摘要
This paper is the first of two articles （Part I and Part II） that presents the results of the new atomic mass evaluation, AME2012. It includes complete information on the experimental input data （including not used and rejected ones）, as well as details on the evaluation procedures used to derive the tables with recommended values given in the second part. This article describes the evaluation philosophy and procedures that were implemented in the selection of specific nuclear reaction, decay and mass-spectrometer results. These input values were entered in the least-squares adjustment procedure for determining the best values for the atomic masses and their uncertainties. Calculation procedures and particularities of the AME are then described. All accepted and rejected data, including outweighed ones, are presented in a tabular format and compared with the adjusted values （obtained using the adjustment procedure）. Differences with the previous AME2003 evaluation are also discussed and specific information is presented for several cases that may be of interest to various AME users. The second AME2012 article, the last one in this issue, gives a table with recommended values of atomic masses, as well as tables and graphs of derived quantifies, along with the list of references used in both this AME2012 evaluation and the NUBASE2012 one （the first paper in this issue）.
This paper is the first of two articles （Part I and Part II） that presents the results of the new atomic mass evaluation, AME2012. It includes complete information on the experimental input data （including not used and rejected ones）, as well as details on the evaluation procedures used to derive the tables with recommended values given in the second part. This article describes the evaluation philosophy and procedures that were implemented in the selection of specific nuclear reaction, decay and mass-spectrometer results. These input values were entered in the least-squares adjustment procedure for determining the best values for the atomic masses and their uncertainties. Calculation procedures and particularities of the AME are then described. All accepted and rejected data, including outweighed ones, are presented in a tabular format and compared with the adjusted values （obtained using the adjustment procedure）. Differences with the previous AME2003 evaluation are also discussed and specific information is presented for several cases that may be of interest to various AME users. The second AME2012 article, the last one in this issue, gives a table with recommended values of atomic masses, as well as tables and graphs of derived quantifies, along with the list of references used in both this AME2012 evaluation and the NUBASE2012 one （the first paper in this issue）.
