删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Systematic study of the α decay preformation factors of the nuclei around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

闂佽瀛╅鏍窗閹烘纾婚柟鍓х帛閳锋垶銇勯幇鍓佹偧妞わ絽寮剁换婵嬪焵椤掑嫬绠ユい鏃€鍎冲畷銉モ攽椤旂瓔娈樻い锔剧〗闂傚倷鐒︾€笛呯矙閹烘鍎楁い鏂垮⒔閸楁岸鎮楀☉娆嬬細闁崇粯妫冮弻娑㈠Ψ閵忊剝鐝﹀┑鐐插悑瀹€鎼佸蓟閵堝绾ч柛顭戝枟濞堝爼姊虹紒妯煎⒈闁稿簺鍊楃划娆愬緞閹邦剛顔掗梺鑲┾拡閸撴盯骞婂┑瀣厽闁绘ê寮舵径鍕偓瑙勬礃閿曘垽鏁愰悙纰樺亾閿濆骸浜剧紒鎲嬬秮閺岀喐娼忔ィ鍐╊€嶅銈嗘尵閹虫捇濡撮幒鎴僵闁惧浚鍋嗛妴濠傗攽閻橆偄浜鹃梺鍛婄☉閻°劑寮查鍕€堕柣鎰絻閳锋梹淇婄仦鍌氬闁哄矉绻濆畷濂割敃閵忕姴绠扮紓鍌欑劍椤ㄥ懘藝闂堟稓鏆︽慨姗嗗弿缁憋絽霉閿濆嫯顒熷ù鐓庢喘濮婃椽宕ㄦ繝鍌滅懆濠碘槅鍋呯换鍫ョ嵁閹版澘閱囬柡鍥╁枑濞呮牗绻涙潏鍓хК婵炲拑缍佸畷鈥斥堪閸喎鈧敻鏌i姀鐘典粵闁搞倐鍋撻梻浣规偠閸斿秶鎹㈤崟顓炲灊閻犲洤寮弮鍌楀亾閿濆骸澧伴柨娑虫嫹
547闂傚倷绀佸﹢閬嶃€傛禒瀣;闁瑰墽绮埛鎺楁煕閺囨娅呴柣蹇d邯閺岋絽螖閳ь剟鏌婇敐澶婄疇闁规崘顕х粈鍐┿亜韫囨挻顥滈柣鎾寸洴濮婃椽宕楅崗鑲╁嚒闂佸摜鍣ラ崑鍕偩閻戣姤鏅搁柨鐕傛嫹1130缂傚倸鍊风粈渚€藝椤栨粎鐭撻柣銏㈩暯閸嬫捇宕归锝囨闂侀€炲苯澧叉い顐㈩槺閸犲﹤顓兼径濠冭緢闂侀€炲苯澧撮柡灞稿墲瀵板嫮鈧綆浜滈~搴♀攽閻愯尙澧涢柛銊ョ仢閻g兘鏁撻悩鑼槰閻熸粌绻掔划娆撳炊閳哄啰锛滄繝銏f硾閿曪附鏅ラ梻浣告啞鑿ч柛濠冪墱缂傛捇鎸婃竟鈺傛瀹曨亝鎷呯憴鍕В闂備礁婀遍崢褔鎮洪妸鈺佺闁割偅娲栭悞鍨亜閹寸偛顕滅紒浣哄閵囧嫰顢曢姀鈺佸壉闂佹寧绋掗崝娆撶嵁鐎n噮鏁嶆繝濠傛媼濡查攱绻濋悽闈涗沪闁搞劌缍婂顐ょ矙濡數鍎ょ换婵嬪炊閵娿儲顓洪梺鍝勵槸閻楁粓宕戦幒妤€鍚归柡鍐ㄧ墛閻撳繘鏌涢埄鍐╃闁稿繐鐬肩槐鎺楊敊閸忓浜鹃悺鎺嶆祰椤骞嗛弬搴撴闁圭儤鍨虫竟鏇熺箾鏉堝墽鎮奸柡鍜佸亜鍗遍柛顐犲劜閻撴洟鏌熼悜妯诲鞍闁稿濞€閺屽秷顧侀柛蹇旂〒濞嗐垹顫濈捄娲7婵°倧绲介崯顖炲箠濮樻墎鍋撻獮鍨姎闁哥喓濞€瀹曟垿骞樼€涙ê顎撻梺缁樺灦閿氶柍褜鍓涢崑鐔煎焵椤掑喚娼愰柟顔肩埣瀹曟洟顢涢悙鑼姦濡炪倖鍨奸崕濠氬礂鐏炰勘浜滈柟鎯х摠閸婃劙鏌熼鑲╁煟鐎规洟浜堕獮鍥Ω閵夈倕顥氬┑鐐舵彧缁茬偓绂嶉懞銉ь浄闁挎洍鍋撻棁澶愭煕韫囨洖甯堕柟鍏兼倐閺屽秷顧侀柛蹇旂☉闇夐柛銉墮绾惧ジ鏌曟繝蹇曠暠妞ゆ洝椴搁幈銊ノ熺粙鍨闂佺ǹ顑嗛幐濠氬箯閸涱垱鍠嗛柛鏇ㄥ墰閺嗘岸姊绘担鍝勫付鐎殿喗鍎奸妵鎰板礃椤忓棛澶勬俊銈忕到閸燁垶宕戦悩缁樼厱闁斥晛鍟慨鈧梺绋款儐閹稿骞忛崨瀛樺仾妞ゆ牗鑹剧粻鎴︽⒒娴e憡鎯堥柛濠勄圭叅闁靛繈鍊曢悞鍨亜閹寸偛顕滅紒浣规緲椤法鎲撮崟顒€纾抽悗娈垮枤閺佸銆佸☉妯滅喎鐣℃0浣割棜濠电偠鎻紞鈧い顐㈩樀閹繝鍩€椤掑嫭鈷掗柛灞捐壘閳ь兛绮欓、娆愮節閸曨剦娼熼梺鍓插亝濞叉牜绮荤紒妯镐簻闁圭偓娼欓ˉ姘舵煕鐎n偅灏伴柟宄版嚇瀹曠兘顢樺┃鎯т壕濠电姴娲﹂崐鍨箾閹存繄鏋冪紒鈧€n喗鐓冪憸婊堝礂濞戞氨鐭嗗ù锝堟〃閻掑﹪鏌熷▓鍨灀闁稿鎸搁埥澶屸偓鍦Х椤︿即姊洪柅鐐茶嫰閸樺憡绻涢弶鎴炲枠妞ゃ垺锕㈠畷顐﹀Ψ瑜岀粭澶娾攽鎺抽崐鎾绘倿閿旀崘濮虫慨妯垮煐閻撳繘鏌涢埄鍐╃妞わ讣濡囬埀顒€婀辨灙妞ゎ厼鍢查悾鐑芥晲閸ワ附鍕冮梺绋挎湰椤ㄥ懏绂嶉幆顬″綊鏁愰崨顔兼殘闂佸憡娲熺粻鏍蓟閿濆鍊烽柛娆忣樈濡垿姊洪柅鐐茶嫰閸樻悂鏌i幒鐐电暤鐎殿噮鍓熷畷鎺戭潩閿濆棛鍙冩繝娈垮枤閹虫挸煤閻樿纾婚柟鎯х摠婵挳鏌涘☉姗堟敾闁革絾鎮傞弻锝嗘償閵忕姴鏋欓柣鐘冲姉閸犳牠宕洪埀顒併亜閹寸偛顕滄い锕傤棑缁辨挸顓奸崪浣稿壎闂佺娅曢悧鐘诲箠閻樻椿鏁嗛柛鎰亾閽戝绱撻崒娆戝妽闁告劕顭烽獮蹇涙晸閿燂拷28缂傚倸鍊风欢锟犲磻婢舵劦鏁嬬憸鏃堛€佸Δ鍛亜闁惧繐婀遍悡瀣⒑鐟欏嫭鍎楅柛銊ョ-婢规洟鏁撻敓锟�
Hong-Ming Liu 1,
, You-Tian Zou 1,
, Xiao Pan 1,
, Xiao-Jun Bao 2,4,,
, Xiao-Hua Li 1,3,4,,
,
Corresponding author: Xiao-Jun Bao, baoxiaojun@hunnu.edu.cn
Corresponding author: Xiao-Hua Li, lixiaohuaphysics@126.com
1.School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
2.Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
3.Cooperative Innovation Center for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology & Equipment, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
4.Key Laboratory of Low Dimensional Quantum Structures and Quantum Control, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
Received Date:2020-02-08
Available Online:2020-09-01
Abstract:In this study, we systematically investigate the $\alpha$ decay preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, and the $\alpha$ decay half-lives of 152 nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 closed shells based on the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) with $P_{\alpha}$ being extracted from the ratio of the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-life to the experimental one. The results show that there is a remarkable linear relationship between $P_{\alpha}$ and the product of valance protons (holes) $N_p$ and valance neutrons (holes) $N_n$. At the same time, we extract the $\alpha$ decay preformation factor values of the even–even nuclei around the Z = 82, N = 126 closed shells from the study of Sun ${et\ al.}$ [J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 45: 075106 (2018)], in which the $\alpha$ decay was calculated by two different microscopic formulas. We find that the $\alpha$ decay preformation factors are also related to $N_pN_n$. Combining with our previous studies [Sun ${et\ al.}$, Phys. Rev. C, 94: 024338 (2016); Deng ${et\ al.}$, ibid. 96: 024318 (2017); Deng ${et\ al.}$, ibid. 97: 044322 (2018)] and that of Seif ${et\ al.,}$ [Phys. Rev. C, 84: 064608 (2011)], we suspect that this phenomenon of linear relationship for the nuclei around the above closed shells is model-independent. This may be caused by the effect of the valence protons (holes) and valence neutrons (holes) around the shell closures. Finally, using the formula obtained by fitting the $\alpha$ decay preformation factor data calculated by the GLDM, we calculate the $\alpha$ decay half-lives of these nuclei. The calculated results agree with the experimental data well.

HTML

--> --> -->
1.Introduction
$\alpha$ decay, which is one of the most significant tools for exploring nuclear structure information, can provide information of the ground-state lifetime, nuclear force, nuclear matter incompressibility, and spin and parity of nuclei [1-4]. In 1928, Gamow, Condon, and Gurney independently proposed the quantum tunneling theory [5, 6], named as Gamow theory. Within this theory, the $\alpha$ decay is explained as an $\alpha$ cluster preformed in the surface of the parent nucleus penetrating the Coulomb barrier between the cluster and the daughter nucleus. The probability of $\alpha$ cluster formation in the parent nucleus is described as the $\alpha$ preformation factor, $P_{\alpha}$, including many nuclear structure information. It has became a prominent topic in nuclear physics [7-10].
Until now, many microscopical and phenomenological models have been used to calculate $P_{\alpha}$ [11-25]. Microscopically, in the R-matrix method [11-15], $P_{\alpha}$ can be obtained by the initial tailored wavefunction of the parent nucleus. However, the calculation of purely microcosmic $P_{\alpha}$ is very difficult owing to the complexity of the nuclear many-body problem and the uncertainty of the nuclear potential. The $\alpha$ preformation factors can also obtained by the approach of the microscopical Tohsaki–Horiuchi–Schuck–R$\ddot{\rm{o}}$pke wave function [16, 17], which has been successfully employed to describe the cluster structure in light nuclei [17]. Using the cluster-configuration shell model, Varga ${et\ al.}$ reproduced the experimental decay width of 212Po and obtained its $\alpha$ preformation factor $P_{\alpha}$ = 0.23 [11, 15]. Recently, Ahmed ${et\ al.}$ proposed a new quantum-mechanical theory named as cluster-formation model (CFM) to calculate the $\alpha$ preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, of even–even nuclei [19, 26]. Within this model, $P_{\alpha}$ can be obtained from the ratio of the formation energy, $E_{f\alpha}$, to the total energy, E, where $E_{f\alpha}$ and E can be obtained from the binding energies of the nucleus and its neighboring nuclides. Later, Deng ${et\ al.}$ and Ahmed ${et\ al.}$ extended this model to odd-A and odd–odd nuclei [20-22]. Generally, within different theoretical models, the $\alpha$ preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$ are different because the penetration probability varies greatly with an exponential factor. Phenomenologically, the preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, are extracted from the ratios of the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives to the experimental ones [23-25]. In 2005, using the density-dependent cluster model (DDCM) [18], Xu and Ren studied the available experimental $\alpha$ decay half-lives of medium-mass nuclei. Their results showed that the $P_{\alpha}$ are different for different types of parent nuclei, i.e., $P_{\alpha}$ = 0.43 for even–even nuclei, 0.35 for odd-A nuclei, and 0.18 for doubly odd nuclei.
Recent studies have been shown that the $\alpha$ preformation factors are affected by many confirmed factors, such as the isospin asymmetry of the parent nucleus, deformation of the daughter, pairing effect, and shell effect [9, 27]. It has been observed that the minima of the $\alpha$ preformation factors are at the protons, neutron shells, and subshell closures [8, 9, 28-31]. Moreover, many nuclear quantities [32-36], such as deformation and B (E2) values [32, 33], rotational moments of inertia in low-spin states in the rare earth region [34], core cluster decomposition in the rare-earth region [35], and properties of excited states [36], display a systematic behavior with the product of valence protons (holes) $N_p$ and valence neutrons (holes) $N_n$ of the parent nucleus. In 2011, Seif et al. found that the $\alpha$ preformation factor is linearly proportional to the product of $N_p$ and $N_n$ for even–even nuclei around Z = 82 and N = 126 closed shells [37]. In our previous studies [38-40], based on the two-potential approach (TPA) [41, 42], we found that this linear relationship also exists in the cases of odd-A and doubly-odd nuclei for favored and unfavored $\alpha$ decay [38, 39]. Very recently, using the CFM, we calculated the $\alpha$ preformation factors of all kinds of nuclei and found that this linear relationship also existed in these cases [40]. Combined with the study of Seif et al. and our previous studies, it is interesting to validate whether this linear relationship is model-dependent or owing to the valence proton–neutron interaction of the shell closures. In the present study, using the generalized liquid drop model (GLDM) [43-49], we systematically study the $\alpha$ preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, and $\alpha$ decay half-lives of 152 nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures. Our results show that the $\alpha$ preformation factors of these nuclei and $N_p$$N_n$ still satisfy this linear relationship, which suggests that this relationship may be owing to the valence proton–neutron correlation around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures.
This article is organized as follows. In the next section, the theoretical framework of the GLDM is briefly presented. The detailed calculations and discussion are presented in Section 3. Finally, a summary is given in Section 4.
2.Theoretical framework
The $\alpha$ decay half-life can be calculated by decay constant $\lambda$, which can be written as
$T_{1/2} = \frac{ {\rm ln}2}{\lambda}. $
(1)
Here, the $\alpha$ decay constant is defined as
$\lambda = P_{\alpha} \nu P, $
(2)
where $P_{\alpha}$ is the $\alpha$ preformation factor. P, the penetration probability of the $\alpha$ particle crossing the barrier, is calculated by Eq. (12) expressed subsequently. $\nu$ is the assault frequency, which can be calculated with the oscillation frequency, $\omega$, and is written as [50]
$\nu = \frac{\omega}{2 \pi} = \frac{(2 n_r + l + \dfrac{3}{2}) \hbar}{2 \pi \mu {R_n}^{2}} = \frac{(G + \dfrac{3}{2}) \hbar}{1.2 \pi \mu {R_{00}}^{2}}, $
(3)
where $\mu$ = $\dfrac{m_d m_{\alpha}}{m_d + m_{\alpha}}$ represents the reduced mass between the $\alpha$ particle and the daughter nucleus with $m_d$ and $m_{\alpha}$ being the masses of the daughter nucleus and $\alpha$ particle, respectively. $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant. $R_n$ = $\sqrt{\dfrac{3}{5}} R_{00}$ denotes the nucleus root-mean-square (rms) radius with $R_{00}$ = $1.240 A^{1/3} \left(1 + \dfrac{1.646} {A}-0.191 \dfrac{A - 2 Z}{A}\right)$ [51], where A and Z are the proton and mass numbers of the parent nucleus. $G = 2n_r + l$ represents the main quantum number with $n_r$ and l being the radial quantum number and the angular quantity quantum number, respectively. For the $\alpha$ decay, G can be obtained by [52]
$\;G = 2{n_r} + l = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {18,}&{N \leqslant 82,}\\ {20,}&{82 < N \leqslant 126,}\\ {22,}&{N < 126.} \end{array}} \right. $
(4)
$l_{\rm{min}}$, the minimum angular momentum taken away by the $\alpha$ particle, can be obtained by [53]
$\;{l_{{\rm{min}}}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{\Delta _j},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{even}}\;{\Delta _j}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;{\pi _p} = {\pi _d},}\\ {{\Delta _j} + 1,}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{even}}\;{\Delta _j}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;{\pi _p} \ne {\pi _d},}\\ {{\Delta _j},}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{odd}}\;{\Delta _j}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;{\pi _p} \ne {\pi _d},}\\ {{\Delta _j} + 1,}&{{\rm{for}}\;{\rm{odd}}\;{\Delta _j}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;{\pi _p} = {\pi _d},} \end{array}} \right. $
(5)
where $\Delta _j = \left \vert{j_p - j_d}\right \vert$. $j_p$, $\pi_p$, $j_d$, $\pi_d$ represent the spin and parity values of the parent and daughter nuclei, respectively.
The GLDM has been successfully employed to describe fusion reactions [47] and nuclear decays [46, 48, 49]. Within the GLDM, the macroscopic total energy, E, is defined as [44]
$E = E_{\rm S} + E_{\rm V} + E_{\rm C} + E_{\rm{prox}}, $
(6)
where $E_{\rm S}$, $E_{\rm V}$, $E_{\rm C}$, and $E_{\rm{prox}}$ are the surface, volume, Coulomb, and proximity energies, respectively. For one-body shapes, $E_{\rm S}$, $E_{\rm V}$, and $E_{\rm C}$ can be expressed as
$\begin{split} E_{\rm S} =& 17.9439 (1 - 2.6 I^2) A ^{2/3} (S/4\pi {R_0^2}) \,\rm{MeV}, \\ E_{\rm V} =& -15.494 (1 - 1.8 I^2) A \,\rm{MeV}, \\ E_{\rm C} =& 0.6 e^2(Z^2/R_0) \times 0.5\int(V(\theta) /V_0 )(R(\theta)/R_0)^3 \sin\theta \,{\rm d}\theta, \end{split} $
(7)
where $I = (N-Z)/A$ is the relative neutron excess. S is the surface of the deformed nucleus. $V(\theta)$ is the electrostatic potential at the surface, and $V_0$ is the surface potential of the sphere. ${R_0} = 1.28 A^{1/3} - 0.76+0.8A^{-1/3}$ is the effective sharp radius [43].
For two separated spherical nuclei, the $E_{\rm S}$, $E_{\rm V}$, and $E_{\rm C}$ are defined as
$\begin{split} E_{\rm S} =& 17.9439 [(1 - 2.6{I_1}^2) {A_1}^{2/3} + (1-2.6{I_2}^2){A_2}^{2/3}]\,\rm{MeV},\\ E_{\rm V} =& -15.494 [(1 - 1.8 {I_1}^2) A_1 + (1 - 1.8 {I_2}^2) A_2] \,\rm{MeV}, \\ E_{\rm C} =& 0.6 e^2{Z_1}^2/R_1 + 0.6 e^2{Z_2}^2/R_2 + e^2 Z_1 Z_2/r \,\rm{MeV},\\[-10pt] \end{split} $
(8)
where $A_i$, $Z_i$, and $I_i$ are the mass number, charge number, and relative neutron excesses of these nuclei, respectively. r is the distance between the mass centers. $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the radii of the daughter nuclei and the $\alpha$ particle, respectively, which can obtained by the following relationships:
$\begin{split} R_1 =& R_0 (1 + \beta^{3})^{-1/3},\\ R_2 =& R_0 \beta (1 + \beta^{3})^{-1/3}, \end{split} $
(9)
where
$\beta = \frac{1.28 {A_2}^{1/3} - 0.76 + 0.8 {A_2}^{-1/3}}{1.28 {A_1}^{1/3} - 0.76 + 0.8 {A_1}^{-1/3}}. $
(10)
The surface energy, $E_{\rm S}$, originates from the effects of the surface tension forces in a half-space and does not include the contribution of the attractive nuclear forces between the considered surfaces in the neck or in the gap between the fragments. The nuclear proximity energy term, $E_{\rm{prox}}$, has been introduced to take into account these additional surface effects. It can be defined as
$E_{\rm{prox}}(r) = 2\gamma \int _{h_{\rm{min}}}^{h_{\rm{max}}} \Phi{[D(r,h)/b]}2 \pi h \, {\rm d}h. $
(11)
Here, h is the transverse distance varying from the neck radius or zero to the height of the neck border. After the separation, $h_{\rm{min}}$ = 0 and $h_{\rm{max}}$ = $R_2$. D is the distance between the opposite infinitesimal surfaces considered, b is the surface width fixed at the standard value of 0.99 fm, $\Phi$ is the proximity function of Feldmeier, and $\gamma = 0.9517\sqrt{(1 - 2.6 {I_1}^2) (1 - 2.6 {I_2}^2)}$ MeVfm-2 is the geometric mean between the surface parameters of the two nuclei.
P, the penetration probability of the $\alpha$ particle crossing the barrier, is calculated within the action integral as follows:
$P = {\rm{exp}} \left[ -\frac {2} {\hbar} \int _{R_{\rm{in}}}^{R_{\rm{out}}} \sqrt{2 B(r) (E(r)- E({\rm sphere}))}\,{\rm d}r\right]. $
(12)
Here, $B(r) = \mu$, $Q_{\alpha}$ is the $\alpha$ decay energy, and $R_{\rm{in}}$ and $R_{\rm{out}}$ are the two turning points of the semiclassical Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) action integral with $E(R_{\rm{in}}) = E(R_{\rm{out}} ) = Q_{\alpha}$. $R_{\rm{in}} = R_1 + R_2$. Consisdering the contribution of the centrifugal potential, $R_{\rm{out}}$ can be obtained by
$R_{\rm{out}} = \frac{Z_1 Z_2 e^2}{2 Q_{\alpha}} + \sqrt{{\left(\frac{Z_1 Z_2 e^2} {2 Q_{\alpha}}\right)}^2 + \frac{{l (l + 1) {\hbar}^2}}{2 \mu Q_{\alpha}}}. $
(13)

3.Results and discussion
In recent years, many studies have indicated that the $\alpha$ preformation factor, $P_{\alpha}$, of a nucleus becomes smaller as the valence nucleus (hole) becomes smaller [23-25]. Meanwhile, intensive studies related to the $N_pN_n$ scheme have indicated the importance of the proton–neutron interaction in determining the evolution of the nuclear structure [54-58]. In 2011, Seif et al. found that the $P_{\alpha}$ are linearly related to the product of the valence proton numbers and the valence neutron numbers, $N_p$$N_n$, for even–even nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures [37]. Very recently, we found that this linear relationship still exists in the cases of odd-A and doubly-odd nuclei for favored and unfavored $\alpha$ decays [38-40]. Moreover, we systematically studied the $P_{\alpha}$ based on the CFM [19-22] of all kinds of nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures. The results indicated that the linear relationship between the $\alpha$ preformation factors and $N_pN_n$ still exists. Whether this phenomenon is model-dependent or may be the effect of the valance proton–neutron interaction around the closed shells is an interesting problem. In the present study, we use the GLDM to systematically study the $P_{\alpha}$ and $\alpha$ decay half-lives of the nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures, with the experimental $\alpha$ decay half-lives, $T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}$, being taken from the latest evaluated nuclear properties table, NUBASE2016 [59].
First, we calculate the $\alpha$ preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, of 152 nuclei (including 47 even–even nuclei, 73 odd-A nuclei, and 32 doubly-odd nuclei) around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures through $P_{\alpha} = \dfrac{T^{\rm{calc}}_{1/2}}{T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}}$, whereas the theoretical calculations, ${T^{\rm{calc}}_{1/2}}$, are obtained by the GLDM. The calculated results of $P_{\alpha}$ are listed in the fifth columns of Tables 15. For more clearly observing the relationship between the obtained $P_{\alpha}$ and $N_pN_n$ for these nuclei, we plot the $P_{\alpha}$ as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ in five cases in Figs. 13 (Fig. 1 for the case of even–even nuclei, Fig. 2 for the cases of the favored and unfavored odd-A nuclei, and Fig. 3 for the cases of the favored and unfavored doubly-odd nuclei). To more clearly describe $N_p$ and $N_n$ bounded by the double magic numbers of Z = 82 and N = 126, we divide these 152 nuclei into three regions. In region I, the proton number of a nucleus is above the Z = 82 shell closure and the neutron number is below the N = 126 closed shell and the $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0+N_0}$ value is negative. In region II, the proton number of a nucleus is above the Z = 82 shell closure and the neutron number is above the N = 126 closed shell and the $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ value is positive. In region III, the proton number of a nucleus is below the Z = 82 shell closure and the neutron number is above the N = 126 closed shell and the $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ value is positive. In Fig. 1, the red dots represent the case of even–even nuclei $\alpha$ decay and the red dashed line represents the fittings of $P_{\alpha}$ for the cases of even–even nuclei $\alpha$ decay. In Figs. 2 and 3 the red dots and blue triangle represent the cases of the favored and unfavored $\alpha$ decays, respectively. The red dashed and blue solid lines represent the fittings of $P_{\alpha}$. As we can see in Figs. 13, around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures, when the values of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ are positive, $P_{\alpha}$ increases basically with the increase of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$. Similarly, when the values of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ are negative, $P_{\alpha}$ increases basically with the increase in $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$. Furthermore, we find that the linear relationships in Figs. 1-3 are relatively remarkable, except in the right sides of Figs. 2 and 3 for the cases of favored decay. Notably, some red dots in the right sides of Figs. 2 and 3 deviate significantly from the fitted line. Careful analysis of the right side of Fig. 2 reveals an interesting phenomenon: the $P_{\alpha}$ values of some odd-Z nuclei are even larger than the ones of most even–even nuclei, i.e., $P_{\alpha}$ 0.572 for 217Fr, 0.534 for 217Ac, and 0.826 for 219Pa. Theoretically, for the odd-A and odd–odd nuclei, owing to the Pauli-blocking effect, the unpaired nucleon (s) would lead to $\alpha$ particle formation suppression; thus, the $P_{\alpha}$ of odd-A nuclei should not be extremely large. In response to above phenomenon presented in the right side of Fig. 2, we note that the neutron numbers, N, of 217Fr, 217Ac, and 219Pa are 130, 128, and 128, respectively, which are near the magic number, N = 126. Recent studies have shown that the $P_{\alpha}$ values decrease with increasing neutron number until the shell closure at N = 126, and then sharply increase with N, suggesting the important influence of the shell effect on the $\alpha$ particle preformation process in the parent nuclei [62, 63]. As we can see from the right side in Fig. 3, there are seven red dots for favored odd–odd nuclei decay; however, we can find that five of them have uncertain spin or parity from Table 4 i.e., 216At and 216Fr. Hence, the inaccuracy of the minimum angular momentum taken away by the $\alpha$ particle ($l_{\rm{min}}$) will, in turn, affect the $P_{\alpha}$ values extracted from the ratio of the calculated decay half-life to the experimental one.
$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt} }_{1/2}/{\rm{s} }$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1} } }/{\rm{s} }$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2} } }/{\rm{s} }$
nuclei in region I
186Po→182Pb8.501${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.126$-4.469$$-5.369$$-4.641$
190Po→186Pb7.693${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.201$-2.609$$-3.307$$-2.515$
194Po→190Pb6.987${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.176$-0.407$$-1.160$$-0.293$
196Po→192Pb6.658${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.172$0.754$$-0.011$$0.899$
198Po→194Pb6.310${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.114$2.266$$1.324$$2.282$
200Po→196Pb5.981${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.082$3.793$$2.707$$3.719$
202Po→198Pb5.700${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.069$5.143$$3.984$$5.057$
204Po→200Pb5.485${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.059$6.275$$5.043$$6.187$
206Po→202Pb5.327${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.052$7.144$$5.862$$7.091$
208Po→204Pb5.216${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.0317.9616.4577.793
200Rn→196Po7.043${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.200$0.070$$-0.629$$0.099$
202Rn→198Po6.773${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.159$1.090$$0.291$$1.083$
204Rn→200Po6.547${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.128$2.012$$1.120$$1.987$
206Rn→202Po6.384${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.105$2.737$$1.757$$2.715$
208Rn→204Po6.260${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.074$3.367$$2.236$$3.309$
210Rn→206Po6.159${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.048$3.954$$2.631$$3.861$
212Rn→208Po6.385${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.029$3.157$$1.616$$3.093$
204Ra→200Rn7.637${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.210$-1.222$$-1.900$$-1.253$
208Ra→204Rn7.273${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.128$0.104$$-0.789$$0.039$
214Ra→210Rn7.273${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.048$0.387$$-0.933$$0.543$
212Th→208Ra7.958${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.163$-1.499$$-2.287$$-1.420$
214Th→210Ra7.827${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.131$-1.060$$-1.942$$-0.869$
216U→212Th8.530${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.078$-2.161$$-3.266$$-2.255$
nuclei in regions II and III
178Pb→174Hg7.790${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.380$-3.638$$-4.059$$-3.568$
180Pb→176Hg7.419${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.220$-2.387$$-3.045$$-2.554$
184Pb→180Hg6.773${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.160$-0.213$$-1.011$$-0.520$
186Pb→182Hg6.470${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.099$1.072$$0.069$$0.560$
188Pb→184Hg6.109${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.111$2.427$$1.474$$1.965$
190Pb→186Hg5.697${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.107$4.245$$3.273$$3.763$
192Pb→188Hg5.221${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.136$6.546$$5.680$$6.170$
194Pb→190Hg4.738${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.019$10.234$$8.511$$9.002$
210Pb→206Hg3.793${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.038$16.967$$15.550$$16.040$
210Po→206Pb5.408${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.018$7.078$$5.344$$5.835$
212Po→208Pb8.954${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.247$-6.531$$-7.138$$-6.666$
214Po→210Pb7.834${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.268$-3.786$$-4.358$$-3.903$
216Po→212Pb6.907${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.262$-0.839$$-1.420$$-0.981$
Continued on next page


Table1.Calculations of the $\alpha$ decay half-lives in logarithmic form and the $\alpha$ preformation factors of the even–even nuclei in regions I–III around the Z = 82, N = 126 closed shells. The experimental $\alpha$ decay half-lives, spin, and parity are taken from the latest evaluated nuclear properties table, NUBASE2016 [59]. The $\alpha$ decay energies, ${Q_{\alpha}}$ , are taken from the latest evaluated atomic mass table, AME2016 [60, 61]. The $\alpha$ preformation factors, ${P_{\alpha}}$, are extracted from the ratios of the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives to the experimental data [23-25], where the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives are obtained by the GLDM.

Table 1-continued from previous page
$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}/{\rm{s}}$
218Po→214Pb6.115${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.2762.2691.7112.134
214Rn→210Po9.208${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.321$-6.569$$-7.062$$-6.606$
216Rn→212Po8.198${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.497$-4.347$$-4.650$$-4.227$
218Rn→214Po7.263${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.412$-1.472$$-1.857$$-1.464$
220Rn→216Po6.405${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.388$1.745$$1.334$$1.698$
216Ra→212Rn9.526${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.416$-6.740$$-7.121$$-6.682$
218Ra→214Rn8.546${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.530$-4.599$$-4.874$$-4.481$
216Th→212Ra8.072${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.073$-1.585$$-2.724$$-2.234$
218Th→214Ra9.849${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.582$-6.932$$-7.167$$-6.744$
220Th→216 Ra8.953${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.604$-5.013$$-5.232$$-4.868$
218U→214Th8.775${0^+}\to{0^+}$00.199$-3.260$$-3.961$$-3.470$




Figure1. (color online) $\alpha$ preformation factors of the even–even nuclei around the $Z_0$ = 82 and $N_0$ = 126 shell closures as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{N_0 + Z_0}$, where $N_p$ and $N_n$ denote the numbers of valence protons (holes) and neutrons (holes) of the parent nucleus, respectively. The dashed lines are the fittings of the $\alpha$ preformation factors.

$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{{\rm MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}/{{\rm s}}$${\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}/{{\rm s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{{\rm calc2}}}/{{\rm s}}$
nuclei in region I
195Po→191Pb6.745${(3/2^-)}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.100$0.692$$-0.309$$0.687$
197Po→193Pb6.405${(3/2^-)}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.076$2.079$$0.960$$2.014$
199Po→195Pb6.075${(3/2^-)}\to{3/2^-}$00.047$3.639$$2.314$$3.434$
201Po→197Pb5.799${3/2^-}\to{3/2^-}$00.042$4.917$$3.541$$4.740$
205Po→201Pb5.325${5/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$00.050$7.185$$5.887$$7.309$
207Po→203Pb5.216${5/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$00.030$7.993$$6.473$$8.071$
197At→193Bi7.105${(9/2^-)}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.155$-0.394$$-1.205$$-0.347$
199At→195Bi6.778${9/2^{(-)}}\to{9/2^{(-)}}$00.106$0.894$$-0.080$$0.841$
201At→197Bi6.473${(9/2^-)}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.095$2.076$$1.053$$2.048$
203At→199Bi6.210${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.087$3.152$$2.091$$3.176$
205At→201Bi6.019${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.040$4.299$$2.901$$4.101$
207At→203Bi5.873${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.054$4.814$$3.549$$4.903$
209At→205Bi5.757${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.025$5.672$$4.068$$5.666$
211At→207Bi5.983${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.014$4.793$$2.945$$5.144$
195Rn→191Po7.694${3/2^-}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.322$-2.155$$-2.647$$-1.991$
197Rn→193Po7.410${(3/2^-)}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.289$-1.268$$-1.807$$-1.099$
203Rn→199Po6.629${3/2^-\#}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.101$1.818$$0.825$$1.745$
207Rn→203Po6.251${5/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$00.076$3.417$$2.299$$3.458$
209Rn→205Po6.155${5/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$00.048$4.000$$2.683$$4.037$
199Fr→195At7.816${1/2^+\#}\to{1/2^+}$00.298$-2.180$$-2.706$$-2.063$
201Fr→197At7.519${(9/2^-)}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.231$-1.202$$-1.839$$-1.130$
203Fr→199At7.274${9/2^-}\to{9/2^{(-)}}$00.146$-0.260$$-1.096$$-0.312$
205Fr→201At7.054${9/2^-}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.112$0.582$$-0.370$$0.507$
207Fr→203At6.894${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.096$1.190$$0.171$$1.167$
209Fr→205At6.777${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.064$1.753$$0.561$$1.719$
Continued on next page


Table2.Same as Table 1, but for the favored $\alpha$ decay of the odd-A nuclei around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures. “()” represents uncertain spin and/or parity, and “#” represents values estimated from trends in neighboring nuclides with the same Z and N parities.

Table 2-continued from previous page
$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}/{\rm{s}}$
211Fr→207At6.662${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.043$2.328$$0.958$$2.379$
213Fr→209At6.905${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.028$1.535$$-0.014$$2.185$
203Ra→199Rn7.735${(3/2^-)}\to{(3/2^-)}$00.185$-1.444$$-2.177$$-1.509$
209Ra→205Rn7.143${5/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$00.092$0.673$$-0.363$$0.632$
205Ac→201Fr8.096${9/2^-\#}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.016$-1.097$$-2.904$$-2.261$
207Ac→203Fr7.849${9/2^-\#}\to{9/2^-}$00.197$-1.509$$-2.214$$-1.477$
211Ac→207Fr7.619${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.117$-0.672$$-1.605$$-0.582$
213Pa→209Ac8.395${9/2^-\#}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.094$-2.155$$-3.184$$-2.263$
215Pa→211Ac8.235${9/2^-\#}\to{9/2^-}$00.116$-1.854$$-2.791$$-1.591$
nuclei in regions II and III
177Tl→173Au7.066${(1/2^+)}\to{(1/2^+)}$00.223$-1.609$$-0.652$$-1.821$
179Tl→175Au6.705${1/2^+}\to{1/2^+}$00.188$-0.356$$-0.726$$-0.634$
213Po→209Pb8.536${9/2^+}\to{9/2^+}$00.177$-5.431$$-0.752$$-5.641$
215Po→211Pb7.527${9/2^+}\to{9/2^+}$00.193$-2.750$$-0.714$$-2.942$
219Po→215Pb5.916${9/2^+\#}\to{9/2^+\#}$00.179$3.340$$-0.747$$3.082$
213At→209Bi9.254${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.274$-6.903$$-0.562$$-6.925$
215At→211Bi8.178${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.112$-4.000$$-0.951$$-4.438$
217At→213Bi7.202${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.273$-1.487$$-0.564$$-1.564$
219At→215Bi6.342${(9/2^-)}\to{(9/2^-)}$00.242$1.777$$-0.616$$1.623$
215Rn→211Po8.839${9/2^+}\to{9/2^+}$00.249$-5.638$$-0.604$$-5.728$
217Rn→213Po7.888${9/2^+}\to{9/2^+}$00.296$-3.268$$-0.529$$-3.316$
215Fr→211At9.541${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.405$-7.066$$-0.393$$-6.937$
217Fr→213At8.470${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.572$-4.775$$-0.243$$-4.538$
219Fr→215At7.449${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.395$-1.699$$-0.403$$-1.662$
2137Ra→213Rn9.161${(9/2^+)}\to{9/2^+\#}$00.286$-5.788$$-0.544$$-5.845$
215Ac→211Fr7.746${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.046$-0.770$$-1.337$$-1.536$
217Ac→213Fr9.832${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.534$-7.161$$-0.272$$-6.929$
219Ac→215Fr8.827${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.480$-4.928$$-0.319$$-4.800$
219Th→215Ra9.511${9/2^+\#}\to{9/2^+\#}$00.312$-5.991$$-0.506$$-6.034$
217Pa→213Ac8.488${9/2^-\#}\to{9/2^-\#}$00.082$-2.458$$-1.086$$-2.975$
219Pa→215 Ac10.084${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.826$-7.276$$-0.083$$-6.871$
221Pa→217Ac9.251${9/2^-}\to{9/2^-}$00.415$-5.229$$-0.382$$-5.193$
221U→217Th9.889${(9/2^+)}\to{9/2^+\#}$00.312$-6.180$$-0.506$$-6.246$




Figure2. (color online) Same as Fig. 1, but it represents the $\alpha$ preformation factors as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{N_0 + Z_0}$ of the odd-A nuclei.

$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg} }T^{\rm{expt} }_{1/2}/{\rm{s} }$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}/{\rm{s}}$
nuclei in region I
209Bi→205Tl3.138${9/2^-}\to{1/2^+}$50.001$26.802$$23.934$$25.999$
189Po→185Pb7.694${(5/2^-)}\to{3/2^-}$20.158$-2.420$$-3.223$$-2.383$
203Po→199Pb5.496${5/2^-}\to{3/2^-}$20.062$6.294$$5.085$$6.353$
205Rn→201Po6.386${5/2^-\#}\to{3/2^-\#}$20.100$2.837$$1.840$$2.843$
207Ra→203Rn7.269${1/2^-}\to{5/2^-}$20.129$0.205$$-0.683$$0.157$
213Ra→209Rn6.862${(1/2^-)}\to{5/2^{(-)}}$20.022$2.309$$0.641$$2.194$
215Th→211Ra7.665${1/2^-\#}\to{5/2^-\#}$20.034$0.079$$-1.387$$0.074$
nuclei in regions II and III
187Pb→183Hg6.393${3/2^-}\to{1/2^-}$20.016$2.203$$0.406$$2.471$
189Pb→185Hg5.915${3/2^-}\to{1/2^-}$20.024$3.989$$2.375$$4.440$
213Bi→209Ti5.988${9/2^-}\to{1/2^+}$50.001$5.116$$2.256$$5.214$
213Rn→209Po8.245${9/2^+\#}\to{1/2^-}$50.002$-1.710$$-4.444$$-1.486$
219Rn→215Po6.946${5/2^+}\to{9/2^+}$20.048$0.598$$-0.720$$0.794$
221Rn→217Po6.162${7/2^+}\to{(9/2^+)}$20.040$3.844$$2.442$$3.835$
215Ra→211Rn8.864${9/2^+\#}\to{1/2^-}$50.003$-2.777$$-5.364$$-2.916$
219Ra→215Rn8.138${(7/2^+)}\to{9/2^+}$20.018$-2.000$$-3.754$$-2.274$
217Th→213 Ra9.435${9/2^+\#}\to{1/2^-}$50.004$-3.607$$-6.048$$-3.828$


Table3.Same as Tables 1 and 2, but for the unfavored $\alpha$ decay of the odd-A nuclei around the doubly magic core at Z = 82, N = 126.

Figure3. (color online) Same as Fig. 1, but it represents the $\alpha$ preformation factors as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{N_0 + Z_0}$ of the doubly-odd nuclei.

$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}/{\rm{s}}$
nuclei in region I
192At→188Bi7.696${3^+\#}\to{3^+\#}$00.115$-1.939$$-2.957$$-2.019$
200At→196Bi6.596${(3^+)}\to{(3^+)}$00.059$1.917$$0.594$$1.823$
202At→198Bi6.353${3^{(+)}}\to{3^{(+)}}$00.045$3.161$$1.511$$2.857$
204At→200Bi6.071${7^+}\to{7^+}$00.031$4.156$$2.689$$4.198$
206At→202Bi5.886${(5)^+}\to{5^{(+\#)}}$00.017$5.306$$3.506$$5.279$
208At→204Bi5.751${6^+}\to{6^+}$00.003$6.023$$4.114$$6.667$
200Fr→196At7.615${(3^+)}\to{(3^+)}$00.134$-1.323$$-2.113$$-1.240$
204Fr→200At7.170${3^+}\to{(3^+)}$00.087$0.260$$-0.764$$0.295$
206Fr→202At6.924${3^+}\to{3^{(+)}}$00.064$1.258$$0.084$$1.279$
208Fr→204At6.784${7^+}\to{7^+}$00.040$1.821$$0.555$$1.950$
206Ac→202Fr7.959${(3^+)}\to{3^+}$00.129$-1.602$$-2.528$$-1.640$
nuclei in regions II and III
214At→210Bi8.987${1^-}\to{1^-}$00.186$-6.253$$-6.912$$-6.182$
216At→212Bi7.950${1^{(-)}}\to{1^{(-)}}$00.218$-3.523$$-4.336$$-3.674$
218At→214Bi6.874${1^-\#}\to{1^-}$00.249$0.176$$-0.910$$-0.307$
216Fr→212At9.175${(1^-)}\to{(1^-)}$00.218$-6.155$$-6.685$$-6.022$
218Fr→214At8.014${1^-}\to{1^-}$00.270$-3.000$$-3.791$$-3.223$
218Ac→214Fr9.374${1^-\#}\to{(1^-)}$00.249$-6.000$$-6.487$$-5.884$
220Pa→216Ac9.651${1^-\#}\to{(1^-)}$00.281$-6.108$$-6.471$$-5.920$


Table4.Same as Tables 1 and 2, but for the favored $\alpha$ decay of the doubly-odd nuclei.

$\alpha$ transition$Q_{\alpha}/{\rm{MeV}}$${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$$l_{\rm{min}}$${P_{\alpha}}$${\rm{lg}}T^{\rm{expt}}_{1/2}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}/{\rm{s}}$${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}/{\rm{s}}$
nuclei in region I
186Bi→182Tl7.757${(3^+)}\to{(2^-)}$10.012$-1.830$$-3.749$$-2.092$
190Bi→186Tl6.862${(3^+)}\to{(2^-)}$10.012$0.912$$0.688$$3.704$
192Bi→188Tl6.381${(3^+)}\to{(2^-)}$10.020$2.442$$2.478$$2.852$
194Bi→190Tl5.918${(3^+)}\to{(2^-)}$10.023$4.313$$4.420$$2.697$
210At→206Bi5.631${(5)^+}\to{(6)^+}$20.003$7.221$$6.687$$6.125$
210Fr→206At6.672${6^+}\to{(5)^+}$20.038$2.427$$2.755$$2.019$
212Fr→208At6.529${5^+}\to{6^+}$20.012$3.444$$3.442$$3.626$
212Pa→208Ac8.415${7^+\#}\to{(3^+)}$40.021$-2.125$$-3.794$$-2.116$
nuclei in regions II and III
210Bi→206Tl5.037${1^-}\to{0^-}$22.330E-05 $11.616$$10.343$$21.455$
212Bi→208Tl6.207${1^{(-)}}\to{5^+}$50.002$4.005$$4.171$$7.326$
214Bi→210Tl5.621${1^-}\to{5^+\#}$50.002$6.753$$6.667$$7.478$
212At→208Bi7.817${(1^-)}\to{5^+}$50.001$-0.503$$-0.719$$9.542$
214Fr→210At8.588${(1^-)}\to{(5)^+}$50.002$-2.286$$-2.359$$7.413$
216Ac→212Fr9.235${(1^-)}\to{5^+}$50.003$-3.357$$-3.423$$6.596$


Table5.Same as Tables 1 and 2, but for the unfavored $\alpha$ decay of the doubly-odd nuclei.

In 2018, based on the single-particle energy spectra obtained by the relativistic Hartree–Bogoliubov mean field model [64], Sun and Zhang defined the microscopic valence nucleon (holes) numbers (${\Omega}_{\pi}, {\Omega}_{\nu}$) and proposed two different formulas to calculate $P_{\alpha}$, which can be expressed as [65]
$P_{\alpha} = a\,{\Omega}_{\pi} {\Omega}_{\nu}\,\left\{1 + b\,\rm{exp} \left[-\frac{({\lambda}_{\pi} - {\lambda}_{\nu})^2} {2 {\sigma}^2}\right]\right\}, $
(14)
$P_{\alpha} = a_{{nn},{nh}}\,{\Omega}_{\pi} {\Omega}_{\nu}. $
(15)
Here, parameters a, b, and $\sigma$ in Eq. (14) as well as $a_{{nn},{nh}}$ in Eq. (15) correspond to the valence proton–neutron interaction strength.
In their study, using the above formulas, they systematically investigated the $\alpha$ decay preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, for even–even polonium, radon, radium, and thorium isotopes. Based on the calculated results of their study, we plot $P_{\alpha}$ as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$ in Figs. 4 and 5. In these figures, the blue opened squares represent the even–even nuclei extracted from the study of Sun and Zhang, which are located around the shell closures, and the blue dashed lines represent the fittings of the $P_{\alpha}$. As we can see from these figures, like Fig. 1, for the case of even–even nuclei, the $P_{\alpha}$ obtained by Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) also have a noticeable linear relationship with $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}$. This phenomenon further suggests that this linear relationship is not model-dependent. Furthermore, for the case of unfavored $\alpha$ decay, from Figs. 2 and 3, we find that the values of $P_{\alpha}$ are relatively small relative to those for the favored $\alpha$ decay. The reasons may be the influence of the centrifugal potential, which reduces the $\alpha$ decay width, or the nuclear structure configuration changes. Combining with the analysis results of Figs. 1-3, we suspect the linear relationship between $P_{\alpha}$ and $N_pN_n$ for all kinds of nuclei may be related to the effect of the valence proton–neutron interaction around shell closures. In order to more deeply study the relationship between $\alpha$ preformation factors $P_{\alpha}$ and $N_pN_n$, all the cases of $P_{\alpha}$ can be obtained by the linear relationship.
Figure4. (color online) $\alpha$ preformation factors $P_{\alpha}$ of the even–even nuclei around the $Z_0$ = 82 and $N_0$ = 126 shell closures as a function of $\dfrac{N_pN_n}{N_0 + Z_0}$, where $P_{\alpha}$ are obtained by Eq. (14). The blue open squares denote the even–even nuclei around the shell closures, and the blue dashed lines are the fittings of $P_{\alpha}$.

Figure5. (color online) Same as Fig. 4, but the $\alpha$ preformation factors, $P_{\alpha}$, are calculated by Eq. (15).

$P_{\alpha} = a \frac{N_pN_n}{Z_0 + N_0}+b. $
(16)
Here, a and b are adjustable parameters, which are extracted from the fittings of Figs. 1-3 and listed in Table 6. In theory, combining these parameters and Eq. (15), one can obtain the fitted $P_{\alpha}$.
regionfavored decayunfavored decay
abab
even–even nuclei
I?0.665470.03339??
II, III1.83340.25035??
odd-A nuclei
I?0.656880.00632?0.673420.00862
II, III0.648050.269470.2559?0.00382
doubly-odd nuclei
I?0.48781?0.01831?0.109940.00988
II, III1.09720.138490.09388$-1.34923\times10^{-4}$


Table6.Fitted parameters of Eq. (16).

We systematically calculate the $\alpha$ decay half-lives of the 152 nuclei using the GLDM. All the numerical results are listed in Tables 1- 5. In these tables, the first five columns denote the $\alpha$ transition, $\alpha$ decay energy $Q_{\alpha}$ as taken from the latest evaluated atomic mass table, AME2016 [60, 61], spin-parity transformation (${j^{\pi}_{p}}\to{j^{\pi}_{d}}$), minimum orbital angular momentum $l_{\rm{min}}$ taken away by the $\alpha$ particle, and $\alpha$ preformation factor, respectively. The sixth column denotes the logarithmic form of the experimental $\alpha$ decay half-life denoted as ${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{exp}}}$. The last two columns denote the logarithmic form of the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-life using the GLDM without considering $P_{\alpha}$ and with fitting $P_{\alpha}$ calculated by Eq. (15), which are denoted as ${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}$ and ${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}$, respectively. Simultaneously, each table is divided into two parts: region I and regions II and III. As can be seen from Tables 1-5, relative to ${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc1}}}$, ${{\rm{lg}}T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc2}}}$ can better reproduce the experimental data. More intuitively, we calculate the standard deviation, $\sigma$=$\sqrt{\sum{({\rm{log}}_{10}{T_{1/2}^{\rm{calc}}} \!-\! {\rm{log}}_{10}{T_{1/2}^{\rm{exp}}})^2}/n}$, between the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives and the experimental data. The calculated results are summarized in Table 7. In this table, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ represent the standard deviations between $T^{\rm{calc1}}_{1/2}$, $T^{\rm{calc2}}_{1/2}$ and $T^{\rm{exp}}_{1/2}$, respectively. As we can see from Table 7, it is noticeable that for all the kinds of nuclei, the values of $\sigma_1$ are much larger than the values of $\sigma_2$. The maximum value of $\sigma_2$ is only 0.40, which suggests that the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives using the GLDM with the fitting of $P_{\alpha}$ calculated by Eq. (15) can better reproduce the experimental data. Moreover, for more clearly indicating the agreement between the calculations using the GLDM with the fitting $P_{\alpha}$ and the experimental data, we plot the logarithm deviation between the calculated results and experimental data for all kinds of nuclei in Figs. 6(a)-6(c). In Figs. 6(a)-6(c), the opened blue circles denote the logarithm deviation between the calculated results and the experimental data for the cases of favored $\alpha$ decay for all the kinds of nuclei. The red circles in Figs. 6(b)- 6(c) denote the cases of unfavored $\alpha$ decay for the odd-A and odd–odd nuclei, respectively. One can see from Figs. 6(a)-6(c), the values of ${\rm{log}}_{10}T_{1/2}^{\rm{cal}} - {\rm{log}}_{10}T_{1/2}^{\rm{exp}}$ are basically between -0.4 and 0.4. This indicates that the GLDM with the fitting of $P_{\alpha}$ can be treated as a useful tool to study the $\alpha$ decay half-lives of the nuclei around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures.
Figure6. (color online) Deviations of the logarithmic form of the $\alpha$ decay half-lives between the calculations using the GLDM with the fitting of $P_\alpha$ calculated by Eq. (16) and the experimental data as a function of the neutron number.

nucleifavored decayunfavored decay
$\sigma_1$$\sigma_2$$\sigma_1$$\sigma_2$
even–even nuclei0.9470.350??
${\rm odd}-A$ nuclei0.9780.2621.900.272
doubly odd nuclei1.1450.2272.4940.400


Table7.Standard deviation $\sigma$ between the calculated $\alpha$ decay half-lives and the experimental ones.

4.Summary
In summary, using the GLDM, we systematically study the $\alpha$ decay half-lives and the preformation factors of 152 nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 closed shells. It is found that the preformation factors are linearly related to $N_pN_n$ and the calculated half-lives can reproduce the experimental data well. Meanwhile, the linear relationship between $N_pN_n$ and the preformation factors calculated by two different formulas by defining the concept of the microscopic valence nucleon (hole) number still exists. Combining with the study of Seif ${et\ al.}$ and our previous studies, we consider that the linear relationship between $P_{\alpha}$ and $N_pN_n$ around the Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures is model-independent and that the valance proton–neutron interaction may be important to the $\alpha$ particle preformation.
We?would?like?to?thank?X.?-D.?Sun,?J.?-G.?Deng,?J.?-H.?Cheng,?and?J.?-L.?Chen?for?useful?discussion.?
闂傚倷鑳剁划顖炲礉濡ゅ懎绠犻柟鎹愵嚙閸氳銇勯弬鍨挃闁告宀搁幃妤呮晲鎼存繄鐩庣紓浣风贰閸o綁寮婚悢鐓庣闁兼祴鏅濋悡鍌炴⒑缁嬭法鐒块柟鍑ゆ嫹2婵犵數鍋為崹鍫曞箰缁嬫5娲Ω閳哄绋忛梺鍦劋椤ㄥ棝宕甸埀顒勬⒑閸涘﹤濮﹀ù婊呭仱瀹曟椽鏁撻悩宕囧幗闂侀潧绻堥崐鏍р槈瑜旈弻锝夊焺閸愵亝鍣伴梺璇″暙閸パ囧敹闂佹寧绻傚ú銏ゅ磻閹烘鈷戦柛婵嗗閳ь剙缍婇幃閿嬫綇閳哄偆娼熼梺璺ㄥ櫐閹凤拷
婵犵數濮伴崹褰掓偉閵忋倕鐐婄憸宥嗘叏閵堝鈷戦柛娑橈工缁楁帗淇婇锝囨创妞ゃ垺妫冩慨鈧柕鍫濇-濡嫰鏌f惔顖滅У闁哥姵鐗犲畷銏ゅ箻椤旂晫鍘搁梺鍛婃礋濞佳囨倶閿濆棎浜滈柟瀛樼箖婢跺嫮绱掔€n亶妯€闁糕斁鍋撳銈嗗坊閸嬫捇鏌嶇拠鏌ュ弰婵¢箖浜堕弻宥堫檨闁告挻鐟╁畷顖涘鐎涙ê浜┑鐐叉▕娴滄繈寮查鍕€堕柣鎰暩閹藉倿鏌涢妶鍥㈤棁澶嬬節婵犲倸鏆fい搴㈩殕閵囧嫰鍩為鐐差仾濠殿垱鎸抽弻锟犲炊閳轰焦鐏侀梺鍛婄憿閸嬫捇姊绘担鍝ョШ婵炰匠鍡愪汗闁绘劗鏁哥粻鏃堟煙閹屽殶闁崇粯姊归幈銊ノ熺拠鎻掝潽闂佹悶鍊х粻鎾诲蓟閻旇櫣鐭欓柟绋垮閹瑩姊烘导娆戠М缂佺姵鐗曢锝夘敃閳垛晜鐎婚梺褰掑亰閸樺墽绮欓崟顖涒拺闁圭ǹ娴烽埥澶愭煛閸偄澧寸€规洖缍婃俊姝岊槼濠殿垰銈搁弻娑樷槈濮楀牊鏁剧紓浣哄У鐢偤鍩€椤掆偓閻忔艾顭垮鈧幃褔宕卞ù鏉挎喘瀹曠ǹ螖娴i晲鐥梻浣侯攰閹活亪姊介崟顖涙櫖闁哄稁鍘介悡蹇涙煕閳╁啯绀€妞わ絺鏆渆e婵犵數濮伴崹鍦礊婵犲洤鐒垫い鎺嶈兌閳洟鏌曢崱妤€鏆i柡灞剧洴楠炴帡骞嬮悜鍡橆棧婵$偑鍊栫敮鐐哄窗閹邦喚鐭欏┑鐘叉处閸嬫劙鏌i姀銏℃毄閺佸牓姊绘担绋挎倯婵犮垺锕㈠畷顖涘鐎涙ê浜梺鍛婄箓婵鲸鎯旈姀锛勭Ф濡炪倖鍔楅崰搴㈢妤e啯鐓涢柛銉e妽閻ㄦ垿鏌i悢鍙夋珔闁宠棄顦甸獮妯肩礄閻樺崬顒㈡俊鐐€栧ú婵嗏枍閺囩偍缂氶煫鍥ㄧ☉瀹告繃銇勯幘妤€鍟锟�20濠德板€楁慨鐑藉磻閻樿绠垫い蹇撴椤洘绻濋棃娑卞剰缂佺姵鍨块弻銈嗘叏閹邦兘鍋撳Δ鈧埢鏃堝閻樺棛鎳撻オ浼村礃閳哄﹥锛呯紓鍌欑椤︻垶顢氶銏犵劦妞ゆ巻鍋撴繝鈧柆宥呯;闁绘梻鍘ч弸渚€鏌曢崼婵愭Ч闁稿骸绉归弻娑㈠即閵娿儱顫╅梺浼欑畱缂嶅﹪骞冨Δ鍐╁枂闁告洦鍙庨弳锟犳⒑閸濆嫭顥戦柛瀣崌濮婃椽宕崟鍨ч梺鍛婃⒐閻楃娀骞冮敓鐘虫櫖闁告洦鍓欓悵浼存⒑闂堟稓绠氶柛鎾寸箞閹€斥枎閹邦喚顔曟繝銏f硾椤戝棛绮堥埀顒勬倵濞堝灝娅嶉柡鈧崡鐑嗗殫闁告洦鍋掗崥瀣煕閺囥劌骞樻俊鍙夊灴濮婃椽宕崟顐熷亾娴犲缍栧璺烘湰閸忔粓鏌涢锝嗙闁哄拋鍓熼幃姗€鎮欓棃娑楀缂備胶濮电敮鈥愁潖婵犳艾鐐婇柨婵嗘噸婢规洟姊洪懡銈呮瀾婵炲弶鍨块幊妤冩崉鐞涒剝鐏侀梺纭呮彧闂勫嫰宕曢幋锔藉€甸柨婵嗛楠炴ḿ绱掗悩宕囧⒌闁哄备鍓濆鍕槈濞嗗浚浼�
相关话题/Systematic study decay