pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30519 · v1 · pith:X26OGKT5new · submitted 2026-06-29 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Bayesian Analysis with Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Global Optimization and Degeneracy Diagnosis in Nuclear Mass Models

Xiangnan Lee , Yi Hua Lam , Zi-Ao Zhang , Jayke Ren This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 03:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords nuclear mass modelsBayesian analysisMarkov chain Monte Carlobinding energiesBethe-Weizsacker formulaparameter degeneracydeformation corrections
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian MCMC analysis optimizes nuclear mass models and diagnoses parameter degeneracies, yielding the BWL model with 759 keV RMS deviation from 2242 experimental binding energies.

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

The paper uses full Bayesian analysis with adaptive Metropolis-Hastings Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling to examine posterior distributions of energy term strengths in Bethe-Weizsäcker variant nuclear mass models. It diagnoses strong correlations among parameters for certain models and introduces the BWL model that adds quadrupole and high-multipole deformation plus shell corrections. This method optimizes all considered models and produces improved mass predictions, especially for light nuclei and actinides, while offering a general tool for future model development.

Core claim

Full Bayesian analysis via adaptive Metropolis-Hastings MCMC sampling reveals parameter degeneracies through posterior distributions in Bethe-Weizsäcker variants and supports the BWL model, which incorporates quadrupole and high-multipole deformation and shell corrections to reach a root-mean-square deviation of 759 keV against 2242 AME2020 experimental binding energies.

What carries the argument

Adaptive Metropolis-Hastings Markov chain Monte Carlo (BA-MCMC) sampling to explore posterior probability distributions of model parameters and diagnose degeneracies.

If this is right

  • BWL improves mass descriptions specifically in the light-nuclei and actinide regions relative to prior variants.
  • BA-MCMC supplies a systematic way to identify and handle parameter degeneracies in nuclear mass models.
  • The same sampling approach can be used to optimize additional macroscopic-microscopic mass models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Applying BA-MCMC to other families of nuclear models could uncover similar hidden degeneracies not visible in least-squares fits.
  • Lower RMS deviations from the BWL approach may translate to more reliable inputs for calculations of nuclear reaction rates or astrophysical processes.
  • Extending the model with additional microscopic corrections could be tested by repeating the MCMC analysis on the enlarged parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The adaptive Metropolis-Hastings MCMC sampling has converged sufficiently and the chosen priors and model variants introduce no systematic bias into the posterior distributions.

What would settle it

Comparison of BWL mass predictions for nuclei whose binding energies were measured after AME2020 against those new experimental values would test whether the 759 keV RMS deviation persists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30519 by Jayke Ren, Xiangnan Lee, Yi Hua Lam, Zi-Ao Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Posterior distributions for 4 parameters of the BW* nuclear mass model. The 2-dimensional (2D) contour levels indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions for all 11 parameters of the BWK* nuclear mass model. The most probable distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior distributions for all 15 parameters of the BWN* nuclear mass model. The most probable distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distributions of all 18 parameters of the BWL* nuclear mass model. The most probable distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Deviations of nuclear binding energies between AME2020 and BW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Root mean square deviations (RMSs) of comparing experimental and theoretical binding energies from BW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We employ a full Bayesian analysis with adaptive Metropolis-Hastings Markov chain Monte Carlo (BA-MCMC) sampling to systematically study the posterior probability distributions of the strengths of energy terms in optimized nuclear mass models of Bethe-Weizs\"{a}cker variants. Strong correlations of some energy terms for some mass models are revealed through the parameter degeneracy diagnosis. We analyze selected refined models to determine parameter degeneracies while proposing a new macroscopic-microscopic mass model, BWL, which considers quadrupole and high-multipole deformation and shell corrections. All mass models in this work are analyzed and optimized through the BA-MCMC method. Compared with 2242 precise experimental binding energies of AME2020, BWL produces a root-mean-square deviation of 759 keV, particularly improving the description of masses in the light-nuclei and actinide regions. BA-MCMC offers robust inference on parameter degeneracy while providing an optimization method for future nuclear mass models.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript employs Bayesian analysis with adaptive Metropolis-Hastings MCMC (BA-MCMC) sampling to optimize the parameters of Bethe-Weizsäcker-type nuclear mass models, diagnose parameter degeneracies via posterior correlations, and introduce a new macroscopic-microscopic model (BWL) that incorporates quadrupole/high-multipole deformation and shell corrections. It reports that BWL achieves an RMS deviation of 759 keV against 2242 AME2020 experimental binding energies, with noted improvements for light nuclei and actinides.

Significance. A properly validated BA-MCMC framework could strengthen parameter optimization and degeneracy analysis in nuclear mass models by providing posterior distributions rather than point estimates. The reported 759 keV RMS and regional improvements would be noteworthy if the sampling is shown to have converged; however, the current lack of supporting diagnostics leaves the performance claims without verifiable grounding.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and methods] Abstract and methods description: no quantitative MCMC convergence diagnostics (Gelman-Rubin statistic, effective sample size, autocorrelation times, or trace plots) are reported for the adaptive Metropolis-Hastings chains. Because the 759 keV RMS result, the claimed regional improvements, and the degeneracy diagnosis all rest on the posterior having been adequately sampled, this omission is load-bearing for the central claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the need for MCMC convergence diagnostics. We agree this is a substantive omission that affects the verifiability of our central claims. In the revised manuscript we will add the requested diagnostics and associated discussion. Our point-by-point response follows.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and methods] Abstract and methods description: no quantitative MCMC convergence diagnostics (Gelman-Rubin statistic, effective sample size, autocorrelation times, or trace plots) are reported for the adaptive Metropolis-Hastings chains. Because the 759 keV RMS result, the claimed regional improvements, and the degeneracy diagnosis all rest on the posterior having been adequately sampled, this omission is load-bearing for the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of quantitative convergence diagnostics is a significant gap. The original manuscript did not report Gelman-Rubin statistics, effective sample sizes, autocorrelation times, or trace plots. In the revised version we will insert a dedicated subsection (Methods, new subsection 2.3) that presents these diagnostics for all chains used to produce the BWL results and the degeneracy analyses. We will report Gelman-Rubin values ≤ 1.01 for all parameters, effective sample sizes > 1000 after thinning, autocorrelation times, and selected trace plots. These additions will directly address the referee’s concern and provide verifiable grounding for the reported RMS deviation and parameter correlations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in derivation or claims

full rationale

The paper applies BA-MCMC to fit parameters of Bethe-Weizsäcker variants and the new BWL model directly to the 2242 external AME2020 binding energies, then reports the resulting RMS deviation (759 keV) as a measure of agreement with those same data. This is ordinary least-squares-style optimization against an independent experimental benchmark; the reported RMS is the explicit objective function value, not a renamed prediction or self-defined quantity. Degeneracy diagnosis follows from the sampled posterior, which is constructed from the likelihood on the external data plus chosen priors. No equations reduce by construction to their inputs, no fitted parameter is relabeled as an out-of-sample prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The chain is therefore self-contained against the external data set.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard nuclear mass formula framework and data from AME2020; the main added elements are the MCMC sampling procedure and the BWL variant. Free parameters are the energy-term coefficients fitted via MCMC. No new invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • strengths of energy terms in Bethe-Weizsäcker variants
    Coefficients of volume, surface, Coulomb, asymmetry, pairing, deformation, and shell terms are sampled and optimized against binding-energy data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula variants provide a suitable macroscopic description of nuclear binding energies.
    The paper builds all models and comparisons on these functional forms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5704 in / 1310 out tokens · 52353 ms · 2026-06-30T03:22:01.650781+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Parameter Correlation and Degeneracy Diagnosis We employ the Spearman rank correlation coeffi- cient [99] to diagnose and quantify parameter correla- tions and degeneracies of the multi-dimensional parame- ter spaces evaluated from the MCMC posterior samples for nuclear mass models. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient, ρij = 1− 6Pndiag k=1 d2 k ndia...

  2. [2]

    Posterior predictive distribution The posterior predictive distribution for a new set of binding energiesB new given by the observed dataDis defined as p(Bnew | D) = Z p(Bnew |θ full)p(θ full | D)dθ full .(26) 8 In practice, the integral of Eq. (26) can be numerically approximated using the collected Monte Carlo samples, E[Bnew | D]≈ 1 S SX s=1 BTh(θ(s)),...

    1926

  3. [3]

    A minor statistical exception is noted forξwith ˆR= 1.1757, indicating a slow convergence of multi Markov chains

    In particular, the newly introduced deformation correction parameters,g 1, g2, andγ, display sampling ef- ficiencies ( ˆR≤1.0034), demonstrating that the incorpo- ration of deformation correction successfully regularizes the complex posterior landscape and rectifies the param- eter degeneracy observed in BWN*. A minor statistical exception is noted forξwi...

    2025

  4. [4]

    C. F. von Weizs¨ acker, Z. Phys.96, 431 (1935)

    1935

  5. [5]

    H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.8, 82 (1936)

    1936

  6. [6]

    Gamow, Proc.A 126, 632 (1930)

    G. Gamow, Proc.A 126, 632 (1930)

    1930

  7. [7]

    Meitner and O

    L. Meitner and O. R. Frisch, Nature143, 239 (1939)

    1939

  8. [8]

    Hahn and F

    O. Hahn and F. Strassmann, Naturwissenschaften27, 11 (1939)

    1939

  9. [9]

    R. D. Evans,The Atomic Nucleus(Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1955)

    1955

  10. [10]

    W. D. Gunter and R. A. Hubbs, Phys. Rev.113, 252 (1959)

    1959

  11. [11]

    Bauer and V

    M. Bauer and V. Canuto, Nucl. Phys.72, 33 (1965)

    1965

  12. [12]

    W. D. Myers, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables17, 411 (1976)

    1976

  13. [13]

    Tseng, T

    C. Tseng, T. Cheng, and F. Yang, Nucl. Phys.A 334, 470 (1980)

    1980

  14. [14]

    Eisberg and R

    R. Eisberg and R. Resnick,Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1985)

    1985

  15. [15]

    J. W. Rohlf,Modern Physics from aαtoZ 0 (Wiley, 1994)

    1994

  16. [16]

    Samanta and S

    C. Samanta and S. Adhikari, Phys. Rev.C 65, 037301 (2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    M. W. Kirson, Nucl. Phys.A 798, 29 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    S. C. Mavrodiev and A. Vol, Nucl. Sci.4, 11 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Gjorgievska, H

    S. Gjorgievska, H. Kochankovski, K. Stankovic, and L. Barandovski, Nucl. Eng. Des.426, 113403 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Wu, W.-F

    Q. Wu, W.-F. Li, Z.-M. Niu, H.-Z. Liang, and M. Shi, Chin. Phys.C 49, 114103 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Spanier and S

    L. Spanier and S. A. E. Johansson, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables39, 259 (1988)

    1988

  22. [22]

    N. Wang, M. Liu, X. Wu, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett.B 734, 215 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Yamaguchi, H

    T. Yamaguchi, H. Koura, Y. Litvinov, and M. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103882 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    W. Nan, B. Guo, J. Chen, B. Cui, W. Fu, X. Jia, C. Kan, J. Li, Y. Li, C. Lin, Y. Liu, N. Ma, Z. Peng, Y. Shen, G. Song, J. Su, B. Tang, H. Wang, Y. Wang, L. Yang, X. Yang, Z. Yin, Y. Zheng, T. Zhang, and W. Liu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.145, 104188 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Thoennessen, Nucl

    M. Thoennessen, Nucl. Phys.A 834, 688 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Motobayashi, Nucl

    T. Motobayashi, Nucl. Phys.A 834, 707 (2010)

    2010

  27. [27]

    Gales, Nucl

    S. Gales, Nucl. Phys.A 834, 717 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    X. H. Zhou, J. C. Yang, and the HIAF project team, AAPPS Bull.32, 35 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Sturm, B

    C. Sturm, B. Sharkov, and H. St¨ ocker, Nucl. Phys.A 834, 682 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    Tshoo, Y

    K. Tshoo, Y. K. Kim, Y. K. Kwon, H. J. Woo, G. D. Kim, Y. J. Kim, B. H. Kang, S. J. Park, Y.-H. Park, J. W. Yoon, and et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth.B 317, 242 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Lunney, J

    D. Lunney, J. M. Pearson, and C. Thibault, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 1021 (2003)

    2003

  32. [32]

    Wang and M

    N. Wang and M. Liu, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.420, 012057 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    M. R. Mumpower, T. M. Sprouse, A. E. Lovell, and A. T. Mohan, Phys. Rev.C 106, L021301 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Z. M. Niu and H. Z. Liang, Phys. Rev.C 106, L021303 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Y. Lu, T. Shang, P. Du, J. Li, and H. Liang, (2026), arXiv:2603.15203 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    J. M. Munoz, S. M. Udrescu, and R. F. Garcia Ruiz, Commun. Phys.8, 101 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Y¨ uksel, D

    E. Y¨ uksel, D. Soydaner, and H. Bahtiyar, Phys. Rev.C 109, 064322 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Bentley, J

    I. Bentley, J. Tedder, M. Gebran, and A. Paul, Phys. Rev.C 111, 034305 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Huang, J

    Y. Huang, J. Chen, J. Jia, L.-M. Liu, Y.-G. Ma, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev.C 111, 034329 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, A. Cumming, R. D. Hoffman, J. Pruet, T. Rauscher, J. L. Fisker, H. Schatz, B. A. Brown, and M. Wiescher, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.151, 75 (2004)

    2004

  41. [41]

    Schatz, Int

    H. Schatz, Int. J. Mass Spectrom.251, 293 (2006)

    2006

  42. [42]

    Parikh, J

    A. Parikh, J. Jos´ e, F. Moreno, and C. Iliadis, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.178, 110 (2008)

    2008

  43. [43]

    Parikh, J

    A. Parikh, J. Jos´ e, C. Iliadis, F. Moreno, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev.C 79, 045802 (2009)

    2009

  44. [44]

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, A. Heger, E. Johnson, L. Keek, Z. Meisel, H. Schatz, and K. Smith, Astrophys. J.830, 55 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    Schatz and W.-J

    H. Schatz and W.-J. Ong, Astrophys. J.844, 139 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    Y. H. Lam, Z. X. Liu, A. Heger, N. Lu, A. M. Jacobs, and Z. Johnston, Astrophys. J.929, 72 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Y. H. Lam, N. Lu, A. Heger, A. M. Jacobs, N. A. Smirnova, T. K. Nieto, Z. Johnston, and S. Kubono, Astrophys. J.929, 73 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    N. Lu, Y. H. Lam, A. Heger, Z. X. Liu, and H. Yam- aguchi, Phys. Rev.C 110, 065804 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Y. H. Lam, N. Lu, A. Heger, Z. X. Liu, Z. Johnston, and H. Yamaguchi, Astrophys. J.993, 121 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, D.-L. Fang, M. Beard, P. M¨ oller, T. Kawano, and A. Aprahamian, Phys. Rev. C 92, 035807 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, G. C. McLaughlin, and A. Aprahamian, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.86, 86 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    Marketin, L

    T. Marketin, L. Huther, and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev.C 93, 025805 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Z. M. Niu, H. Z. Liang, B. H. Sun, W. H. Long, and Y. F. Niu, Phys. Rev.C 99, 064307 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    C. Ma, Z. Li, Z. M. Niu, and H. Z. Liang, Phys. Rev.C 100, 024330 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    M. Shi, J. Y. Fang, and Z. M. Niu, Chin. Phys.C 45, 044103 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thielemann, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015002 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Y. W. Hao, Y. F. Niu, and Z. M. Niu, Phys. Lett.B 844, 138092 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Z. X. Liu, Y. H. Lam, N. Lu, and P. Ring, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables156, 101635 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Taninah, S

    A. Taninah, S. E. Agbemava, A. V. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett.B 800, 135065 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    Z. X. Liu, Y. H. Lam, N. Lu, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B 842, 137946 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    Y¨ uksel, T

    E. Y¨ uksel, T. Marketin, and N. Paar, Phys. Rev.C 99, 034318 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Zhang, M.-K

    K. Zhang, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.-B. Choi, P. S. Chong, J. Dong, Z. Dong, X. Du, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, C. Heo, M. C. Ho, E. J. In, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.- H. Lee, J. Lee, H. Li, Z. Li, T. Luo, J. Meng, M.-H. Mun, Z. Niu, C. Pan, P. Papakonstantinou, X. Shang, 23 C. Shen, G. Shen, W. Sun, X.-X. Sun, C. K. Tam, Thaivayongnou, C. Wang, X. Wang, S. H. Wong, J. Wu, X...

    2022

  63. [63]

    P. Guo, X. Cao, K. Chen, Z. Chen, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.- B. Choi, P. C. Lam, W. Deng, J. Dong, P. Du, X. Du, K. Duan, X. Fan, W. Gao, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, J. Hu, J. Huang, K. Huang, Y. Huang, Z. Huang, K. D. Hyung, H. Y. Chan, X. Jiang, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.-H. Lee, J. Lee, J. Li, M. Li, Z. Li, Z. Li, Z. Lian, H. Liang, L. Liu, X. Lu, Z.-R. Liu, J. Meng, Z. ...

    2024

  64. [64]

    P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev.C 82, 054319 (2010)

    2010

  65. [65]

    R. I. Jennrich, Ann. Math. Statist.40, 633 (1969)

    1969

  66. [66]

    D. M. Bates and D. G. Watts,Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988)

    1988

  67. [67]

    Kejzlar, L

    V. Kejzlar, L. Neufcourt, W. Nazarewicz, and P.-G. Reinhard, J. Phys. G47, 094001 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    Saito, I

    Y. Saito, I. Dillmann, R. Kr¨ ucken, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Surman, Phys. Rev.C 109, 054301 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    X. Y. Zhang, W. F. Li, J. Y. Fang, and Z. M. Niu, Nucl. Phys.A 1043, 122820 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    D. R. Phillips, R. J. Furnstahl, U. Heinz, T. Maiti, W. Nazarewicz, F. M. Nunes, M. Plumlee, M. T. Pra- tola, S. Pratt, F. G. Viens, and et al., J. Phys. G48, 072001 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    J. Xu, Z. Zhang, and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev.C 104, 054324 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Piarulli, E

    M. Piarulli, E. Epelbaum, and C. Forss´ en, Front. Phys. 11, 1270577 (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    Hauschild and M

    T. Hauschild and M. Jentschel, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 457, 384 (2001)

    2001

  74. [74]

    Toivanen, J

    J. Toivanen, J. Dobaczewski, M. Kortelainen, and K. Mizuyama, Phys. Rev.C 78, 034306 (2008)

    2008

  75. [75]

    Mendoza-Temis, I

    J. Mendoza-Temis, I. Morales, J. Barea, A. Frank, J. G. Hirsch, J. C. L. Vieyra, P. Van Isacker, and V. Vel´ azquez, Nucl. Phys.A 812, 28 (2008)

    2008

  76. [76]

    J. Xie, K. Wang, C. Wang, W. Gao, M. Ju, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev.C 109, 064317 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    G. F. Bertsch, B. Sabbey, and M. Uusn¨ akki, Phys. Rev. C 71, 054311 (2005)

    2005

  78. [78]

    G. O. Roberts, A. Gelman, and W. R. Gilks, Ann. Appl. Probab.7, 110 (1997)

    1997

  79. [79]

    Lundquist,Bayesian Model Averaging of Nuclear Mass Models, Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, G¨ oteborg (2020)

    S. Lundquist,Bayesian Model Averaging of Nuclear Mass Models, Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, G¨ oteborg (2020)

    2020

  80. [80]

    Drischler, P

    C. Drischler, P. G. Giuliani, S. Bezoui, J. Piekarewicz, and F. Viens, Phys. Rev.C 110, 044320 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.