Uncertainty Quantification for Nuclear Density Functional Theory and Information Content of New Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical tools of uncertainty quantification can be used to assess the information content of measured observables with respect to present-day theoretical models, to estimate model errors and thereby improve predictive capability, to extrapolate beyond the regions reached by experiment, and to provide meaningful input to applications and planned measurements. To showcase new opportunities offered by such tools, we make a rigorous analysis of theoretical statistical uncertainties in nuclear density functional theory using Bayesian inference methods. By considering the recent mass measurements from the Canadian Penning Trap at Argonne National Laboratory, we demonstrate how the Bayesian analysis and a direct least-squares optimization, combined with high-performance computing, can be used to assess the information content of the new data with respect to a model based on the Skyrme energy density functional approach. Employing the posterior probability distribution computed with a Gaussian process emulator, we apply the Bayesian framework to propagate theoretical statistical uncertainties in predictions of nuclear masses, two-neutron dripline, and fission barriers. Overall, we find that the new mass measurements do not impose a constraint that is strong enough to lead to significant changes in the model parameters. The example discussed in this study sets the stage for quantifying and maximizing the impact of new measurements with respect to current modeling and guiding future experimental efforts, thus enhancing the experiment-theory cycle in the scientific method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".