Developments in data assimilation theory allow to adjust integral parameters and cross sections with stochastic sampling. This work investigates how two stochastic methods, MOCABA and BMC, perform relative to a sensitivity-based methodology called GLLS. Stochastic data assimilation can treat integral parameters that behave non-linearly with respect to nuclear data perturbations, which would be an advantage over GLLS. Additionally, BMC is compatible with integral parameters and nuclear data that have non-Gaussian distributions. In this work, MOCABA and BMC are compared to GLLS for a simple test case: JEZEBEL-Pu239 simulated with Serpent2. The three methods show good agreement between the mean values and uncertainties of their posterior calculated values and nuclear data. The observed discrepancies are not statistically significant with a sample size of 10000. BMC posterior calculated values and nuclear data have larger uncertainties than MOCABA’s at equivalent sample sizes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
M. Salvatores et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 118, 38 (2014)
A. Hoefer, O. Buss, J.C. Neuber, How confident can we be in confidence intervals for the computational bias obtained with the generalized linear least squares methodology? - A toy model analysis, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Criticality (2011)
D. Siefman, Case Study of Data Assimilation Methods with the LWR-Proteus Phase II Experimental Campaign, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics & Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science & Engineering, M&C 2017, Jeju, South Korea (2017)
T. Watanabe et al., J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 51, 590 (2014)
O. Buss et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 77, 514 (2015)
E. Castro et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 95, 148 (2016)
D. Rochman et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 182 (2015)
E. Alhassan et al., Prog. Nucl. Energy 88, 43 (2016)
H. Mitani, H. Kuroi, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 9, 383 (1972)
A. Pazy et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 55, 280 (1974)
J. Dragt et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 62, 119 (1977)
D. Rochman et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 112, 236 (2018)
G. Palmiotti et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 178, 295 (2014)
A. Koning et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 35, 2024 (2008)
D. Rochman et al., EPJ Web of Conferences 8, 4003 (2010)
O. Leray et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 110, 547 (2017)
J. Leppänen et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 142 (2015)
M. Aufiero et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 85, 245 (2015)
T. Zhu et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 75, 713 (2015)
International handbook of evaluated reactor physics benchmark experiments NEA/NSC/DOC(2006)1 (2017)
D. Siefman, Convergence Analysis and Criterion for Parameters Estimated with Sensitivities from Monte Carlo Neutron Transport Codes, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Reactor Physics paving the way towards more efficient systems, PHYSOR2018, Cancun, Mexico (2018)
R. MacFarlane, A. Kahler, Nucl. Data Sheets 111, 2739 (2010)
B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, Stat. Sci. 1, 54 (1986)
E. Lehmann, G. Casella, Theory of Point Estimation, Vol. 2 (Springer-Verlag New York, 1998)
A. Doucet, A. Johansen, in Handbook of Nonlinear Filtering (Oxford University Press, 2011)
S. Surace, A. Kutschireiter, J. Pfister, arXiv:1703.07879 (2017)
G. Palmiotti, M. Salvatores, G. Aliberti, Nucl. Data Sheets 123, 41 (2015)
About this article
Cite this article
Siefman, D., Hursin, M., Rochman, D. et al. Stochastic vs. sensitivity-based integral parameter and nuclear data adjustments. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 429 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2018-12303-8