A Survey of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Nuclear Power Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear power plants (NPPs) rely on critical, complex systems that require continuous monitoring to ensure safe operation under both normal and abnormal conditions. Despite the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance predictive capabilities in these systems, limited research has been conducted on the application of AI algorithms within NPPs. This presents a knowledge gap in the integration of AI for improving safety, reliability, and decision making in NPP. In this study, we explore the use of AI methods, including machine learning and real-time data analytics, applied to NPP components to address the nonlinearity and dynamic behavior inherent in reactor operations. Through the implementation of AI and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, we propose a system that enables early warning and real-time data transmission to regulatory authorities and decision-makers, ensuring better coordination during incidents. Lessons from past nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl, emphasize the importance of timely information dissemination to mitigate risks. However, this integration also presents challenges, including cybersecurity risks and the need for updated regulations to address AI use in safety-critical environments. The results of this study highlight the urgent need for further research on the application of AI in NPPs, with a particular focus on addressing these challenges to ensure safe implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".