decay rates affect r-process abundances; the paper uses a rough empirical formula instead of microscopic rates. This is an unverified simplification.
  • domain assumption The DNN can generalize from even-Z to odd-Z nuclei using the input features Z, N, delta, P, Pn, Pp
    The paper assumes that the hand-crafted inputs capture the odd-even staggering well enough to predict masses for nuclei not in the training set. This is not proven beyond the limited out-of-sample check.
  • domain assumption The astrophysical trajectories (23 MHD, 8 collapsar) are representative of r-process conditions
    The sensitivity study uses pre-existing trajectories from refs 70, 72. If these are not representative, the abundance patterns may not generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning for nuclear masses in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ALPO6MH

@misc{pith2026241119470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning for nuclear masses in deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ALPO6MH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19470}
}
abstract

Most nuclei are deformed, and these deformations play an important role in various nuclear and astrophysical phenomena. Microscopic nuclear mass models have been developed based on covariant density functional theory to explore exotic nuclear properties. Among these, we adopt mass models based on the relativistic continuum Hartree-Bogoliubov theory (RCHB) with spherical symmetry and the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in continuum (DRHBc) with axial symmetry to study the effects of deformation on the abundances produced during the rapid neutron-capture process (r-process). Since the DRHBc mass table has so far been completed only for even-Z nuclei, we first investigate whether a Deep Neural Network (DNN) can be used to extend the DRHBc mass table by focusing on nuclear binding energies. To incorporate information about odd-odd and odd-even isotopes into the DNN, we also use binding energies from AME2020 as a training set, in addition to those from the DRHBc mass table for even-Z nuclei. After generating an improved mass table through the DNN study, we conduct a sensitivity analysis of r-process abundances to deformation or mass variations using the RCHB$^\star$ and DRHBc$^\star$ mass tables (where $\star$ indicates that the mass table is obtained from the DNN study). For the r-process sensitivity study, we consider magnetohydrodynamic jets and collapsar jets. Our findings indicate that r-process abundances are sensitive to nuclear deformation, particularly within the mass range of $A=80-120$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One neutron separation energies of the Ca, Dy, U and As isotopes from DRHBc and DRHBc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The isotopes with a mass difference greater than 5 MeV between DRHBc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. MHD results with fission recycling: The top panel shows the effect of changing only the mass, the second panel adjusts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The contribution from the MHD model with RCHB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Collapsar results with fission recycling: the top panel changes only the mass, the second panel modifies both the mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lunney, J

    D. Lunney, J. M. Pearson and C. Thibault, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1021 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    C. A. Bertulani and T. Kajino, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 89, 56 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Kajino, W

    T. Kajino, W. Aoki, A. B. Balantekin, R. Diehl, M. A. Famiano and G. J. Mathews, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 109 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    C. J. Horowitz, A. Arcones, B. Cˆ ot´ e, I. Dillmann, W. Nazarewicz, I. U. Roederer, H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, D. Atanasov and A. Bauswein, et al. J. Phys. G 46, 083001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo and F. K. Thiele- mann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 15002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, G. C. McLaughlin and A. Aprahamian, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 86, 86 (2016) [erratum: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87, 116 (2016)]

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Kajino and G

    T. Kajino and G. J. Mathews, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80, 084901 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, D. L. Fang, M. Beard, P. M¨ oller, T. Kawano and A. Aprahamian, Phys. Rev. C 92, no.3, 035807 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    X. F. Jiang, X. H. Wu and P. W. Zhao, Astrophys. J. 915, 29 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Y. W. Hao, Y. F. Niu and Z. M. Niu, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138092 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Moller, J

    P. Moller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 59, 185-381 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    N. Wang, Z. Liang, M. Liu and X. Wu, Phys. Rev. C 82, 044304 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 152503 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Goriely, S

    S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, M. Girod and S. Peru, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242501 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035804 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Meng, Nucl

    J. Meng, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 3 (1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470-563 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis and P. Ring, Phys. Rept. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    X. W. Xia, Y. Lim, P. W. Zhao, H. Z. Liang, X. Y. Qu, Y. Chen, H. Liu, L. F. Zhang, S. Q. Zhang and Y. Kim, et al. Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 121-122, 1 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054319 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    S. G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring and E. G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 82, 011301 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    L. Li, J. Meng, P. Ring, E. G. Zhao and S. G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024312 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Zhang et al

    K. Zhang et al. [DRHBc Mass Table], Phys. Rev. C 102, 024314 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Pan et al

    C. Pan et al. [DRHBc Mass Table], Phys. Rev. C 106, 014316 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. Pan, K. Y. Zhang, P. S. Chong, C. Heo, M. C. Ho, J. Lee, Z. P. Li, W. Sun, C. K. Tam and S. H. Wong, et al. Phys. Rev. C 104, 024331 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    R. An, X. Jiang, L. G. Cao and F. S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014325 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    S. Kim, M. H. Mun, M. K. Cheoun and E. Ha, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034340 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Y. B. Choi, C. H. Lee, M. H. Mun and Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024306 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Sun and J

    X. Sun and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044312 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    K. Y. Zhang, P. Papakonstantinou, M. H. Mun, Y. Kim, H. Yan and X. X. Sun, Phys. Rev. C 107, L041303 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    K. Y. Zhang, S. Q. Yang, J. L. An, S. S. Zhang, P. Papakonstantinou, M. H. Mun, Y. Kim and H. Yan, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138112 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Y. Xiao, S. Z. Xu, R. Y. Zheng, X. X. Sun, L. S. Geng and S. S. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138160 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    X. Y. Zhang, Z. M. Niu, W. Sun and X. W. Xia, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024310 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mart ´ ın Abadiet al., https://www.tensorflow.org/ (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A 798, 29-60 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Zhang et al

    K. Zhang et al. [DRHBc Mass Table], Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 144, 101488 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Guo et al

    P. Guo et al. [DRHBc Mass Table], Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 158, 101661 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Z. M. Niu and H. Z. Liang, Phys. Lett. B 778, 48 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    G. A. Negoita, J. P. Vary, G. R. Luecke, P. Maris, A. M. Shirokov, I. J. Shin, Y. Kim, E. G. Ng, C. Yang and M. Lockner, et al. Phys. Rev. C 99, 054308 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    W. G. Jiang, G. Hagen and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C 100, 054326 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    M. R. Mumpower, T. M. Sprouse, A. E. Lovell and A. T. Mohan, Phys. Rev. C 106, L021301 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    C. Q. Li, C. N. Tong, H. J. Du and L. G. Pang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064306 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    L. X. Zeng, Y. Y. Yin, X. X. Dong and L. S. Geng, [arXiv:2210.02906 [nucl-th]]. 11

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Z. M. Niu and H. Z. Liang, Phys. Rev. C 106, L021303 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    X. H. Wu, Y. Y. Lu and P. W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137394 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Mumpower, M

    M. Mumpower, M. Li, T. M. Sprouse, B. S. Meyer, A. E. Lovell and A. T. Mohan, Front. in Phys. 11, 1198572 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Kn¨ oll, T

    M. Kn¨ oll, T. Wolfgruber, M. L. Agel, C. Wenz and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137781 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    M. Li, T. M. Sprouse, B. S. Meyer and M. R. Mumpower, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138385 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Y¨ uksel, D

    E. Y¨ uksel, D. Soydaner and H. Bahtiyar, [arXiv:2401.02824 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Boehnlein, M

    A. Boehnlein, M. Diefenthaler, N. Sato, M. Schram, V. Ziegler, C. Fanelli, M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. Horn, M. P. Kuchera and D. Lee, et al. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 031003 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    J. E. Garc ´ ıa-Ramos, A. S´ aiz, J. M. Arias, L. Lamata and P. P´ erez-Fern´ andez, [arXiv:2307.07332 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys. A 798, 29 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    W. Xian, S. Chen, S. Nikas, M. Rosenbusch, M. Wada, H. Ishiyama, D. Hou, S. Iimura, S. Nishimura and P. Schury, et al. Phys. Rev. C 109, 035804 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa and H. Sagawa, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 109-110, 1-204 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Guo, private communication

    P. Guo, private communication

  50. [58]

    Kobayashi, A

    C. Kobayashi, A. I. Karakas and M. Lugaro, Astrophys. J. 900, 179 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Yamazaki, Z

    Y. Yamazaki, Z. He, T. Kajino, G. J. Mathews, M. A. Famiano, X. Tang and J. Shi, Astrophys. J. 933, 112 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Z. He, T. Kajino, M. Kusakabe et. al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 966, L37 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    B. S. Meyer, D. C. Adams, M&PSA, 42, 5215 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, R. Ferguson, et al. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 189, 240 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    K. Kim, Y. Kim, Z. He, X. Yao, et al. Impact of light-mass nuclear reactions on the r-process nucleosynthesis, revisited, ”in preparation.”

  56. [64]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire and S. Goriely, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, no.6, 131 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Li, Y. Wang, et al. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60, 082012 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Nishimura, K

    S. Nishimura, K. Kotake, M. a. Hashimoto, S. Yamada, N. Nishimura, S. Fujimoto and K. Sato, Astrophys. J. 642, 410 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Winteler, R

    C. Winteler, R. Kaeppeli, A. Perego, A. Arcones, N. Vasset, N. Nishimura, M. Liebendoerfer and F. K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J. Lett. 750, L22 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Nishimura, T

    N. Nishimura, T. Takiwaki and F. K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J. 810, 109 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Goriely, Astronomy and Astrophysics 342, 881 (1999)

    S. Goriely, Astronomy and Astrophysics 342, 881 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    Shibagaki, T

    S. Shibagaki, T. Kajino, G. J. Mathews, S. Chiba, S. Nishimura and G. Lorusso, Astrophys. J. 816, 79 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Harikae, T

    S. Harikae, T. Takiwaki and K. Kotake, Astrophys. J. 704 (2009), 354-371

    2009

  64. [72]

    Nakamura, T

    K. Nakamura, T. Kajino, G.J. Mathews, S. Sato and S. Harike, Internat. J. Modern Phys. E 22 (2013), 1330022

    2013

  65. [120]

    As a result, in the MHD scenario, the final r-process yield patterns are practically identical with and without fission recycling

    We note that fission recycling plays a minimal role in the MHD model, as the yields of nuclei with A >265 prior to fission recycling are negligible. As a result, in the MHD scenario, the final r-process yield patterns are practically identical with and without fission recyclin...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.