new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

Daily Papers

byAK and the research community

Oct 17

Nuclear charge radius predictions by kernel ridge regression with odd-even effects

The extended kernel ridge regression (EKRR) method with odd-even effects was adopted to improve the description of the nuclear charge radius using five commonly used nuclear models. These are: (i) the isospin dependent A^{1/3} formula, (ii) relativistic continuum Hartree-Bogoliubov (RCHB) theory, (iii) Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) model HFB25, (iv) the Weizs\"acker-Skyrme (WS) model WS^ast, and (v) HFB25^ast model. In the last two models, the charge radii were calculated using a five-parameter formula with the nuclear shell corrections and deformations obtained from the WS and HFB25 models, respectively. For each model, the resultant root-mean-square deviation for the 1014 nuclei with proton number Z geq 8 can be significantly reduced to 0.009-0.013~fm after considering the modification with the EKRR method. The best among them was the RCHB model, with a root-mean-square deviation of 0.0092~fm. The extrapolation abilities of the KRR and EKRR methods for the neutron-rich region were examined and it was found that after considering the odd-even effects, the extrapolation power was improved compared with that of the original KRR method. The strong odd-even staggering of nuclear charge radii of Ca and Cu isotopes and the abrupt kinks across the neutron N=126 and 82 shell closures were also calculated and could be reproduced quite well by calculations using the EKRR method.

  • 2 authors
·
Apr 18, 2024

Fair coins tend to land on the same side they started: Evidence from 350,757 flips

Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. We collected 350{,}757 coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started -- DHM estimated the probability of a same-side outcome to be about 51\%. Our data lend strong support to this precise prediction: the coins landed on the same side more often than not, Pr(same side) = 0.508, 95\% credible interval (CI) [0.506, 0.509], BF_{same-side bias} = 2359. Furthermore, the data revealed considerable between-people variation in the degree of this same-side bias. Our data also confirmed the generic prediction that when people flip an ordinary coin -- with the initial side-up randomly determined -- it is equally likely to land heads or tails: Pr(heads) = 0.500, 95\% CI [0.498, 0.502], BF_{heads-tails bias} = 0.182. Furthermore, this lack of heads-tails bias does not appear to vary across coins. Additional analyses revealed that the within-people same-side bias decreased as more coins were flipped, an effect that is consistent with the possibility that practice makes people flip coins in a less wobbly fashion. Our data therefore provide strong evidence that when some (but not all) people flip a fair coin, it tends to land on the same side it started.

  • 50 authors
·
Oct 6, 2023