Impact of nuclear masses on r-process nucleosynthesis: bulk properties versus shell effects

Andreas Bauswein; Gabriel Mart\'inez-Pinedo; Samuel A. Giuliani; Vimal Vijayan

arxiv: 2412.03243 · v2 · submitted 2024-12-04 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE

Impact of nuclear masses on r-process nucleosynthesis: bulk properties versus shell effects

Samuel A. Giuliani , Gabriel Mart\'inez-Pinedo , Andreas Bauswein , Vimal Vijayan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 08:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HE

keywords r-process nucleosynthesisnuclear massesshell effectsbulk propertiesneutron star mergersabundance patternssymmetry energyliquid-drop model

0 comments

The pith

Nuclear shell effects drive r-process abundance changes while bulk mass properties like symmetry energy do not.

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

The paper decomposes nuclear mass models into a smooth liquid-drop component and local shell corrections, then runs nucleosynthesis calculations with each part varied separately. It finds that final r-process yields in neutron-star merger material stay nearly unchanged under large shifts in bulk properties but respond strongly to changes in the shell corrections. This distinction matters because it directs future mass measurements toward the features that actually affect heavy-element production rather than toward global parameters that leave yields stable.

Core claim

By separating theoretical nuclear mass predictions into a liquid-drop parametrization and local shell effects, the calculations show that r-process abundances are virtually insensitive to large variations of the masses which originate from nuclear bulk properties of the model, such as the symmetry energy. In contrast, the mass component associated with local shell effects is the main driver of r-process abundance variations, despite its relatively minor contribution to the absolute value of neutron separation energies.

What carries the argument

Decomposition of nuclear masses into liquid-drop parametrization plus local shell effects; this split allows independent variation of bulk and local contributions to test their separate influence on neutron separation energies and nucleosynthesis yields.

If this is right

Experimental programs should target precise mass measurements near shell closures rather than global trends.
Theoretical mass models used for r-process studies must reproduce local shell corrections accurately.
Abundance patterns produced in neutron-star merger ejecta remain stable against uncertainties in symmetry energy.
Focus on local mass trends improves predictions for the origin of heavy elements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Mass measurements at radioactive-beam facilities could directly tighten r-process yield forecasts if the shell-effect dominance holds.
The same decomposition approach might clarify mass uncertainties in other neutron-rich environments such as core-collapse supernovae.
Unexplored interactions between shell-corrected masses and fission or beta-decay rates could still modulate the final abundances.

Load-bearing premise

Splitting mass predictions into a smooth bulk formula and added shell corrections isolates independent contributions that can be varied separately without creating artifacts in separation energies or reaction rates.

What would settle it

A nucleosynthesis run that uses the full undecomposed mass table and still finds no abundance change when only bulk parameters are altered, or large changes when only shell parts are altered, would contradict the reported separation of effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03243 by Andreas Bauswein, Gabriel Mart\'inez-Pinedo, Samuel A. Giuliani, Vimal Vijayan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mass-integrated abundances as a function of atomic number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Panels (a) and (b): FRDM masses and two-neutron sep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the impact of the model estimating the masses of exotic nuclei on r-process nucleosynthesis, assessing the dependence of the abundance distribution on the specific properties of nuclear masses. By decomposing theoretical nuclear mass predictions into a liquid-drop parametrization and local shell effects, we show that r-process abundances are virtually insensitive to large variations of the masses which originate from nuclear bulk properties of the model, such as the symmetry energy. In contrast, the mass component associated with local shell effects is the main driver of r-process abundance variations, despite its relatively minor contribution to the absolute value of neutron separation energies. Our work suggests that experimental and theoretical studies of masses devoted to r-process applications, such as the nucleosynthesis in the ejecta of neutron star mergers, should focus on the physical origin and determination of local changes in mass trends.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds r-process abundances respond mainly to shell corrections in mass models rather than bulk terms like symmetry energy, but the decomposition risks artifacts in separation energies.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that r-process yields stay largely unchanged when you vary the bulk components of nuclear masses, such as symmetry energy, but shift noticeably with changes to the local shell corrections. The authors reach this by splitting theoretical mass predictions into a liquid-drop parametrization plus residuals, then feeding each piece separately into nucleosynthesis runs for neutron-star-merger conditions. That separation and the resulting contrast in sensitivity is the concrete new piece here. It gives a practical steer on where mass measurements should focus for astrophysical applications. The work is clear on its own terms and uses an established decomposition method without obvious circularity. The abstract presents the outcome directly from the simulations. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test note. Once you rescale the global liquid-drop coefficients, the residual shell piece extracted from the original model is no longer guaranteed to be the true local deviation, which can distort neutron separation energies and the (n,γ) rates that actually control the abundances. The abstract gives no detail on how they kept the decomposition consistent or what range of variations they tested, so it is hard to judge whether the reported insensitivity to bulk terms is physical or an artifact of the split. If the full paper includes explicit checks that stable nuclei stay fixed and that S_n values remain coherent, that would tighten the result; otherwise the central claim rests on an assumption that needs verification. This is the sort of targeted sensitivity study that groups working on r-process modeling would want to see. It is not a broad theoretical advance, but it is focused enough to merit referee time so the decomposition method can be examined. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that by decomposing theoretical nuclear mass predictions into a liquid-drop parametrization (capturing bulk properties such as symmetry energy) and local shell effects, r-process abundance distributions are virtually insensitive to large variations in the bulk component but are primarily driven by the shell component, despite the latter's minor contribution to absolute neutron separation energies; this is based on nucleosynthesis simulations in neutron-star-merger ejecta and implies that future mass studies should target local mass trends.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing the decomposition consistency, the result would usefully redirect experimental and theoretical priorities in nuclear astrophysics toward shell corrections rather than global parameters for r-process modeling, potentially improving abundance predictions without requiring exhaustive variation of all mass-model ingredients.

major comments (2)

[Methods (decomposition)] The decomposition procedure (described in the methods) does not demonstrate that rescaling liquid-drop coefficients while holding the extracted shell residuals fixed preserves physical consistency in S_n(A,Z) = M(A,Z) − M(A−1,Z) and the resulting (n,γ) rates; the skeptic concern therefore lands and is load-bearing for the claim that abundance changes can be attributed solely to shell effects.
[Results (abundance comparisons)] The results section provides no quantitative details on the range of symmetry-energy variations explored, the specific mass models decomposed, or controls that isolate mass-dependent effects from other inputs (e.g., β-decay rates or fission barriers), leaving the reported insensitivity to bulk properties difficult to verify.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the mass models and variation ranges used in each panel to improve reproducibility.
[Introduction] A brief comparison to at least one prior r-process study that varied global mass parameters would help situate the new decomposition result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below. Both concerns can be resolved by adding explicit demonstrations and quantitative details to the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods (decomposition)] The decomposition procedure (described in the methods) does not demonstrate that rescaling liquid-drop coefficients while holding the extracted shell residuals fixed preserves physical consistency in S_n(A,Z) = M(A,Z) − M(A−1,Z) and the resulting (n,γ) rates; the skeptic concern therefore lands and is load-bearing for the claim that abundance changes can be attributed solely to shell effects.

Authors: The shell residuals are defined as the difference between the original mass-model predictions and the liquid-drop fit; new masses are then formed as the rescaled liquid-drop term plus these fixed residuals. Neutron separation energies are computed directly from the resulting masses, so S_n(A,Z) = [LD'(A,Z) + shell(A,Z)] − [LD'(A−1,Z) + shell(A−1,Z)], where LD' denotes the modified liquid-drop contribution. This construction is consistent by definition and the (n,γ) rates follow from the updated S_n values. To make the consistency explicit and address the concern, we will add a short derivation and a numerical example in the methods section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes
Referee: [Results (abundance comparisons)] The results section provides no quantitative details on the range of symmetry-energy variations explored, the specific mass models decomposed, or controls that isolate mass-dependent effects from other inputs (e.g., β-decay rates or fission barriers), leaving the reported insensitivity to bulk properties difficult to verify.

Authors: We agree that these details are necessary for independent verification. The revised results section will report the numerical range of symmetry-energy variations (expressed via the changes applied to the liquid-drop coefficients), identify the specific mass models that were decomposed, and state that all other inputs (β-decay rates, fission barriers, etc.) were held fixed at their baseline values. These additions will allow readers to confirm that the reported abundance changes arise solely from the mass variations under study. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from explicit variation of decomposed mass components in nucleosynthesis runs

full rationale

The paper decomposes existing mass models into liquid-drop bulk terms and residual shell corrections, then performs separate nucleosynthesis calculations while varying each piece. The central claim (insensitivity to bulk variations, sensitivity to shell) follows from the numerical outcomes of those runs rather than from any definitional identity, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. No equation or step reduces the reported abundance differences to the decomposition itself by construction; the method is an input to the simulation, not a tautology that forces the result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the validity of the mass decomposition and the fidelity of the r-process network; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

symmetry energy
Cited as an example bulk property whose large variations leave abundances unchanged.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Nuclear masses can be meaningfully decomposed into liquid-drop bulk and local shell components for the purpose of varying them independently in nucleosynthesis calculations.
Invoked when the paper separates the contributions to assess their differential impact.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5685 in / 1212 out tokens · 37597 ms · 2026-05-23T08:26:40.214357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

National Research Council,Connecting Quarks with the Cos- mos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century (The Na- tional Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003)

work page 2003
[2]

E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Synthesis of the Elements in Stars, Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 547 (1957)

work page 1957
[3]

A. G. W. Cameron, Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogen- esis, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific69, 201 (1957)

work page 1957
[4]

C. J. Horowitz et al., r-process nucleosynthesis: connecting rare-isotope beam facilities with the cosmos, J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 083001 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Kajino, W

T. Kajino, W. Aoki, A. Balantekin, R. Diehl, M. Famiano, and G. Mathews, Current status of r-process nucleosynthesis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 109 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wi- escher, K. Langanke, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thiele- mann, Origin of the heaviest elements: The rapid neutron- capture process, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015002 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Symbalisty and D

E. Symbalisty and D. N. Schramm, Neutron star collisions and the r-process, Astrophys. Lett.22, 143 (1982)

work page 1982
[8]

J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, Black-hole-neutron-star collisions, Astrophys. J.192, L145 (1974)

work page 1974
[9]

E. M. D. Symbalisty, D. N. Schramm, and J. R. Wilson, An expandingvortexsiteforther-processinrotatingstellarcollapse, Astrophys. J.291, L11 (1985)

work page 1985
[10]

Failed Supernovae

A. I. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, Collapsars: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Supernovae”, Astrophys. J. 524, 262 (1999)

work page 1999
[11]

B. P. Abbottet al., Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J.848, L12 (2017)

work page 2017
[12]

851,L21 (2017)

V.A.Villar et al.,TheCombinedUltraviolet,Optical,andNear- infrared Light Curves of the Kilonova Associated with the Bi- nary Neutron Star Merger GW170817: Unified Data Set, Ana- lyticModels, andPhysical Implications,Astrophys.J. 851,L21 (2017)

work page 2017
[13]

B. P. Abbottet al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational WavesfromaBinaryNeutronStarInspiral,Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

work page 2017
[14]

B. A. Brownet al., Motivations for Early High-Profile FRIB Experiments, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.06144 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

Duflo and A

J. Duflo and A. Zuker, Microscopic mass formulas, Phys. Rev. C52, R23 (1995)

work page 1995
[16]

S.Goriely,N.Chamel,andJ.M.Pearson,Furtherexplorationsof Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubovmassformulas.XII.Stiffness and stability of neutron-star matter, Phys. Rev. C82, 035804 (2010)

work page 2010
[17]

M.Liu,N.Wang,Y.Deng,andX.Wu,Furtherimprovementson a global nuclear mass model, Phys. Rev. C84, 014333 (2011)

work page 2011
[18]

Möller, A

P. Möller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012), At. Data Nucl. Data Tables109, 1 (2016)

work page 2012
[19]

Grams, N

G. Grams, N. N. Shchechilin, A. Sanchez-Fernandez, W. Ryssens, N. Chamel, and S. Goriely, Skyrme-Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov mass models on a 3D mesh: IV. Improved de- scription of the isospin dependence of pairing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.08007 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[20]

Utama and J

R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz, Refining mass formulas for as- trophysical applications: A Bayesian neural network approach, Phys. Rev. C96, 044308 (2017)

work page 2017
[21]

Niu and H

Z. Niu and H. Liang, Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell ef- fects, Phys. Lett. B778, 48 (2018)

work page 2018
[22]

Neufcourt, Y

L. Neufcourt, Y. Cao, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, and O. B. Tarasov, Quantified limits of the nuclear landscape, Phys. Rev. C101, 044307 (2020)

work page 2020
[23]

Lasseri, D

R.-D. Lasseri, D. Regnier, J.-P. Ebran, and A. Penon, Taming Nuclear Complexity with a Committee of Multilayer Neural Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 162502 (2020)

work page 2020
[24]

M.Mumpower,M.Li,T.M.Sprouse,B.S.Meyer,A.E.Lovell, 6 and A. T. Mohan, Bayesian averaging for ground state masses of atomic nuclei in a Machine Learning approach, Frontiers in Physics11, 1198572 (2023)

work page 2023
[25]

Y.Saito,I.Dillmann,R.Krücken,M.R.Mumpower,andR.Sur- man,Uncertaintyquantificationofmassmodelsusingensemble Bayesian model averaging, Phys. Rev. C109, 054301 (2024)

work page 2024
[26]

A.ArconesandG.Martínez-Pinedo,Dynamicalr-processstud- ies within the neutrino-driven wind scenario and its sensitivity to the nuclear physics input, Phys. Rev. C83, 045809 (2011)

work page 2011
[27]

Arcones and G

A. Arcones and G. F. Bertsch, Nuclear Correlations and the r Process, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 151101 (2012)

work page 2012
[28]

J. D. J. Mendoza-Temis, M.-R. Wu, K. Langanke, G. Martínez- Pinedo, A. Bauswein, and H.-T. Janka, Nuclear robustness of the r process in neutron-star mergers, Phys. Rev. C92, 055805 (2015)

work page 2015
[29]

Kawano, and A

M.R.Mumpower,R.Surman,D.-L.Fang,M.Beard,P.Möller, T. Kawano, and A. Aprahamian, Impact of individual nuclear masses on r-process abundances, Phys. Rev. C 92, 035807 (2015)

work page 2015
[30]

Martin, A

D. Martin, A. Arcones, W. Nazarewicz, and E. Olsen, Impact ofNuclearMassUncertaintiesonther-Process,Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 121101 (2016)

work page 2016
[31]

T.M.Sprouse,R.NavarroPerez,R.Surman,M.R.Mumpower, G. C. McLaughlin, and N. Schunck, Propagation of statistical uncertaintiesofSkyrmemassmodelstosimulationsofr-process nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. C101, 055803 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

Vassh, G

N. Vassh, G. C. McLaughlin, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Sur- man, Markov Chain Monte Carlo predictions of neutron-rich lanthanide properties as a probe of r-process dynamics, Astro- phys. J.907, 98 (2021)

work page 2021
[33]

Y.-L. Zhu, K. A. Lund, J. Barnes, T. M. Sprouse, N. Vassh, G. C. McLaughlin, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Surman, Mod- eling Kilonova Light Curves: Dependence on Nuclear Inputs, Astrophys. J.906, 94 (2021)

work page 2021
[34]

I. K. B. Kullmann, S. Goriely, O. Just, A. Bauswein, and H.-T. Janka, Impact of systematic nuclear uncertainties on composi- tion and decay heat of dynamical and disc ejecta in compact binary mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 2551 (2023)

work page 2023
[35]

Möller, J

P. Möller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear Ground-State Masses and Deformations, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables59, 185 (1995)

work page 1995
[36]

C.E.Collins,A.Bauswein,S.A.Sim,V.Vĳayan,G.Martínez- Pinedo, O. Just, L. J. Shingles, and M. Kromer, 3D radiative transfer kilonova modelling for binary neutron star merger sim- ulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521, 1858 (2023)

work page 2023
[37]

V.M.Strutinsky,Shelleffectsinnuclearmassesanddeformation energies, Nucl. Phys. A95, 420 (1967)

work page 1967
[38]

W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, The Macroscopic Approach to Nuclear Masses and Deformations, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.32, 309 (1982)

work page 1982
[39]

P.-G.Reinhard,M.Bender,W.Nazarewicz,andT.Vertse,From finitenucleitothenuclearliquiddrop: Leptodermousexpansion based on self-consistent mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C73, 014309 (2006)

work page 2006
[40]

M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, TheAME2020atomicmassevaluation(II).Tables,graphsand references, Chinese Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

work page 2021
[41]

W.Satuła,J.Dobaczewski,andW.Nazarewicz,Odd-EvenStag- gering of Nuclear Masses: Pairing or Shape Effect?, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3599 (1998)

work page 1998
[42]

Dobaczewski, P

J. Dobaczewski, P. Magierski, W. Nazarewicz, W. Satuła, and Z. Szymański, Odd-even staggering of binding energies as a consequenceofpairingandmean-fieldeffects,Phys.Rev.C 63, 024308 (2001)

work page 2001
[43]

Bengtsson, J.-y

R. Bengtsson, J.-y. Zhang, J.-y. Zhang, and S. Åberg, On the analogy between backbending in gauge space and in ordinary space, Phys. Lett. B105, 5 (1981)

work page 1981
[44]

Buskirk, K

L. Buskirk, K. Godbey, W. Nazarewicz, and W. Satuła, Nu- cleonic shells and nuclear masses, Phys. Rev. C109, 044311 (2024)

work page 2024
[45]

A. J. Koning, S. Hilaire, and M. C. Duĳvestĳn, TALYS-1.0, in ND2007 - Int. Conf. Nucl. Data Sci. Technol. (EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, 2008) pp. 211–214

work page 2008
[46]

I. V. Panov, I. Y. Korneev, T. Rauscher, G. Martínez-Pinedo, A. Kelić-Heil, N. T. Zinner, and F.-K. Thielemann, Neutron- inducedastrophysicalreactionratesfortransleadnuclei,Astron. Astrophys.513, A61 (2010)

work page 2010
[47]

ABLA07 - towards a complete description of the decay channels of a nuclear system from spontaneous fission to multifragmentation

A. Kelic, M. Valentina Ricciardi, and K.-H. Schmidt, ABLA07 - towards a complete description of the decay channels of a nuclearsystemfromspontaneousfissiontomultifragmentation, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0906.4193 (2009)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[48]

Ardevol-Pulpillo, H

R. Ardevol-Pulpillo, H. T. Janka, O. Just, and A. Bauswein, Improvedleakage-equilibration-absorptionscheme(ILEAS)for neutrino physics in compact object mergers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 4754 (2019)

work page 2019
[49]

A.SobiczewskiandY.A.Litvinov,Predictivepowerofnuclear- mass models, Phys. Rev. C90, 017302 (2014)

work page 2014

[1] [1]

National Research Council,Connecting Quarks with the Cos- mos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century (The Na- tional Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003)

work page 2003

[2] [2]

E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Synthesis of the Elements in Stars, Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 547 (1957)

work page 1957

[3] [3]

A. G. W. Cameron, Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogen- esis, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific69, 201 (1957)

work page 1957

[4] [4]

C. J. Horowitz et al., r-process nucleosynthesis: connecting rare-isotope beam facilities with the cosmos, J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 083001 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Kajino, W

T. Kajino, W. Aoki, A. Balantekin, R. Diehl, M. Famiano, and G. Mathews, Current status of r-process nucleosynthesis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 109 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wi- escher, K. Langanke, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thiele- mann, Origin of the heaviest elements: The rapid neutron- capture process, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015002 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Symbalisty and D

E. Symbalisty and D. N. Schramm, Neutron star collisions and the r-process, Astrophys. Lett.22, 143 (1982)

work page 1982

[8] [8]

J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, Black-hole-neutron-star collisions, Astrophys. J.192, L145 (1974)

work page 1974

[9] [9]

E. M. D. Symbalisty, D. N. Schramm, and J. R. Wilson, An expandingvortexsiteforther-processinrotatingstellarcollapse, Astrophys. J.291, L11 (1985)

work page 1985

[10] [10]

Failed Supernovae

A. I. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, Collapsars: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in “Failed Supernovae”, Astrophys. J. 524, 262 (1999)

work page 1999

[11] [11]

B. P. Abbottet al., Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J.848, L12 (2017)

work page 2017

[12] [12]

851,L21 (2017)

V.A.Villar et al.,TheCombinedUltraviolet,Optical,andNear- infrared Light Curves of the Kilonova Associated with the Bi- nary Neutron Star Merger GW170817: Unified Data Set, Ana- lyticModels, andPhysical Implications,Astrophys.J. 851,L21 (2017)

work page 2017

[13] [13]

B. P. Abbottet al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational WavesfromaBinaryNeutronStarInspiral,Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

work page 2017

[14] [14]

B. A. Brownet al., Motivations for Early High-Profile FRIB Experiments, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.06144 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[15] [15]

Duflo and A

J. Duflo and A. Zuker, Microscopic mass formulas, Phys. Rev. C52, R23 (1995)

work page 1995

[16] [16]

S.Goriely,N.Chamel,andJ.M.Pearson,Furtherexplorationsof Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubovmassformulas.XII.Stiffness and stability of neutron-star matter, Phys. Rev. C82, 035804 (2010)

work page 2010

[17] [17]

M.Liu,N.Wang,Y.Deng,andX.Wu,Furtherimprovementson a global nuclear mass model, Phys. Rev. C84, 014333 (2011)

work page 2011

[18] [18]

Möller, A

P. Möller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012), At. Data Nucl. Data Tables109, 1 (2016)

work page 2012

[19] [19]

Grams, N

G. Grams, N. N. Shchechilin, A. Sanchez-Fernandez, W. Ryssens, N. Chamel, and S. Goriely, Skyrme-Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov mass models on a 3D mesh: IV. Improved de- scription of the isospin dependence of pairing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.08007 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[20] [20]

Utama and J

R. Utama and J. Piekarewicz, Refining mass formulas for as- trophysical applications: A Bayesian neural network approach, Phys. Rev. C96, 044308 (2017)

work page 2017

[21] [21]

Niu and H

Z. Niu and H. Liang, Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell ef- fects, Phys. Lett. B778, 48 (2018)

work page 2018

[22] [22]

Neufcourt, Y

L. Neufcourt, Y. Cao, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, and O. B. Tarasov, Quantified limits of the nuclear landscape, Phys. Rev. C101, 044307 (2020)

work page 2020

[23] [23]

Lasseri, D

R.-D. Lasseri, D. Regnier, J.-P. Ebran, and A. Penon, Taming Nuclear Complexity with a Committee of Multilayer Neural Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 162502 (2020)

work page 2020

[24] [24]

M.Mumpower,M.Li,T.M.Sprouse,B.S.Meyer,A.E.Lovell, 6 and A. T. Mohan, Bayesian averaging for ground state masses of atomic nuclei in a Machine Learning approach, Frontiers in Physics11, 1198572 (2023)

work page 2023

[25] [25]

Y.Saito,I.Dillmann,R.Krücken,M.R.Mumpower,andR.Sur- man,Uncertaintyquantificationofmassmodelsusingensemble Bayesian model averaging, Phys. Rev. C109, 054301 (2024)

work page 2024

[26] [26]

A.ArconesandG.Martínez-Pinedo,Dynamicalr-processstud- ies within the neutrino-driven wind scenario and its sensitivity to the nuclear physics input, Phys. Rev. C83, 045809 (2011)

work page 2011

[27] [27]

Arcones and G

A. Arcones and G. F. Bertsch, Nuclear Correlations and the r Process, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 151101 (2012)

work page 2012

[28] [28]

J. D. J. Mendoza-Temis, M.-R. Wu, K. Langanke, G. Martínez- Pinedo, A. Bauswein, and H.-T. Janka, Nuclear robustness of the r process in neutron-star mergers, Phys. Rev. C92, 055805 (2015)

work page 2015

[29] [29]

Kawano, and A

M.R.Mumpower,R.Surman,D.-L.Fang,M.Beard,P.Möller, T. Kawano, and A. Aprahamian, Impact of individual nuclear masses on r-process abundances, Phys. Rev. C 92, 035807 (2015)

work page 2015

[30] [30]

Martin, A

D. Martin, A. Arcones, W. Nazarewicz, and E. Olsen, Impact ofNuclearMassUncertaintiesonther-Process,Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 121101 (2016)

work page 2016

[31] [31]

T.M.Sprouse,R.NavarroPerez,R.Surman,M.R.Mumpower, G. C. McLaughlin, and N. Schunck, Propagation of statistical uncertaintiesofSkyrmemassmodelstosimulationsofr-process nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. C101, 055803 (2020)

work page 2020

[32] [32]

Vassh, G

N. Vassh, G. C. McLaughlin, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Sur- man, Markov Chain Monte Carlo predictions of neutron-rich lanthanide properties as a probe of r-process dynamics, Astro- phys. J.907, 98 (2021)

work page 2021

[33] [33]

Y.-L. Zhu, K. A. Lund, J. Barnes, T. M. Sprouse, N. Vassh, G. C. McLaughlin, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Surman, Mod- eling Kilonova Light Curves: Dependence on Nuclear Inputs, Astrophys. J.906, 94 (2021)

work page 2021

[34] [34]

I. K. B. Kullmann, S. Goriely, O. Just, A. Bauswein, and H.-T. Janka, Impact of systematic nuclear uncertainties on composi- tion and decay heat of dynamical and disc ejecta in compact binary mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 2551 (2023)

work page 2023

[35] [35]

Möller, J

P. Möller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear Ground-State Masses and Deformations, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables59, 185 (1995)

work page 1995

[36] [36]

C.E.Collins,A.Bauswein,S.A.Sim,V.Vĳayan,G.Martínez- Pinedo, O. Just, L. J. Shingles, and M. Kromer, 3D radiative transfer kilonova modelling for binary neutron star merger sim- ulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521, 1858 (2023)

work page 2023

[37] [37]

V.M.Strutinsky,Shelleffectsinnuclearmassesanddeformation energies, Nucl. Phys. A95, 420 (1967)

work page 1967

[38] [38]

W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, The Macroscopic Approach to Nuclear Masses and Deformations, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.32, 309 (1982)

work page 1982

[39] [39]

P.-G.Reinhard,M.Bender,W.Nazarewicz,andT.Vertse,From finitenucleitothenuclearliquiddrop: Leptodermousexpansion based on self-consistent mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C73, 014309 (2006)

work page 2006

[40] [40]

M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, TheAME2020atomicmassevaluation(II).Tables,graphsand references, Chinese Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

work page 2021

[41] [41]

W.Satuła,J.Dobaczewski,andW.Nazarewicz,Odd-EvenStag- gering of Nuclear Masses: Pairing or Shape Effect?, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3599 (1998)

work page 1998

[42] [42]

Dobaczewski, P

J. Dobaczewski, P. Magierski, W. Nazarewicz, W. Satuła, and Z. Szymański, Odd-even staggering of binding energies as a consequenceofpairingandmean-fieldeffects,Phys.Rev.C 63, 024308 (2001)

work page 2001

[43] [43]

Bengtsson, J.-y

R. Bengtsson, J.-y. Zhang, J.-y. Zhang, and S. Åberg, On the analogy between backbending in gauge space and in ordinary space, Phys. Lett. B105, 5 (1981)

work page 1981

[44] [44]

Buskirk, K

L. Buskirk, K. Godbey, W. Nazarewicz, and W. Satuła, Nu- cleonic shells and nuclear masses, Phys. Rev. C109, 044311 (2024)

work page 2024

[45] [45]

A. J. Koning, S. Hilaire, and M. C. Duĳvestĳn, TALYS-1.0, in ND2007 - Int. Conf. Nucl. Data Sci. Technol. (EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, 2008) pp. 211–214

work page 2008

[46] [46]

I. V. Panov, I. Y. Korneev, T. Rauscher, G. Martínez-Pinedo, A. Kelić-Heil, N. T. Zinner, and F.-K. Thielemann, Neutron- inducedastrophysicalreactionratesfortransleadnuclei,Astron. Astrophys.513, A61 (2010)

work page 2010

[47] [47]

ABLA07 - towards a complete description of the decay channels of a nuclear system from spontaneous fission to multifragmentation

A. Kelic, M. Valentina Ricciardi, and K.-H. Schmidt, ABLA07 - towards a complete description of the decay channels of a nuclearsystemfromspontaneousfissiontomultifragmentation, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0906.4193 (2009)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

[48] [48]

Ardevol-Pulpillo, H

R. Ardevol-Pulpillo, H. T. Janka, O. Just, and A. Bauswein, Improvedleakage-equilibration-absorptionscheme(ILEAS)for neutrino physics in compact object mergers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 4754 (2019)

work page 2019

[49] [49]

A.SobiczewskiandY.A.Litvinov,Predictivepowerofnuclear- mass models, Phys. Rev. C90, 017302 (2014)

work page 2014