1. Description of heavy nuclei masses by macro-micro models 1. Coworkers: Yu. Litvinov, A. Parkhomenko 2. Introduction 3. Considered models 4. Accuracy of the models and their predictive power 5. Differences in their predictions outside the known region 6. Conclusions 18th Nuclear Physics Workshop Kazimierz Dolny, Sept. 28-Oct. 2, 2011 A. Sobiczewski National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw

2. Considered models: Global models: LSD, FRDM, TF, FRLDM – macro-micro; Sk-HFB21; G-HFB, RMF – purely micro Local models: LMZ – semi-empirical, HN (Warsaw) – macro-micro LSD: K. Pomorski and J. Dudek, PRC 67 (2003) 044316 FRDM: P. Möller et al., ADNDT 59 (1995) 185 TF: W.D. Myers and W.J. Świątecki, Nucl. Phys. A 601 (1996) 141 Sk-HFB21: S. Goriely et al., PRC 82 (2010) 035804 G-HFB: S. Goriely et al., PRL 102 (2009) 242501 RMF: L. Geng et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 113 (2005) 785 LMZ: S. Liran et al., PRC 62 (2000) 47301 HN (Warsaw): I. Muntian et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B 32 (2001) 691

13. Conclusions 1. Global m-m models are comparable in their accuracy (ms about 600 keV). Also their predictive power is comparable. The worst is FRLDM. 2. Among purely micr models, last version of Sk-HFB is the best. However, it is comparable with m-m models, while much more complicated and time consuming in the calculations. 3. Present version of RMF is rather bad. One can expect, however, that modification discussed by P. Ring (and being used in going on calculations) will lead to much better results. 4. For heavy nuclei, the rms is smaller and comparable between the m-m and also Sk-HFB21 models. The G-HFB and RMF models are much worse. The semi-empirical model is exceptionally good. However, its predictive power is not so good. 5. When going outside of the exp. region, the models show differences, but not so sudden. This suggests that a continuing interaction between experiment and theory, the models may be reasonably fast developed. In this development, the considerations discussed by J. Dudek may appear to be helpful.