用“物理不确定界限”方法验证由实验数据统计分析得到的核数据不确定度

IF 0.9 Q3 NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
D. Neudecker, M. White, D. Vaughan, G. Srinivasan
{"title":"用“物理不确定界限”方法验证由实验数据统计分析得到的核数据不确定度","authors":"D. Neudecker, M. White, D. Vaughan, G. Srinivasan","doi":"10.1051/epjn/2020007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Concerns within the nuclear data community led to substantial increases of Neutron Data Standards (NDS) uncertainties from its previous to the current version. For example, those associated with the NDS reference cross section 239Pu(n,f) increased from 0.6–1.6% to 1.3–1.7% from 0.1–20 MeV. These cross sections, among others, were adopted, e.g., by ENDF/B-VII.1 (previous NDS) and ENDF/B-VIII.0 (current NDS). There has been a strong desire to be able to validate these increases based on objective criteria given their impact on our understanding of various application uncertainties. Here, the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method (PUBs) by Vaughan et al. is applied to validate evaluated uncertainties obtained by a statistical analysis of experimental data. We investigate with PUBs whether ENDF/B-VII.1 or ENDF/B-VIII.0 239Pu(n,f) cross-section uncertainties are more realistic given the information content used for the actual evaluation. It is shown that the associated conservative (1.5–1.8%) and minimal realistic (1.1–1.3%) uncertainty bounds obtained by PUBs enclose ENDF/B-VIII.0 uncertainties and indicate that ENDF/B-VII.1 uncertainties are underestimated.","PeriodicalId":44454,"journal":{"name":"EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1051/epjn/2020007","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating nuclear data uncertainties obtained from a statistical analysis of experimental data with the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method\",\"authors\":\"D. Neudecker, M. White, D. Vaughan, G. Srinivasan\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/epjn/2020007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Concerns within the nuclear data community led to substantial increases of Neutron Data Standards (NDS) uncertainties from its previous to the current version. For example, those associated with the NDS reference cross section 239Pu(n,f) increased from 0.6–1.6% to 1.3–1.7% from 0.1–20 MeV. These cross sections, among others, were adopted, e.g., by ENDF/B-VII.1 (previous NDS) and ENDF/B-VIII.0 (current NDS). There has been a strong desire to be able to validate these increases based on objective criteria given their impact on our understanding of various application uncertainties. Here, the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method (PUBs) by Vaughan et al. is applied to validate evaluated uncertainties obtained by a statistical analysis of experimental data. We investigate with PUBs whether ENDF/B-VII.1 or ENDF/B-VIII.0 239Pu(n,f) cross-section uncertainties are more realistic given the information content used for the actual evaluation. It is shown that the associated conservative (1.5–1.8%) and minimal realistic (1.1–1.3%) uncertainty bounds obtained by PUBs enclose ENDF/B-VIII.0 uncertainties and indicate that ENDF/B-VII.1 uncertainties are underestimated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1051/epjn/2020007\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2020007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2020007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

核数据界的担忧导致中子数据标准(NDS)的不确定性从以前的版本大幅增加到现在的版本。例如,与NDS参考截面239Pu(n,f)相关的那些从0.1–20 MeV从0.6–1.6%增加到1.3–1.7%。例如,ENDF/B-VII.1(以前的NDS)和ENDF/B-VIII.0(现在的NDS。鉴于这些增长对我们理解各种应用不确定性的影响,我们强烈希望能够根据客观标准验证这些增长。在这里,Vaughan等人的“物理不确定性边界”方法(PUBs)用于验证通过实验数据的统计分析获得的评估不确定性。考虑到实际评估所用的信息内容,我们用PUB研究了ENDF/B-VII.1或ENDF/B-VIII.0 239Pu(n,f)横截面的不确定性是否更现实。结果表明,PUB获得的相关保守(1.5-1.8%)和最小现实(1.1-1.3%)不确定性边界包含了ENDF/B-VII.0不确定性,表明ENDF/B-VII.1不确定性被低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validating nuclear data uncertainties obtained from a statistical analysis of experimental data with the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method
Concerns within the nuclear data community led to substantial increases of Neutron Data Standards (NDS) uncertainties from its previous to the current version. For example, those associated with the NDS reference cross section 239Pu(n,f) increased from 0.6–1.6% to 1.3–1.7% from 0.1–20 MeV. These cross sections, among others, were adopted, e.g., by ENDF/B-VII.1 (previous NDS) and ENDF/B-VIII.0 (current NDS). There has been a strong desire to be able to validate these increases based on objective criteria given their impact on our understanding of various application uncertainties. Here, the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method (PUBs) by Vaughan et al. is applied to validate evaluated uncertainties obtained by a statistical analysis of experimental data. We investigate with PUBs whether ENDF/B-VII.1 or ENDF/B-VIII.0 239Pu(n,f) cross-section uncertainties are more realistic given the information content used for the actual evaluation. It is shown that the associated conservative (1.5–1.8%) and minimal realistic (1.1–1.3%) uncertainty bounds obtained by PUBs enclose ENDF/B-VIII.0 uncertainties and indicate that ENDF/B-VII.1 uncertainties are underestimated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies
EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信