4.5 Article

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

Journal

CHINESE PHYSICS C
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0

Keywords

atomic mass evaluation; mass spectrometry; nuclear decays; nuclear reactions; least-squares adjustment; trends from the mass surface (TMS); atomic-mass tables

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0400504]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) [XDB34000000]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. Max-Planck-Society
  5. RIKEN Pioneering Project Funding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents the results of the new atomic mass evaluation, AME2020, including experimental input data and evaluation procedures. It discusses differences with the previous AME2016 evaluation and provides specific examples for several nuclides of interest to users.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available