Paper detail

Assessing the accuracy of Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations by use of mass relations

The accuracy of three different sets of Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations of nuclear binding energies is systematically evaluated. To emphasize minor fluctuations, a second order, four-point mass relation, which almost completely eliminates smooth aspects of the binding energy, is introduced. Applying this mass relation yields more scattered results for the calculated binding energies. By examining the Gaussian distributions of the non-smooth aspects which remain, structural differences can be detected between measured and calculated binding energies. Substructures in regions of rapidly changing deformation, specifically around $(N,Z)=(60,40)$ and $(90,60)$, are clearly seen for the measured values, but are missing from the calculations. A similar three-point mass relation is used to emphasize odd-even effects. A clear decrease with neutron excess is seen continuing outside the experimentally known region for the calculations.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.