uu.seUppsala University Publications

CiteExport$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt159",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt159",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt159",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:upper:exportLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt160_j_idt163",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt160:j_idt163",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt160_j_idt163",target:"formSmash:upper:j_idt160:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});

Sampling of systematic errors to estimate likelihood weights in nuclear data uncertainty propagationPrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_some",{id:"formSmash:some",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_some",multiple:true}); PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_all",{id:"formSmash:all",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_all",multiple:true}); PrimeFaces.cw("SelectBooleanButton","widget_formSmash_j_idt238",{id:"formSmash:j_idt238",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt238",onLabel:"Hide others and affiliations",offLabel:"Show others and affiliations"});
function selectAll()
{
var panelSome = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:some"));
var panelAll = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:all"));
panelAll.toggle();
toggleList(panelSome.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
toggleList(panelAll.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
}
/*Toggling the list of authorPanel nodes according to the toggling of the closeable second panel */
function toggleList(childList, panel)
{
var panelWasOpen = (panel.get(0).style.display == 'none');
// console.log('panel was open ' + panelWasOpen);
for (var c = 0; c < childList.length; c++) {
if (childList[c].classList.contains('authorPanel')) {
clickNode(panelWasOpen, childList[c]);
}
}
}
/*nodes have styleClass ui-corner-top if they are expanded and ui-corner-all if they are collapsed */
function clickNode(collapse, child)
{
if (collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-top')) {
// console.log('collapse');
child.click();
}
if (!collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-all')) {
// console.log('expand');
child.click();
}
}
PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",{id:"formSmash:responsibleOrgs",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",multiple:true}); 2016 (English)In: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, ISSN 0168-9002, E-ISSN 1872-9576, Vol. 807, p. 137-149Article in journal (Refereed) Published
##### Abstract [en]

##### Place, publisher, year, edition, pages

Elsevier, 2016. Vol. 807, p. 137-149
##### Keyword [en]

Nuclear data, Uncertainty propagation, Experimental correlations, Systematic uncertainty, Total Monte Carlo
##### National Category

Physical Sciences
##### Research subject

Physics with specialization in Applied Nuclear Physics
##### Identifiers

URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-265321DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2015.10.024ISI: 000365596200019OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-265321DiVA, id: diva2:865156
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt456",{id:"formSmash:j_idt456",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt456",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt462",{id:"formSmash:j_idt462",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt462",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt468",{id:"formSmash:j_idt468",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt468",multiple:true});
Available from: 2015-10-27 Created: 2015-10-27 Last updated: 2018-04-16
##### In thesis

In methodologies for nuclear data (ND) uncertainty assessment and propagation based on random sampling, likelihood weights can be used to infer experimental information into the distributions for the ND. As the included number of correlated experimental points grows large, the computational time for the matrix inversion involved in obtaining the likelihood can become a practical problem. There are also other problems related to the conventional computation of the likelihood, e.g., the assumption that all experimental uncertainties are Gaussian. In this study, a way to estimate the likelihood which avoids matrix inversion is investigated; instead, the experimental correlations are included by sampling of systematic errors. It is shown that the model underlying the sampling methodology (using univariate normal distributions for random and systematic errors) implies a multivariate Gaussian for the experimental points (i.e., the conventional model). It is also shown that the likelihood estimates obtained through sampling of systematic errors approach the likelihood obtained with matrix inversion as the sample size for the systematic errors grows large. In studied practical cases, it is seen that the estimates for the likelihood weights converge impractically slowly with the sample size, compared to matrix inversion. The computational time is estimated to be greater than for matrix inversion in cases with more experimental points, too. Hence, the sampling of systematic errors has little potential to compete with matrix inversion in cases where the latter is applicable. Nevertheless, the underlying model and the likelihood estimates can be easier to intuitively interpret than the conventional model and the likelihood function involving the inverted covariance matrix. Therefore, this work can both have pedagogical value and be used to help motivating the conventional assumption of a multivariate Gaussian for experimental data. The sampling of systematic errors could also be used in cases where the experimental uncertainties are not Gaussian, and for other purposes than to compute the likelihood, e.g., to produce random experimental data sets for a more direct use in ND evaluation.

1. Experimental data and Total Monte Carlo: Towards justified, transparent and complete nuclear data uncertainties$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","overlay865178",{id:"formSmash:j_idt892:0:j_idt899",widgetVar:"overlay865178",target:"formSmash:j_idt892:0:parentLink",showEvent:"mousedown",hideEvent:"mousedown",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",appendToBody:true});});

2. Approaching well-founded comprehensive nuclear data uncertainties: Fitting imperfect models to imperfect data$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","overlay1197900",{id:"formSmash:j_idt892:1:j_idt899",widgetVar:"overlay1197900",target:"formSmash:j_idt892:1:parentLink",showEvent:"mousedown",hideEvent:"mousedown",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",appendToBody:true});});

doi
urn-nbn$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("Tooltip","widget_formSmash_j_idt1452",{id:"formSmash:j_idt1452",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt1452",showEffect:"fade",hideEffect:"fade",showDelay:500,hideDelay:300,target:"formSmash:altmetricDiv"});});

CiteExport$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1505",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1505",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1505",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:lower:exportLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1506_j_idt1508",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1506:j_idt1508",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1506_j_idt1508",target:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1506:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});