Bethe-Weizsäcker semi-empirical mass formula parameters 2019 update based on AME2016

Bethe-Weizsäcker semi-empirical mass formula parameters 2019 update based on AME2016 1 corresp first-author Corresponding author, d.benzaid@univ-dbkm.dz Corresponding author, d.benzaid@univ-dbkm.dz d.benzaid@univ-dbkm.dz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3032-0307 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-8139 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-4486 2 Laboratory of Energy and Smart Systems, University of Khemis Miliana Route de Theniet El Had, 44225 Ain Defla, Algeria Laboratory of Energy and Smart Systems, University of Khemis Miliana Route de Theniet El Had, 44225 Ain Defla, Algeria Dosing, Analysis and Characterization in High Resolution Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Ferhat ABBAS University, 19000 Sétif-1, Algeria Dosing, Analysis and Characterization in High Resolution Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Ferhat ABBAS University, 19000 Sétif-1, Algeria In the present work, the classical Bethe-Weizsäcker (BW) mass formula with five energy terms is revisited and updated. We use the least-squares adjustments on the binding energy of 2497 different nuclides from the last update of the atomic mass evaluation, AME2016 published in March 2017, to provide a new set of energy coefficients of the mass formula. The obtained set of formula coefficients allowed us to reproduce most of the experimental values of the binding energies for each nucleus with A 50. The comparison between the binding energies provided with updated mass formula and those of AME2016 on one hand, and those of previous works, on the other hand, yield relative errors that oscillate between less than 0.05% and 1.5 Binding energy of atomic nuclei Mass formula parameters AME2016 Least-squares adjustments 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The semi-empirical mass formula (SEMF), usually known as Bethe-Weizsäcker formula, has been developed to most effectively describe the binding energy of any given nucleus at the ground level. In the classical expression, the binding energy is represented as a function of atomic number Z , neutron number N and mass number A = Z + N , using five energy coefficients. Each energy coefficient represents an aspect of the binding energy in the liquid-drop model of the nucleus. Considered to be a spherical-like volume with a radius defined as <math id="M1"><mrow><mi>R</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>3</mn></mfrac></mrow></msup></mrow></math> , the stability of the nucleus is based mainly on its volume energy term as a contribution of each nucleon to nuclei cohesion. According to the adopted model, negative contributions should be considered, and therefore subtracted from the cohesion component, namely: surface tension term, electrical repulsion term (Coulombian term) and asymmetrical term. The contribution of the parity term is given as a delta-function of the parity values of both Z and N , and it may be a negative, null or positive contribution. Except for the Coulombian coefficient which may be obtained by analytical calculations ( a c 0.7 MeV), the remaining energy coefficients are obtained via experimental data from nuclear reactions, resulting in updated nuclear mass data. Using these data, one may deduce a set of the energy coefficients of the Bethe-Weizsäcker (BW) mass formula using numerical methods. The aim of the present work is to obtain a new set of energy coefficients (including the Coulombian coefficient used as the coherence referring term) based on an update of the nuclear masses table (AME2016), which was processed using numerical code that we developed based on the least-square adjustment method. It is evident that the SEMF is attracting research interest in terms of improving the results obtained by the formula. In this work, we have chosen some references based on the same topic. The selection of these references is based mainly on the form of the formula itself. In this regard, we have adopted the classical form to investigate the validity of our results, as well as possible improvements with the evolution of atomic mass evaluation. Even the classical BW mass formula is not considered as the complete expression to provide the binding energy for a given nucleus. This semi-empirical formula is a good indicator for first level precision of calculations involving binding energy, especially to exclude heavy nuclei stability. In addition, the BW mass formula is still a fundamental keystone in nuclear physics with respect to teaching and research. The update of the energy coefficients for each term may also be adopted for a new BW mass formula with quantum considerations and correction terms. 2 BETHE-WEIZSÄCKER’s SEMI-EMPIRICAL MASS FORMULA 1 The first and most important formula for the binding energy of the nucleus was developed by Von Weizsäcker [ 1 1 ] under the main assumption that the nucleus can be considered as a droplet of incompressible matter. The droplet is maintained by the strong nuclear interaction that exists between nucleons. This fundamental short-range force is considered to be spin-independent and charge-independent. The binding energy B is made up of five terms, each of which describes a particular characteristic of the nucleus [ 2 2 ], namely volume energy, surface energy, Coulomb energy, asymmetry energy and pairing energy. The binding energy formula is given as follows: <math display="block" id="M2"><mrow><msubsup><mrow/><mi>Z</mi><mi>A</mi></msubsup><mi>B</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub><mi>A</mi><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>Z</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></mfrac><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub><mfrac><mrow><msup><mrow><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>A</mi><mo>−</mo><mn>2</mn><mi>Z</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mi>A</mi></mfrac><mo>+</mo><mi>δ</mi><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mrow><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></mfrac><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where a v , a s , a c , a s , a a , and a p are taken as constant coefficients of the formula. It should be noted that the pairing term is taken as a p / A 1/2 in the present study [ 3 3 , 4 4 ]. 3 LEAST SQUARES ADJUSTMENTS METHOD 1 The proposed method involved minimizing the quantity χ 2 given by [ 5 5 ]: <math display="block" id="M3"><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr><mtd><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mo>=</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>n</mi></munderover></mstyle><msup><mrow><mo stretchy="false">[</mo><msub><mi>E</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><msubsup><mo>−</mo><mrow><msub><mi>Z</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>A</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow></msubsup><mi>B</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub><mn>,</mn><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo stretchy="false">]</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup><mn>,</mn></mtd></mtr></mtable></math> where n is the number of isotopes, E i are experimental values of binding energy of the nuclei, and B i are the ones given by the mass formula (1). Let us recall that for a multi-variable function such as f = f ( x , y , z ...) to be at a relative minimum or maximum, three conditions must be met: the first derivative must admit a critical point ( a , b , c ...); when evaluated at the critical point ( a , b , c ...), the second-order direct partial derivatives must be positive for a minimum and negative for a maximum. In our case the first derivative of χ 2 defined by (2) gives <math display="block" id="M4"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mtext>,</mtext><mfrac><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mtext>,</mtext><mfrac><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mtext>,</mtext><mfrac><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mtext> and </mtext><mfrac><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mn>0.</mn></mrow></math> The second derivative is applied to determine whether the function is concave up (a relative minimum) or concave down (a relative maximum): <math display="block" id="M5"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><msup><mo>∂</mo><mn>2</mn></msup><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msup><mi>a</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></mfrac><mo>></mo><mn>0</mn><mtext> or</mtext><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mtext> or</mtext><mo><</mo><mn>0.</mn></mrow></math> We then obtain: http://notExist.jpg http://notExist.jpg http://notExist.jpg The obtained system is a linear equation with five variables a v , a s , a c , a a , and a p . The system was solved using Gauss’s method [ 6 6 ], which was implemented in a proprietary code that we developed. The algorithm consists of three main steps: a. reading the data for the nuclei from a file, b. calculating the different constant parameters of the system, and c. solving it using Gauss’s method. 4 NUCLEAR DATA USED IN THIS WORK 1 The history of the evaluation of atomic masses [ 7 7 ] over more than five decades, particularly from 1983 and 2017, has revealed that data are continuously improved, and this fact should be exploited by researchers. The main document of this work is a file obtained using a series of 3 files: "The Ame2016 atomic mass evaluation (I)" by W.J. Huang, G.Audi, M. Wang, F.G. Kondev, S.Naimi and X.Xu Chinese Physics C41 030002, March 2017. "The Ame2016 atomic mass evaluation (II)" by M.Wang, G.Audi, F.G. Kondev, W.J.Huang, S. Naimi and X.Xu Chinese Physics C41 030003, March 2017 [ 8 8 , 9 9 ], wherein the properties of 2497 nuclides are tabulated, in particular, the number of neutrons N , the number of protons Z , the mass number A , and the experimental values of the binding energy EL/A (keV) given in keV. Addition parameters are also tabulated. 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1 The calculations performed using the dedicated code to solve the linear system (5) for all 2497 nuclides, yielded the following values for the five coefficients of the mass formula: <math display="block" id="M6"><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>14.9297</mn><mtext>MeV(volume energy coefficient)</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>15.0580</mn><mtext>MeV(surface energy coefficient)</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>0.6615</mn><mtext>MeV(Coulomb energy coefficient)</mtext><mn>.</mn></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>21.6091</mn><mtext>MeV(asymmetry energy coefficient)</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>10.1744</mn><mtext>MeV(pairing energy coefficient)</mtext><mtext> </mtext></mtd></mtr></mtable></math> However, if we consider only nuclides with A & ge;50, we then use 2166 different isotopes, and the code gives the following values: <math display="block" id="M7"><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>v</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>14.6433</mn><mtext>MeV</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>s</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>14.0788</mn><mtext>MeV</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>0.6442</mn><mtext>MeV</mtext><mn>.</mn></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>a</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>21.0680</mn><mtext>MeV</mtext></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>11.5398</mn><mtext>MeV</mtext><mtext> </mtext></mtd></mtr></mtable></math> Thus, the following empirical mass formula could be proposed: <math display="block" id="M8"><mtable columnalign="left"><mtr><mtd><msubsup><mrow/><mi>Z</mi><mi>A</mi></msubsup><mi>B</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>14.64</mn><mi>A</mi><mo>−</mo><mn>14.08</mn><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup><mo>−</mo><mn>0.64</mn><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>Z</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></mfrac></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mo>−</mo><mn>21.07</mn><mfrac><mrow><msup><mrow><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>A</mi><mo>−</mo><mn>2</mn><mi>Z</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mi>A</mi></mfrac><mo>±</mo><mn>11.54</mn><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mrow><msup><mi>A</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>/</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></mfrac><mtext> </mtext><mn>.</mn></mtd></mtr></mtable></math> 5.1 Comparison with tabulated data 2 Fig. 1 Fig. 1 represents a comparison of the binding energies per nucleon that was calculated using the relationship (8), and those given by AME2016 [ 8 8 , 9 9 ]. The calculated results were in good agreement with the data for the mass numbers A & ge;50. However, the figure shows some discrepancy for low masses, particularly in the region of A & le;20. A 3D Plot is presented to facilitate a more suitable comparison, Fig. 2 Fig. 2 . 5.2 Comparison with previous works 2 Table 1 Table 1 shows a compilation of different values of the coefficients that were calculated in previous works. An illustration of the most important ones, a comparison of our results with those of Ref. [ 4 4 ], is depicted in Fig. 3 Fig. 3 . It is important to note that in all references but Ref. [ 4 4 ], the forms of the SEMF that were adopted are slightly different from those that we used and those of Ref. [ 4 4 ],and as such, they cannot be used in the comparison under consideration. 1 1 Coefficients (MeV) 1 1 Year 1 1 a v 1 1 a s 1 1 a c 1 1 a a 1 1 a p 1 1 Present work 1 1 2019 1 1 14.64 1 1 14.08 1 1 00.64 1 1 21.07 1 1 11.54 1 1 Ref. [ 10 10 ] 1 1 2018 1 1 19.12 1 1 18.19 1 1 00.52 1 1 12.54 1 1 28.99 1 1 Ref. [ 11 11 ] 1 1 2007 1 1 15.36 1 1 16.43 1 1 00.69 1 1 22.54 1 1 – 1 1 Ref. [ 4 4 ] 1 1 2005 1 1 15.78 1 1 18.34 1 1 00.71 1 1 23.21 1 1 12.00 1 1 Ref. [ 12 12 ] 1 1 2004 1 1 15.77 1 1 18.34 1 1 00.71 1 1 23.21 1 1 12.00 1 1 Ref. [ 13 13 ] 1 1 1996 1 1 16.24 1 1 18.63 1 1 – 1 1 – 1 1 – 1 1 Ref. [ 14 14 ] 1 1 1958 1 1 15.84 1 1 18.33 1 1 00.18 1 1 23.20 1 1 11.20 It is evident from Fig. 3 Fig. 3 that the binding energies of nuclei that are calculated using the relationship (8) and our calculated coefficients are superior to those obtained using the same relationship and the coefficients of the cited references. However, any discrepancies observed in the same figure can be justified by considering that the data used in this work, i.e., AME2016, are more recent than those used in Ref. [ 4 4 ], i.e., AME2013. 5.3 A glance at the Coulomb energy parameter 2 We can readily demonstrate that the Coulomb energy term can be written as [ 15 15 ] <math display="block" id="M9"><mrow><msub><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>3</mn><mn>5</mn></mfrac><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>e</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>r</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>,</mo></mrow></math> and hence, if we take the mean value of the Coulomb reduced radius r 0 =1.2257 fm [ 16 16 ], the corresponding parameter as determined analytically is a c =0.705 MeV. This parameter is relevant to the binding energy formula because it could be used to control the calculation reliability. However, it should be noted that the value calculated using this approach is only an estimation, given that it depends on modeling considerations. 5.4 Relative Error 2 We will now calculate the percentage error between the predicted and tabulated values: <math display="block" id="M10"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mrow><mo>|</mo><mrow><mi>δ</mi><mi>B</mi></mrow><mo>|</mo></mrow></mrow><mi>B</mi></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mrow><mo>|</mo><mrow><msub><mi>B</mi><mrow><mtext>AME2016</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>B</mi><mrow><mtext>cal</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>|</mo></mrow></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>B</mi><mrow><mtext>AME2016</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>×</mo><mn>100</mn><mi>%</mi><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where B AME2016 and B cal are the tabulated binding energies and those predicted using the relationship (8), respectively. Table 2 Table 2 is a resume of six different categories of the percentage errors between the binding energies predicted using the relationship (8) and AME2016 data [ 8 8 , 9 9 ]. This can also be illustrated in Fig. 4 Fig. 4 where the percentage error is presented versus mass number A . It is evident that the binding energy calculated using the present set of parameters has a range of [0.05%,1.5%]. 1 1 [ A 1 , A 2 ] 1 1 A < 20 1 1 20 A 40 1 1 40 A 50 1 1 50 A 140 1 1 140 A 200 1 1 A 200 1 1 <math id="M11"><mrow><mfrac><mrow><mrow><mo>|</mo><mrow><mi>δ</mi><mi>B</mi></mrow><mo>|</mo></mrow></mrow><mi>B</mi></mfrac><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>%</mi><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow></math> 1 1 ? 1 1 11% 1 1 4% 1 1 ≤1.5% 1 1 0.8% 1 1 Around 0.2% However, the different spikes that appear on the graph should also be considered. This aspect may be understood based on a detailed examination of percentage errors versus atomic number Z , and neutron number N , separately, as shown in Fig. 5 Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 Fig. 6 , where similar spikes appear. Indeed, the different spikes depend on magic nuclei, three for proton Z =50, 82 & 126 and two for neutron N =50, & 82, and the spikes of Fig. 4 Fig. 4 are associated with doubly magic nuclei A =100, 132 & 208 where both protons and neutrons are magic in the same nucleus. It is important to recall that the SEMF as considered in this work using the relationship (1) does not take into account the shell corrections wherein based on the nuclear shell model, the nucleons are arranged in shells so that a filled shell results in greater stability, above all those of the magic nuclei. Thus, an additional term in the formula may considerably reduce or totally remove the effect that causes these spikes to appear in the curves of the percentage errors. 6 CONCLUSION 1 The update performed in the present work on the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula parameters yielded a more accurate estimation of their numerical values. The obtained parameters exhibited excellent agreement with the binding energy of nuclei with A & ge;50. The relative error was in the range of [0.05%, 1.5%] when the mass formula was applied using the updated parameters, compared to the AME2016 data. However, the issue of light nuclei is still present with our new set of parameters. References C.F. von Weizsäcker , Weizsäcker, Zur theorie der kernmassen . Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei 96 , 431 - 458 ( 1935 ). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01337700 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01337700 Weizsäcker, Zur theorie der kernmassen R.D. Evans , The Atomic Nucleus ( McGraw-Hill , Bombay New Delhi , 1955 ) The Atomic Nucleus D. N. Basu , Neutron and proton drip lines using the modified Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula International Journal of Modern Physics E 13 , 747 - 758 ( 2004 ) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301304002491 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301304002491 Neutron and proton drip lines using the modified Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula P.R. Chowdhury , C. Samanta , D.N. Basu , Modified Bethe-Weizsacker mass formula with isotonic shift and new driplines . Modern Physics Letters A 20 , 1605 - 1618 ( 2005 ) https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773230501666X https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773230501666X Modified Bethe-Weizsacker mass formula with isotonic shift and new driplines N. Piskounov , Calcul différentiel et intégral , vol. 1 ( MIR , Moscow , 1980 ), pp. 328 - 332 Calcul différentiel et intégral B. Demidovitch , I. Marov , Eléments de calcul numérique , ( MIR , Moscow , 1973 ), pp. 272 - 281 Eléments de calcul numérique G. Audi , The history of nuclidic masses and of their evaluation . International Journal of Mass Spectrometry , 251 , 85 - 94 ( 2006 ) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2006.01.048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2006.01.048 The history of nuclidic masses and of their evaluation W.J. Huang , G. Audi , M. Wang , et al ., The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (I) . Evaluation of input data; and adjustment procedures. Chinese Physics C 41 , 030002 ( 2017 ) https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030002 The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (I) M. Wang , G. Audi , F.G. Kondev , et al ., The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II) . Tables, graphs and references. Chinese Physics C 41 , 030003 ( 2017 ) https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030003 The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II) H.A. Bethe , R. F. Bacher , Stationary states of nuclei . Reviews of Modern Physics 8 , 82 - 229 ( 1936 ). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.8.82 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.8.82 Stationary states of nuclei S.Cht. Mavrodiev , M.A. Deliyergiyev , Modification of the nuclear landscape in the inverse problem framework using the generalized Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula . International Journal of Modern Physics E , 27 , 1850015 ( 2018 ) https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318500155 https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301318500155 Modification of the nuclear landscape in the inverse problem framework using the generalized Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula M. W. Kirson , Mutual influence of terms in a semi-empirical mass formula , Nuclear Physics A , 798 , 29 - 60 ( 2008 ) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.011 Mutual influence of terms in a semi-empirical mass formula C. Samanta , S. Adhikuri , Shell effect in Pb isotopes near the proton drip line , Nuclear Physics A 738 491 - 494 ( 2004 ) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.04.094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.04.094 Shell effect in Pb isotopes near the proton drip line W.D. Myers , W.J. Swiatecki MYERS , Nuclear properties according to the Thomas-Fermi model , Nuclear Physics A , 601 , 141 - 167 ( 1996 ) Nuclear properties according to the Thomas-Fermi model A.H. Wapstra , Encyclopedia of Physics , ( Flügge , Berlin , 1958 ), pp. 1 - 37 Encyclopedia of Physics G. Royer , A. Subercaze , Coefficients of different macro-microscopic mass formulae from the AME2012 atomic mass evaluation . Nuclear Physics A 917 1 - 14 ( 2013 ). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.09.003 Coefficients of different macro-microscopic mass formulae from the AME2012 atomic mass evaluation 10.1007/s41365-019-0718-8 2019-09-26 2019-11-13 2019-11-18 2020-01-03 2020-01-01 2021-04-10 © China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChineseNuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nuclear Science and Techniques. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-019-0718-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-019-0718-8 . 2020 Nuclear Science and Techniques 1 31