Paper detail

Unrecognized Sources of Uncertainties (USU) in Experimental Nuclear Data

Evaluated nuclear data uncertainties are often perceived as unrealistic, most often because they are thought to be too small. The impact of this issue in applied nuclear science has been discussed widely in recent years. Commonly suggested causes are: poor estimates of specific error components, neglect of uncertainty correlations, and overlooked known error sources. However, instances have been reported where very careful, objective assessments of all known error sources have been made with realistic error magnitudes and correlations provided, yet the resulting evaluated uncertainties still appear to be inconsistent with observed scatter of predicted mean values. These discrepancies might be attributed to significant unrecognized sources of uncertainty (USU) that limit the accuracy to which these physical quantities can be determined. The objective of our work has been to develop procedures for revealing and including USU estimates in nuclear data evaluations involving experimental input data. We conclude that the presence of USU may be revealed, and estimates of magnitudes made, through quantitative analyses. This paper identifies several specific clues that can be explored by evaluators in identifying the existence of USU. It then describes numerical procedures to generate quantitative estimates of USU magnitudes. Key requirements for these procedures to be viable are that sufficient numbers of data points be available, for statistical reasons, and that additional supporting information about the measurements be provided by the experimenters. Realistic examples are described to illustrate these procedures and demonstrate their outcomes as well as limitations. Our work strongly supports the view that USU is an important issue in nuclear data evaluation, with significant consequences for applications, and that this topic warrants further investigation by the nuclear science community.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.