journal article·2024-10-01Open access

Prediction of binding energy using machine learning approach

Bishnu Pandey, Subash Giri, Rajan Dev Pant, Muskan Jalan, Ashok Chaudhary, Narayan Prasad Adhikari

AIP Advances· Volume 14· Issue 10

Abstract

The liquid drop model is an empirical hypothesis established on the idea that nuclei can be thought of as incompressible liquid droplets. The AME2020 dataset was used in this work to determine binding energy using a semi-empirical mass formula and compare it with binding energies predicted by a machine learning algorithm. Random forest regressor, MLPRegressor, and XGBoost models were employed. In terms of accuracy, root mean square error, and mean absolute error, machine learning models performed better than the semi-empirical mass formula. Compared to RFR, XGBoost, and SEMF, MLPRegressor performed better in predicting binding energies for lighter nuclei. Using estimated binding energies, nuclear masses were computed, and it was shown that all three models adequately predicted nuclear masses with minimal error. This finding highlights how machine learning can be applied to nuclear physics to predict various nuclei’s properties.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Computational Drug Discovery Methods · Machine Learning in Bioinformatics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Central Department of Physics, Tribhuvan University , Kirtipur, Kathmandu 44600,

Funding

Research Coordination and Development Council (RCDC) of Tribhuvan University · Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. 1991
2. Zur theorie der kernmassen10.1007/BF01337700 ↗
3. The mechanism of nuclear fission10.1103/physrev.56.426 ↗
4. New approach to nuclear binding energy in integrated nuclear model10.1134/S1547477111020087 ↗
5. Nuclear physics a. stationary states of nuclei10.1103/revmodphys.8.82 ↗
6. 2005
7. 1990
8. 2017
9. 1967
10. 1985
11. Revised Weizsäcker semiempirical formula for diffuse nuclear surfaces10.1103/physrev.113.252 ↗
12. The semi-empirical mass formula and the superfluid model of nuclei10.1016/0029-5582(65)90624-3 ↗
13. Development of the semiempirical droplet model10.1016/0092-640x(76)90030-9 ↗
14. Further study on nuclear mass formulas10.1016/0375-9474(80)90611-9 ↗
15. Extension of the Bethe–Weizsäcker mass formula to light nuclei and some new shell closures10.1103/physrevc.65.037301 ↗
16. Fitting theories of nuclear binding energies10.1103/physrevc.71.054311 ↗
17. Mutual influence of terms in a semi-empirical mass formula10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.011 ↗
18. On the mass number A dependence of the semi-empirical mass formula10.3938/jkps.56.1546 ↗
19. New approach to nuclear binding energy in integrated nuclear model10.1186/2251-7235-6-3 ↗
20. Estimation of semi-empirical mass formula coefficients10.11648/j.ns.20170201.13 ↗
21. Semi-empirical nuclear mass formula: Simultaneous determination of 4 coefficients10.9734/ajopacs/2016/31266 ↗
22. Simplified form of the semi-empirical mass formula
23. Bethe–Weizsäcker semiempirical mass formula coefficients 2019 update based on AME201610.1007/s41365-019-0718-8 ↗
24. Optimization of semi-empirical mass formula co-efficients using least square minimization and variational Monte–Carlo approaches10.1088/1361-6404/ac4e62 ↗
25. Machine learning the nuclear mass10.1007/s41365-021-00956-1 ↗
26. Physically interpretable machine learning for nuclear masses10.1103/physrevc.106.l021301 ↗
27. Nuclear binding energy predictions using neural networks: Application of the multilayer perceptron10.1142/s0218301321500178 ↗
28. A high-bias, low-variance introduction to machine learning for physicists10.1016/j.physrep.2019.03.001 ↗
29. An overview of the supervised machine learning methods10.20544/horizons.b.04.1.17.p05 ↗
30. 2015
31. An overview of machine learning10.1016/b978-0-08-051054-5.50005-4 ↗
32. The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf ↗
33. The AME2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0 ↗
34. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: Bagging and random forests for ecological prediction10.1007/s10021-005-0054-1 ↗
35. Random forest regression-based machine learning model for accurate estimation of fluid flow in curved pipes10.3390/pr9112095 ↗
36. Random forests10.1023/a:1010933404324 ↗
37. Forest attribute imputation using machine-learning methods and ASTER data: Comparison of k-NN, SVR and random forest regression algorithms10.1080/01431161.2012.682661 ↗
38. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
39. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
40. Approximation theory of the mlp model in neural networks10.1017/s0962492900002919 ↗
41. D. P. Kingma and J.Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
42. Learning representations by back-propagating errors10.1038/323533a0 ↗
43. 1998
44. A. Botchkarev , “Performance metrics (error measures) in machine learning regression, forecasting and prognostics: Properties and typology,” arXiv:1809.03006 (2018).
45. The estimation of R2 and adjusted R2 in incomplete data sets using multiple imputation10.1080/02664760802553000 ↗
46. The correlation coefficient: An overview10.1080/10408340500526766 ↗
47. A coefficient of determination for generalized linear models10.1080/00031305.2016.1256839 ↗
48. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014 ↗
49. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance10.3354/cr030079 ↗
50. Root mean square error or mean absolute error? Use their ratio as well10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.036 ↗
51. 1994