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 called ensemble Bayesian model averaging (EBMA) is introduced to quantify the uncertainty of one-neutron separation energies (${S}_{1n}$) which are directly relevant in the calculations of $r$-process observables. This Bayesian method provides a natural way to perform model averaging, selection, 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 method using the no-u-turn sampler. The EBMA model optimized with all the experimental ${S}_{1n}$ from the AME2003 nuclides are shown to provide reliable uncertainty estimates when tested with the new data in the AME2020.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".