Abstract
Applications for machine learning (ML), deep learning, and other artificial intelligence models have shown great promise in nuclear physics, including not only in classification systems but also in the analysis of numerical data. This study used various ML algorithms to estimate the concentrations of six rare earth elements (Sm, La, Ce, Sc, Eu, and Tb) in both archaeological and marine sediment samples. An interesting aspect of this analysis is that 80% of the 235 data points were used for training data, which included two parameters: specific activity (\({A}_{{\text{sp}}}\)) and concentration (\(\rho \)) by the k0-method for the purpose of model development. The remaining 20% of the dataset was held out for testing the model's accuracy. The fundamental principle of this approach is the use of regression analysis between \({A}_{{\text{sp}}}\) and \(\rho \) to construct a machine learning regression model. This machine learning model was subsequently applied to estimate element concentrations based on \({A}_{{\text{sp}}}\) values obtained from gamma spectra. The mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and the statistical measure R-squared (R2) were employed for evaluating the accuracy of the predicted models. The random forest (RF) algorithm produces smaller MAE and RMSE values and achieves better R2 values compared to other algorithms. In addition, RF shows the lowest relative bias of the concentration values of elements in reference material (NIST 2711a) compared to other prediction models. The work focuses on demonstrating that machine learning models can effectively predict the concentrations of rare earth elements, even though this is a fundamental issue in NAA and one previous study has addressed this issue for one single element. The extension of the current work and potential directions for further development will be presented in the results and discussion section.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.
References
Boehnlein A, Diefenthaler M, Sato N, Schram M, Ziegler V, Fanelli C, Hjorth-Jensen M, Horn T, Kuchera MP, Lee D, Nazarewicz W, Ostroumov P, Orginos K, Poon A, Wang X-N, Scheinker A, Smith MS, Pang L-G (2022) Colloquium: machine learning in nuclear physics. In: Reviews of modern physics, vol 94, no 3. American Physical Society (APS). https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.94.031003.
Akkoyun S (2020) Estimation of fusion reaction cross-sections by artificial neural networks. In: Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section b: beam interactions with materials and atoms, vol 462. Elsevier, BV, pp 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.11.014.
Agarawal V, Roy S, Chakraborty A, Maitra R (2021) Accelerating coupled cluster calculations with nonlinear dynamics and supervised machine learning. J. Chem. Phys. 154(4):044110. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037090
Esfahani AA, Böser S, Buzinsky N, Cervantes R, Claessens C, de Viveiros L, Fertl M, Formaggio JA, Gladstone L, Guigue M, Heeger KM, Johnston J, Jones AM, Kazkaz K, LaRoque BH, Lindman A, Machado E, Monreal B, Morrison EC, Zayas E (2020) yclotron radiation emission spectroscopy signal classification with machine learning in project 8. New J Phys 22(3):033004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab71bd
Cheng KY, Shayan H, Krycki K, Lange-Hegermann M (2022) Prompt-gamma neutron activation analysis (PGNAA)” metal spectral classification using deep learning method (Version 1). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2208.13909.
Pessoa Barradas N, Farjallah N, Vieira A, Blaauw M (2023) Artificial neural networks for NAA: proof of concept on data analysed with k0-based software. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 332:3421–3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-022-08568-8
Roshani GH, Eftekhari-Zadeh E, Shama F, Salehizadeh A (2017) Combined application of neutron activation analysis using IECF device and neural network for prediction of cement elements. In: McGregor D, Shultis JK (eds) Radiation detection technology and methods, vol 1. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41605-017-0025-z
Medhat ME (2015) Artificial neural network: A tool for rapid quantitative elemental analysis using neutron activation analysis. Int J Adv Res Electr Electron Instrum Eng 4(6):5497–5501. https://doi.org/10.15662/ijareeie.2015.04060106
Lee D (2019) Application of artificial neural network to prompt gamma neutron activation analysis for chemical warfare agents identification. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI).
Bilton KJ, Joshi THY, Bandstra MS, Curtis JC, Hellfeld D, Vetter K (2021) Neural network approaches for mobile spectroscopic gamma-ray source detection. J Nuclear Eng 2(2):190–206. https://doi.org/10.3390/jne2020018
Hossny K, Hossny AH, Magdi S, Soliman AY, Hossny M (2020) Detecting shielded explosives by coupling prompt gamma neutron activation analysis and deep neural networks. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70537-6
Vanhoz R, Moralles M, Dias M (2021) Machine learning techniques for simultaneous determination of parameters associated with the k0 method of neutron activation analysis. In: Proceedings of the INAC 2021: international nuclear atlantic conference. Nuclear technology: reducing our carbon footprint and increasing quality of life
Al-Jundi J (2001) Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) of estuarine sediment. J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 249(2):361–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013210402494
Malainey ME (2010) Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA or NAA). In: Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique). Springer, New York, pp 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5704-7_32
RRDB. (n.d.). Iaea.org. https://nucleus.iaea.org/rrdb/#/home. Accessed 21 Dec 2023
Proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison performed in 2010–2015 for neutron activation analysis and other analytical techniques. (2018). International Atomic Energy Agency
Simonits A, Corte F, Hoste J (1975) Single-comparator methods in reactor neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Chem 24(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02514380
Blaauw M, D’Agostino G, di Luzio M, Dung HM, Jacimovic R, Da Silva Dias M, Semmler R, van Sluijs R, Barradas NP (2023) The 2021 IAEA software intercomparison for k0-INAA. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 332(8):3387–3400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-022-08626-1
De Corte F, Simonits A (2003) Recommended nuclear data for use in the k0 standardization of neutron activation analysis. At Data Nucl Data Tables 85(1):47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-640X(03)00036-6
Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Monga R, Moore S, Murray D, G, Steiner B, Tucker P, Vasudevan V, Warden P, Zheng X (2016) TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learning (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1605.08695
Ho M-D, Tran Q-T, Ho V-D, Nguyen T-S (2016) Determination of multi-element composition of Vietnamese marine sediment and tuna fish by k 0-standardized neutron activation analysis. J Radioanaly Nuclear Chem 309(1):235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-016-4761-1
Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2010) Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01
Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification and regression trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Smola AJ, Schölkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14(3):199–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:stco.0000035301.49549.88
Géron A (2019) Hands-on machine learning with scikit-learn, keras, and tensorflow. O’ Reilly Media, p 600
Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7(3):1247–1250. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of Vietnam for funding this research through project ĐTCB.07/20/VNCHN and ĐTCB.06/20/VNCHN
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, H.N., Tran, Q.T., Tran, T.A. et al. Predicting element concentrations by machine learning models in neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 333, 1759–1768 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-024-09424-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-024-09424-7