β− -Decay Half-lives Using the ANN Model: Input for the R-Process


Published: Nov 23, 2019
N. J. Costiris
E. Mavrommatis
Abstract

Full understanding of nucleosynthesis via the r-process continues to be a major challenge for nuclear astrophysics. Apart from issues within astrophysical modeling, there remain significant uncertainties in the nuclear physics input, notably involving the β- decay halflives of neutron-rich nuclei. Both the element distribution on the r-process path and the time scale of the r-process are highly sensitive to β− lifetimes. Since the majority of nuclides that lie on the r-process path will not be experimentally accessible in the foreseeable future, it is important to provide accurate predictions from reliable models. Toward this end, a statistical global model of the β−-decay halflife systema- tics has been developed to estimate the lifetimes of nuclides relevant to the r-process, in the form of a fully-connected, multilayer feedforward Artificial Neural Network (ANN) trained to predict the halflives of ground states that decay 100% by the β− mode. In predictive performance, the model can match or even surpass that of conventional models of β-decay systematics. Results are presented for nuclides situated on the r-ladders N=50, 82 and 126 where abundances peak, as well as for others that affect abundances between peaks. Also reported are results for halflives of interesting neutron-rich nuclides on or towards the r-process path that have been recently measured. Comparison with results from experiment and conventional models is favorable.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Oral contributions
References
The Frontiers of Nuclear Science: “A Long Range Plan for the New Decade” (DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, December 2007); NuPECC: “Long Range Plan 2010, Perspectives of Nuclear Physics in Europe”, edited by G. Rosner et al., NuPECC Report (NuPECC, December 2010).
M. Arnould, S. Gorielly and K. Takahashi, Phys. Repts. 450 (2007) 97; K.-L. Kratz , K. Farouqi, and B. Pfeiffer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59 (2007) 147.
J. J. Cuenca-Garcia et al., Eur. Phys. J. A34 (2007) 99.
P. Moeller, B. Pfeiffer and K.-L. Kratz, Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 055802.
I. N. Borzov, Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 025802; Private communication (2010).
T. Marketin, D. Vretenar and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C75 (2007) 024304; Private communication (2010).
N. J. Costiris, E. Mavrommatis, K. A. Gernoth and J. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. C80 (2009) 044332.
N.J. Costiris, E. Mavrommatis, K.A. Gernothand, J.W.Clark, in submission to Phys.Rev. C.
G. Audi, O. Bersillon, J. Blachot and A.H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. A729 (2003) 3
P.T. Hosmer, H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, O. Arndt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 112501.
J. Pereira, S. Hennrich, A. Aprahamian, O.Arndt, A. Becerril et al., Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 035806.
F. Montes, A. Estrade, P. T. Hosmer, S. N. Liddick, P. F. Mantica et al., Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 035801.
K.-L. Kratz, B. Pfeiffer, O. Arndt, S. Hennrich, A. Wo ̈hr, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A25 (2005) 633.
T. Kurtukian-Nieto, J. Benlliure, K.-H. Schmidt, L. Audouin et al., Nucl. Phys. A 827 (2009) 587c.
J. W. Clark and H. Li, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B20 (2006) 5015.