MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152082175 · doi:10.1115/1.4050767

Preliminary Evaluation of the LASSO Method for Prediction of the Relative Power Density Distribution in Mixed Oxide (Pu, DU)O2 Fuel Pellets

2021· article· en· W3152082175 on OpenAlexafffund
Catalina Anghel, Blair P. Bromley, Andrew A. Prudil, M. J. Welland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsBurnupMOX fuelNuclear engineeringNuclear fuelNuclear fission productApproximation errorBoiling water reactorMaterials scienceAlgorithmFission productsMathematicsPhysicsNuclear physicsPlutoniumEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting the power distribution within nuclear fuel is essential for predicting reactor fuel performance, since power distributions can impact pellet temperature distributions and fission product transport and migration. Analytical expressions for radial power distribution in fuel pellets were sought using lattice physics calculations to generate data and a machine learning technique to find representative expressions. Analytical approximations can be useful in nuclear fuel performance codes, such as element simulation and stresses (ELESTRES)/ element simulation code in a loss of coolant accident (ELOCA) for providing very rapid predictions of power distributions with reduced computational effort and memory requirements, relative to using an embedded or coupled neutron transport/burnup reactor physics code. Radial power distributions were calculated a priori using lattice physics codes to model mixed oxide (MOX) 37-element fuel bundles in pressure tube heavy water reactors. Such advanced fuels are of interest for future fuel cycles. Several datasets were generated with different amounts of PuO2 and variable neutron energy spectrum. Results of preliminary studies with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression machine learning method have obtained analytical fitting functions with a mean maximum relative error (MRE) of 0.056 and a maximum MRE of 0.152 on the test set. However, using LASSO to estimate the coefficients of a physically motivated modified Bessel plus an exponential function, results in a lower MRE (mean MRE 0.041 and maximum MRE 0.11) on the same test set. Further potential improvements in both the curve fit and the machine learning methods are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207