4.5 Article

Validating neural-network refinements of nuclear mass models

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.014306

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics [DE-FG02-92ER40750]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nuclear astrophysics centers on the role of nuclear physics in the cosmos. In particular, nuclear masses at the limits of stability are critical in the development of stellar structure and the origin of the elements. Purpose: We aim to test and validate the predictions of recently refined nuclear mass models against the newly published AME2016 compilation. Methods: The basic paradigm underlining the recently refined nuclear mass models is based on existing state-of-the-art models that are subsequently refined through the training of an artificial neural network. Bayesian inference is used to determine the parameters of the neural network so that statistical uncertainties are provided for all model predictions. Results: We observe a significant improvement in the Bayesian neural network (BNN) predictions relative to the corresponding bare models when compared to the nearly 50 new masses reported in the AME2016 compilation. Further, AME2016 estimates for the handful of impactful isotopes in the determination of r-process abundances are found to be in fairly good agreement with our theoretical predictions. Indeed, the BNN-improved Duflo-Zuker model predicts a root-mean-square deviation relative to experiment of sigma(rms) similar or equal to 400 keV. Conclusions: Given the excellent performance of the BNN refinement in confronting the recently published AME2016 compilation, we are confident of its critical role in our quest for mass models of the highest quality. Moreover, as uncertainty quantification is at the core of the BNN approach, the improved mass models are in a unique position to identify those nuclei that will have the strongest impact in resolving some of the outstanding questions in nuclear astrophysics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据