Comparative analysis of alpha-decay half-life models and development of an improved semi-empirical formula for superheavy nuclei
Rattachement africain : kr, Ghana, vn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract We systematically examined the predictive uncertainty of twelve recent α-decay half-life models using 219 well-measured α-emitting nuclei (Z = 83−118) from the NUBASE2020 database. The existing models exhibit significant discrepan- cies, with root-mean-square (rms) deviations ranging from 0.680 to 1.907. By incor- porating updated experimental data and odd–even hindrance effects, several widely used semi-empirical formulae were markedly improved. Based on this benchmark, a new semi-empirical formula (FD) was developed by integrating nuclear size, Coulomb barrier penetration, neutron–proton asymmetry, angular-momentum hindrance, and pairing correlations. The proposed formula achieves the best overall agreement with experimental data, yielding rms = 0.6605 and R2 = 0.9820. Applying this model along- side spontaneous-fission systematics to undetected superheavy nuclei (Z = 110–118) reveals a potential transition region between α decay and spontaneous fission located within Qα ≈10.25−10.45 MeV. While this window identifies promising α-emitting candidates, further studies are required to precisely constrain its boundaries. These findings provide valuable insights for exploring the decay properties and stability of superheavy nuclei.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparative analysis of alpha-decay half-life models and development of an improved semi-empirical formula for superheavy nuclei
- Date Crossref
- 11/09/2026
- Éditeur
- IOP Publishing
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.