Uncertainty Quantification of Mass Models using Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments in the description of the masses of atomic nuclei have led to various nuclear mass models that provide predictions for masses across the whole chart of nuclides. These mass models play an important role in understanding the synthesis of heavy elements in the rapid neutron capture ($r$-) process. However, it is still a challenging task to estimate the size of uncertainty associated with the predictions of each mass model. In this work, a method to quantify the mass uncertainty using \textit{ensemble Bayesian model averaging} (EBMA) is introduced. This Bayesian method provides a natural way to perform model averaging, selection, calibration, and uncertainty quantification, by combining the mass models as a mixture of normal distributions, whose parameters are optimized against the experimental data, employing the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method using the No-U-Turn sampler (NUTS). The average size of our best uncertainty estimates of neutron separation energies based on the AME2003 data is 0.48 MeV and covers 95% of new data in the AME2020. The uncertainty estimates can also be used to detect outliers with respect to the trend of experimental data and theoretical predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".