Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A physics-embedded Bayesian neural network for predicting the energy dependence of fission product yields with fine structures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single shell factor gives fission-yield predictions their fine structure

desk verdict A useful extension of the authors' own BNN program—the shell-factor input is doing real work—but the paper overstates 'emergence' when the energy damping is in the input by construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17275 v3 pith:THK4RA7B submitted 2025-04-24 nucl-th nucl-exphysics.data-an

Jingde Chen , Yuta Mukobara , Kazuki Fujio , Satoshi Chiba , Tatsuya Katabuchi , Chikako Ishizuka This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-exphysics.data-an PACS 25.85.-w02.50.Tt07.05.Mh
keywords fissionproductyieldsfinestructureshelleffectsBayesianneuralnetworkenergydependenceWAICpromptneutronmultiplicitynucleardata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a Bayesian neural network can predict energy-dependent fission product yields, including the sharp fine structures in the heavy and light mass peaks, when given a single hand-crafted input: a phenomenological shell factor encoding the positions and relative strengths of shell-stabilized fragment masses. The shell factor is fixed at mass numbers 134, 140, and 144 with weights 4:2:1 and mirror partners on the light side, damped by a Boltzmann factor $\exp(-E/kT)$ with $kT=1.5\,\mathrm{MeV}$, a scale the authors motivate from dynamical fission simulations. Trained on a mix of evaluated, experimental, and theoretical yields, the network reproduces fine structures that are missed without this input, and its energy-dependent predictions agree with out-of-sample experiments and with prompt neutron multiplicity trends even though neutron emission data were never used in training. If true, this gives a practically useful way to interpolate yields at neutron energies where no measurements exist, for reactor physics and nuclear data applications.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shell factor $$SF = \exp\left(-\frac{E}{kT}\right)\left(W_1(N_1+N_4)+W_2(N_2+N_5)+W_3(N_3+N_6)\right),$$ where $N_1,N_2,N_3$ are Gaussian bumps centered at $A=134,140,144$ with width $\sigma=1$, $N_4,N_5,N_6$ mirror these features on the light fragment side, $W_1=4$, $W_2=2$, $W_3=1$, and $kT=1.5\,\mathrm{MeV}$. It encodes double shell closure at $A=134$ and deformed shell structures at $A=140$ and $144$, together with a Boltzmann factor that suppresses shell effects as excitation energy rises. Combined with WAIC-based selection of the 11-11 hidden-layer architecture, this input is what allows the network to reproduce fine structures and their energy dependence instead of interpolating smooth global trends.

What would settle it

Retrain the PE-BNN with the shell-factor Gaussian centers shifted by two mass units, or with the damping scale $kT$ set to 1.0 or 3.0 MeV, and compare against the out-of-sample energy-dependent yields of reference [43]. If the predictions remain within the same credible intervals, the fine structures are not actually coming from the shell factor; if they degrade sharply, the hand-coded values are load-bearing. Applying the frozen shell factor to a fissioning system far below the actinides, where the 134/140/144 shell closures do not apply, would test the factor's generality beyond its calibration scope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that most of the missing physics needed to capture fission-yield fine structures and their energy dependence can be compressed into one input feature rather than learned or parameter-tuned. The PE-BNN is a two-hidden-layer Bayesian neural network mapping the compound-nucleus charge, mass, excitation energy, fragment mass, and the shell factor to post-neutron independent mass yields, trained with a weighted dataset of evaluated, experimental, and theoretical yields. Adding the shell factor raises the validation log-likelihood by about 35% compared with the same network without it. The predicted yields show shell-effect damping with incident neutron energy: the doubly magic $A=134$ peak persists, while the deformed-shell peaks at $A=138$ and $A=143$ fade, a hierarchy that emerges from training rather than being imposed. The model also predicts that light-fragment yields barely move with energy while heavy-fragment ridge positions shift downward, consistent with the measured increase of prompt neutron multiplicity in the heavy fragment.

Load-bearing premise

The shell factor with fixed Gaussian centers at $A=134,140,144$, weights 4:2:1, width 1, and damping scale $kT=1.5$ MeV correctly encodes the physical shell effects; if these hand-set numbers are wrong for a given fissioning system, the fine-structure predictions will be biased by construction regardless of what the network learns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Yields at unmeasured incident neutron energies, such as between 0.5 and 14 MeV, can be predicted with quantified Bayesian credible intervals, replacing linear interpolation between the three standard evaluated energies.
  • Fine-structure behavior is captured for multiple actinides with the same fixed shell factor, so no per-reaction retuning of phenomenological parameters is needed.
  • The hierarchy of shell damping, with $A=134$ robust and $A=138$, $A=143$ fading, emerges from training on yields alone, providing a physically interpretable account of shell effects.
  • The framework is explicitly scoped to low-to-intermediate neutron energies; at higher energies where multi-chance fission dominates, the paper states that an explicit treatment of individual fission channels would be required.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural stress test is to retrain the PE-BNN with the shell-factor Gaussian centers shifted off 134/140/144, or with $kT$ set to 1.0 or 3.0 MeV, and measure out-of-sample log-likelihood: the paper's claim implies a sharp optimum at the physical values.
  • The same single-physics-input recipe should transfer to other observables with known systematic features, such as charge yields or isomeric yield ratios, where a hand-coded feature could substitute for additional training data.
  • Because the shell factor is symmetric in fragment mass about half the compound mass, the framework implicitly assumes mirror-shell effects on the light fragment; if measurements for very neutron-rich fissioning systems break that symmetry, an asymmetric feature would be needed.
  • The emergence of prompt-neutron systematics from yield-only training suggests that FPY data alone constrain the mean number of prompt neutrons per mass chain, which could be exploited to produce correlated FPY and $\bar\nu$ predictions for nuclear data libraries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a physics-embedded Bayesian neural network (PE-BNN) for predicting fission product yields (FPYs) as functions of fragment mass, fissioning nucleus, and excitation energy. The central novelty is a hand-constructed 'shell factor' input, Eq. (5), of the form SF = exp(-E/kT) [W1(N1+N4) + W2(N2+N5) + W3(N3+N6)], with Gaussian peaks at A = 134, 140, 144 and mirror partners on the light-fragment side, weights W1 = 4, W2 = 2, W3 = 1, width sigma = 1, and a Boltzmann damping scale kT = 1.5 MeV. The network is trained with NUTS-based full Bayesian inference on a dataset composed of JENDL-5, EXFOR, and theoretical yields, with architecture selection by WAIC. The authors report that including the shell factor raises log-likelihood by 21.3% on training and 34.6% on test data, and they validate the predictions against energy-dependent experimental cumulative yields for 235U, 238U, 239Pu, and 232Th, including the out-of-sample Tonchev 2025 dataset, as well as against independently measured prompt-neutron multiplicities. The paper claims that the fine-structure energy dependence, in particular the persistence of A = 134 and the attenuation of A = 138 and A = 143, 'emerge naturally from the trained network,' and that the framework provides a physically interpretable, predictive tool for unmeasured incident neutron energies.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework is a practically useful addition to nuclear data evaluation: it produces complete mass distributions with Bayesian credible intervals at arbitrary neutron energies, is validated on a genuinely out-of-sample dataset (Tonchev 2025), and shows a clean, quantified log-likelihood gain from the physics-embedded input. The consistency between FPY energy trends and independently measured prompt-neutron multiplicities, with no neutron-emission data in the training set, is a notable emergent check. Strengths of the paper include the use of full NUTS-based Bayesian inference rather than variational approximations, explicit WAIC-based model selection, a transparent definition of the physics input, and validation across several isotopes. The main caveat is that the fine-structure hierarchy (A = 134 persistent relative to A = 138/143) is largely inherited from the hand-set shell-factor weights and damping, so the more ambitious interpretive claim is not yet established; the engineering value as a prediction tool is more solid than the claim of discovering the underlying energy-damping law.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, "Similarly, the prediction results for 232Th..."; Eq. (5)] The claim that the stabilization of A = 134 and the energy-dependent attenuation of A = 138 and A = 143 "emerge naturally from the trained network, without explicitly imposing such behaviors during training" is not supported as stated, because the dominant part of this behavior is written into the input feature. Equation (5) places Gaussian peaks at A = 134, 140, 144 with weights W1 = 4, W2 = 2, W3 = 1 and a common damping exp(-E/kT) with kT = 1.5 MeV; at E_n = 14 MeV the damping factor is about 10^-4, so the shell factor carries essentially no fine-structure signal at high energy by construction. The attenuated A = 138 and A = 143 structures fall on the tails of the weighted 140 and 144 Gaussians, so their decline relative to A = 134 is inherited from the hand-set weights and damping. The reported log-likelihood gain relative to the no-SF model shows that the network uses the SF feature; it does not show that the energy dependence of the fine structure is learned from FPY data rather than imposed by the functional form. A control experiment (equal weights, permuted centers, or removal of the exponential damping) is needed to support the attribution of this behavior to learning rather than construction.
  2. [§II, Eq. (5) and surrounding text; §III log-likelihood paragraph] The five shell-factor constants (W1, W2, W3, kT, sigma) and the peak centers are hand-set and described as adjustable hyperparameters, yet no sensitivity analysis is reported. The 21.3%/34.6% log-likelihood improvements compare the SF model with a no-SF model; they do not establish that the validation agreement in Figs. 2, 6-8 is robust to the specific choices, as opposed to being a product of tuning these constants to the training set. Since the paper contrasts itself with GEF, which it describes as relying on a large set of adjustable parameters, the claim that the present approach is "transparent and reproducible... without relying on iterative parameter retuning" is weakened by the five hand-set SF constants. A WAIC or validation scan over, for example, kT in 0.5-3 MeV, sigma in 0.5-2, and alternative weight assignments (including equal weights) is the minimal evidence needed to show that the out-of-sample performance is a property of the PE-BNN method rather than of this particular hand-tuned input.
  3. [§III, Figs. 6-8; §II data paragraph] The main predictive validation compares experimental cumulative yields with predicted independent mass yields, and the paper twice acknowledges this mismatch. Its justification, that "the difference between cumulative and independent yields is expected to be small in the present incident-energy range," is asserted without a quantitative estimate for the specific mass chains plotted. The magnitude of the cumulative-independent correction is mass- and energy-dependent, and for some of the plotted nuclides (e.g., A = 132, A = 140) beta-decay feeding is not obviously negligible on the relevant timescales. Because the panels in Figs. 6-8 are the primary evidence for predictive capability, the authors should either quantify the correction (for instance from evaluated charge distributions and decay data, or by comparing JENDL-5 independent and cumulative yields for the same chains) or explicitly restrict the claims to trend-level agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract (arXiv listing)] The abstract as listed describes the shell factor as an "energy-independent phenomenological shell factor," which contradicts Eq. (5) and the full-text abstract's "phenomenological shell-related input feature with an excitation-energy damping term." The two abstracts should be aligned.
  2. [References [15] and [16]] References [15] and [16] are identical (Naik et al., Nucl. Phys. A 913, 185 (2013)); one is presumably intended to be a different publication and should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that results are shown "in the case of selective learning of nuclides with high practical demand," but this selection procedure is not defined anywhere in the text; the caption should either explain the selection or refer to the section that does.
  4. [§III, Eq. (9)] The observation noise sigma in the log-likelihood definition is not defined; state explicitly whether it is the training-data uncertainty, a model parameter, or a fixed constant, and how it is obtained.
  5. [§II (Computational Methods)] The paper motivates reproducibility but provides no code or data availability statement; given that the method depends on specific implementations of NUTS (NumPyro), WAIC, and the data-weighting scheme, a statement on availability of code and of the assembled training/test datasets would be valuable.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fine-structure stabilization and energy damping are written into the SF input, so the 'emergent' claim is partly by construction; out-of-sample validations keep the core framework non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Eq. (5) and Section III (232Th paragraph)]
    "By incorporating an energy-independent phenomenological shell factor as a single input feature, the PE-BNN captures both fine structures and global energy trends. ... SF= exp(-E/kT) ×(W1(N1 +N4) +W2(N2 +N5) +W3(N3 +N6)) ... we assign the parameters as follows: W1 = 4, W2 = 2, and W3 = 1. ... Importantly, the stabilization of the A=134 peak and the energy-dependent attenuation of the peaks at A=138 and A=143 emerge naturally from the trained network, without explicitly imposing such behaviors during training."

    The fine-structure behavior presented as a finding is already present in the model input. Eq. (5) writes Gaussian features at A=134 (weight 4), A=140 (weight 2), and A=144 (weight 1) with a common exp(-E/kT) damping. The text then claims that the persistence of A=134 and the energy-driven disappearance of the other peaks 'emerge naturally from the trained network, without explicitly imposing such behaviors during training.' Since the network is conditioned on this SF input and the log-likelihood analysis shows SF improves the fit, the relative hierarchy and damping of fine-structure peaks are inherited from the hand-set feature rather than discovered from FPY data.

  2. other [Abstract vs Eq. (5), Section II]
    "By incorporating an energy-independent phenomenological shell factor as a single input feature, the PE-BNN captures both fine structures and global energy trends. ... By incorporating a phenomenological shell-related input feature with an excitation-energy damping term ... SF= exp(-E/kT) ×(W1(N1 +N4) +W2(N2 +N5) +W3(N3 +N6))"

    The abstract describes the shell factor as 'energy-independent,' but the defining equation contains an explicit excitation-energy damping, exp(-E/kT). This inconsistency matters because the paper's claim to capture 'global energy trends' is partly an input assumption: the Boltzmann factor suppresses all shell features as E increases, and kT=1.5 MeV is assigned rather than learned from FPY training data. Consequently, the energy dependence of fine-structure quenching is imposed by the input design, even though the body text correctly calls it an 'excitation-energy damping term.' This is an internal contradiction and a partial circularity in how 'energy trends' are attributed to the network.

full rationale

The PE-BNN derivation is not circular in the statistical sense: the SF hyperparameters are hand-assigned and not fitted to the held-out FPY validation data, and the agreement with the independent Tonchev dataset and prompt-neutron multiplicities provides genuine out-of-sample evidence. The global mass-yield trends, the light-fragment response, and the WAIC model selection remain substantive. However, the manuscript's most striking fine-structure claim—the stabilization of A=134 and the energy-dependent attenuation of A=138/A=143—is substantially built into Eq. (5), which places Gaussian peaks at those mass regions with prescribed weights and a common Boltzmann damping. The text's statement that these behaviors 'emerge naturally from the trained network, without explicitly imposing such behaviors during training' overstates the case, and the abstract's 'energy-independent' wording conflicts with the exp(-E/kT) term in the defining equation. Because the central fine-structure prediction is partly inherited from the input while the overall framework retains independent predictive content, a moderate partial-circularity score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The shell factor introduces six hand-set parameters (centers, weights, width, damping). These encode the fine-structure positions directly. The remaining axioms are domain assumptions about data reliability and the equivalence of cumulative and independent yields for trend validation.

free parameters (4)
  • Shell factor weights W1, W2, W3 = 4, 2, 1
    Hand-assigned in Eq. (5) to emphasize double shell closure (A=134) and deformed shells (A=140, 144). Not optimized with uncertainty estimates.
  • Effective damping scale kT = 1.5 MeV
    Set from Fermi-gas relation and Langevin scission temperature, not fitted to FPY data. Controls energy damping of all shell peaks.
  • Gaussian width sigma = 1 (mass unit)
    Fixed width for all six Gaussians in Eq. (5). No sensitivity study or justification beyond 'set to 1'.
  • Gaussian centers = 134, 140, 144 (heavy); A_n-134, A_n-140, A_n-144 (light)
    Chosen from known shell closures and mirror symmetry. This encodes the fine-structure positions directly into the model input.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Shell effects near scission can be represented as Gaussian mass peaks at A=134, 140, 144.
    This is the core physics-embedding assumption, stated in the text around Eq. (5). No formal derivation or independent validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Shell effects are damped by a Boltzmann factor exp(-E/kT) with a single temperature kT=1.5 MeV.
    Phenomenological damping chosen from a Langevin estimate; treats all shell peaks with the same damping scale.
  • domain assumption Light-fragment shell structure mirrors the heavy-fragment centers via A_n - A.
    Assumes reflection symmetry of shell effects around the compound nucleus mass; not tested against light-fragment data in the paper.
  • domain assumption JENDL-5, EXFOR, TALYS, and Langevin data provide a representative and reliable training set.
    The model's predictions depend on the quality and coverage of these mixed data sources, which include evaluated, experimental, and theoretical entries.
  • domain assumption Cumulative yields closely follow independent yields in the studied energy range.
    Stated to justify comparing experimental cumulative yields to model independent yields; if wrong, the validation comparisons lose meaning.
  • standard math NUTS converges to the posterior.
    Assumed from using NumPyro; no convergence diagnostics or chain statistics are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A physics-embedded Bayesian neural network for predicting the energy dependence of fission product yields with fine structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THK4RA7B

@misc{pith2026250417275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A physics-embedded Bayesian neural network for predicting the energy dependence of fission product yields with fine structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THK4RA7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17275}
}
read the original abstract

We present a physics-embedded Bayesian neural network (PE-BNN) framework that integrates fission product yields (FPYs) with prior nuclear physics knowledge to predict energy-dependent FPY data with fine structure. By incorporating an energy-independent phenomenological shell factor as a single input feature, the PE-BNN captures both fine structures and global energy trends. The combination of this physics-informed input with hyperparameter optimization via the Watanabe-Akaike Information Criterion (WAIC) significantly enhances predictive performance. Our results demonstrate that the PE-BNN framework is well-suited for target observables with systematic features that can be embedded as model inputs, achieving close agreement with known shell effects and prompt neutron multiplicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison between the FPY by the BNN model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The energy dependence of fission product yields and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: summarizes the energy dependence of FPYs in both the light (A = 95–105) and heavy (A = 127–143) asymmetric mass regions and provides a unified physi￾cal interpretation of the behaviors observed in Figs. 4 and 5. In the light-fragment region, the peak positions re￾main …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdurrahman, M

    I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. Stetcu, Neck rupture and scission neutrons in nuclear fission, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 242501 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Andriamirado, A

    M. Andriamirado, A. B. Balantekin, C. D. Bass, O. Benevides Rodrigues, E. P. Bernard, N. S. Bow- den, C. D. Bryan, R. Carr, T. Classen, A. J. Conant, G. Deichert, M. J. Dolinski, A. Erickson, A. Galindo- Uribarri, S. Gokhale, C. Grant, S. Hans, A. B. Hansell, K. M. Heeger, B. Heffron, D. E. Jaffe, S. Jayakumar, J. Koblanski, P. Kunkle, C. E. Lane, B. R. L...

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Wanajo, S

    S. Wanajo, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Actinide-boostingrpro- cess in black-hole–neutron-star merger ejecta, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 241201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    M. B. Chadwick, M. Herman, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y, M. E. Dunn, Y. Danon, A. C. Kahler, D. L. Smith, B. Prity- chenko, G. Arbanas, R. Arcilla, R. Brewer, D. A. Brown, R. Capote, A. D. Carlson, Y. S. Cho, H. Derrien, K. Gu- ber, G. M. Hale, S. Hoblit, S. Holloway, T. D. Johnson, T. Kawano, B. C. Kiedrowski, H. Kim, S. Kunieda, N. M. Larson, L. Leal, J. P. Leston...

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Iwamoto, N

    O. Iwamoto, N. Iwamoto, S. Kunieda, F. Minato, S. Nakayama, Y. Abe, K. Tsubakihara, S. Okumura, C. Ishizuka, T. Yoshida, S. Chiba, N. Otuka, J.-C. Sub- let, H. Iwamoto, K. Yamamoto, Y. Nagaya, K. Tada, C. Konno, N. Matsuda, K. Yokoyama, H. Taninaka, A. Oizumi, M. Fukushima, S. Okita, G. Chiba, S. Sato, M. Ohta, and S. Kwon, Japanese evaluated nuclear data...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    James, R

    M. James, R. Mills, and D. Weaver, A new evaluation of fission product yields and the production of a new library (UKFY2) of independent and cumulative yields, Prog. Nucl. Energy26, 1 (1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    J. Chen, Y. Mukobara, C. Ishizuka, T. Katabuchi, and S. Chiba, Bayesian approach to energy dependence of fission product yields of 235U by data augmentation, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.61, 1509 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Lovell, Amy, Mohan, Arvind, Talou, Patrick, and Chertkov, Michael, Constraining Fission Yields Using Machine Learning, EPJ Web Conf.211, 04006 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Z.-A. Wang, J. Pei, Y. Liu, and Y. Qiang, Bayesian Eval- uation of Incomplete Fission Yields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 122501 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    L. Tong, R. He, and S. Yan, Prediction of neutron- induced fission product yields by a straightforwardk- nearest-neighbor algorithm, Phys. Rev. C104, 064617 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    D. Lay, E. Flynn, S. A. Giuliani, W. Nazarewicz, and L. Neufcourt, Neural network emulation of spontaneous fission, Phys. Rev. C109, 044305 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Reisdorf, J

    W. Reisdorf, J. Unik., and L. Glendenin, Correlation be- tween fragment mass-distribution fine structure, charge distribution and nuclear structure for thermal-neutron- induced fission of 233U and 235U, Nucl. Phys. A205, 348 (1973)

    1973

  5. [13]

    Pierson, L

    B. Pierson, L. Greenwood, M. Flaska, and S. Pozzi, Fis- sion Product Yields from 232Th, 238U, and 235U Using 14 MeV Neutrons, Nucl. Data Sheets139, 171 (2017), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data

    2017

  6. [14]

    H. Naik, S. Mukerji, R. Crasta, S. Suryanarayana, S. Sharma, and A. Goswami, Measurement of fission product yields in the quasi-mono-energetic neutron- induced fission of 238U, Nucl. Phys. A941, 16 (2015). 10

    2015

  7. [16]

    H. Naik, V. Mulik, P. Prajapati, B. Shivasankar, S. Suryanarayana, K. Jagadeesan, S. Thakare, S. Sharma, and A. Goswami, Mass distribution in the quasi-mono- energetic neutron-induced fission of 238U, Nucl. Phys. A 913, 185 (2013)

    2013

  8. [17]

    H. Naik, S. Mukherji, S. Suryanarayana, K. Jagadeesan, S. Thakare, and S. Sharma, Measurement of fission prod- ucts yields in the quasi-mono-energetic neutron-induced fission of 232Th, Nucl. Phys. A952, 100 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    Bhatia, B

    C. Bhatia, B. F. Fallin, M. E. Gooden, C. R. Howell, J. H. Kelley, W. Tornow, C. W. Arnold, E. Bond, T. A. Bredeweg, M. M. Fowler, W. Moody, R. S. Rundberg, G. Y. Rusev, D. J. Vieira, J. B. Wilhelmy, J. A. Becker, R. Macri, C. Ryan, S. A. Sheets, M. A. Stoyer, and A. P. Tonche...

    2015

  10. [19]

    Gooden, C

    M. Gooden, C. Arnold, J. Becker, C. Bhatia, M. Bhike, E. Bond, T. Bredeweg, B. Fallin, M. Fowler, C. Howell, J. Kelley, Krishichayan, R. Macri, G. Rusev, C. Ryan, S. Sheets, M. Stoyer, A. Tonchev, W. Tornow, D. Vieira, and J. Wilhelmy, Energy Dependence of Fission Product Yiel...

    2016

  11. [20]

    W. J. Maeck,Correlation of 239Pu thermal and fast re- actor fission yields with neutron energy(Exxon Nuclear Idaho Co., Inc., Idaho Falls (USA), 1981)

    1981

  12. [21]

    Arino and H

    H. Arino and H. H. Kramer, Fission product 99mTc gen- erator, Int. J. Appl. Rad. Iso.26, 301 (1975)

    1975

  13. [22]

    R. M. Neal,Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996)

    1996

  14. [23]

    Niu and H

    Z. Niu and H. Liang, Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell effects, Phys. Lett. B778, 48 (2018)

    2018

  15. [24]

    M¨ uller and I

    R. M¨ uller and I. f¨ ur Angewandte Kernphysik, Numeri- cal Results of a (2E, 2v)-measurement for Fast Neutron Induced Fission of 235U and 237Np (1981)

    1981

  16. [26]

    M. D. Hoffman and A. Gelman, The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (2011), arXiv:1111.4246 [stat.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X.-L. Meng, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011)

    2011

  18. [28]

    D. Phan, N. Pradhan, and M. Jankowiak, Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Pro- gramming in NumPyro, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  19. [29]

    A. G. Wilson and P. Izmailov, Bayesian deep learning and a probabilistic perspective of generalization (2022), arXiv:2002.08791 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Ishizuka, M

    C. Ishizuka, M. D. Usang, F. A. Ivanyuk, J. A. Maruhn, K. Nishio, and S. Chiba, Four-dimensional langevin ap- proach to low-energy nuclear fission of 236U, Phys. Rev. C96, 064616 (2017)

    2017

  21. [31]

    Fujio, A

    K. Fujio, A. Al-Adili, F. Nordstr¨ om, J.-F. Lemaˆ ıtre, S. Okumura, S. Chiba, and A. Koning, TALYS calcu- lations of prompt fission observables and independent fission product yields for the neutron-induced fission of 235U, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 178 (2023)

    2023

  22. [32]

    Fujio, S

    K. Fujio, S. Okumura, C. Ishizuka, S. Chiba, and T. Katabuchi, Connection of four-dimensional Langevin model and Hauser-Feshbach theory to describe statistical decay of fission fragments, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.61, 84 (2023)

    2023

  23. [33]

    Breiman, J

    L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and Regression Trees, 1st ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1984)

    1984

  24. [34]

    Watanabe, Asymptotic Equivalence of Bayes Cross Validation and Widely Applicable Information Criterion in Singular Learning Theory, J

    S. Watanabe, Asymptotic Equivalence of Bayes Cross Validation and Widely Applicable Information Criterion in Singular Learning Theory, J. Mach. Learn. Res.11, 3571 (2010)

    2010

  25. [35]

    T. C. Chapman, G. A. Anzelon, G. C. Spitale, and D. R. Nethaway, Fission product yeilds from 6-9 MeV neutron- induced fission of 235U and 238U, Phys. Rev. C17, 1089 (1978)

    1978

  26. [36]

    L. E. Glendenin, J. E. Gindler, D. J. Henderson, and J. W. Meadows, Mass distributions for monoenergetic- neutron-induced fission of 235U, Phys. Rev. C24, 2600 (1981)

    1981

  27. [37]

    Selby, M

    H. Selby, M. Mac Innes, D. Barr, A. Keksis, R. Meade, C. Burns, M. Chadwick, and T. Wallstrom, Fission Prod- uct Data Measured at Los Alamos for Fission Spectrum and Thermal Neutrons on 239Pu, 235U, 238U, Nucl. Data Sheets111, 2891 (2010), nuclear Reaction Data

    2010

  28. [38]

    Laurec, A

    J. Laurec, A. Adam, T. de Bruyne, E. Bauge, T. Granier, J. Aupiais, O. Bersillon, G. Le Petit, N. Authier, and P. Casoli, Fission Product Yields of 233U, 235U, 238U and 239Pu in Fields of Thermal Neutrons, Fission Neutrons and 14.7-MeV Neutrons, Nucl. Data Sheets111, 2965 (201...

    2010

  29. [39]

    F. A. Ivanyuk, C. Schmitt, C. Ishizuka, and S. Chiba, Shell effects and multi-chance fission in the sub-lead re- gion (2025), arXiv:2501.05362 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Brosa, S

    U. Brosa, S. Grossmann, and A. M¨ uller, Nuclear scission, Phys. Rep.197, 167 (1990)

    1990

  31. [41]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Impact of pear-shaped fis- sion fragments on mass-asymmetric fission in actinides, Nature564, 382 (2018)

    2018

  32. [42]

    D. Huo, Z. Wei, K. Wu, C. Han, Y.-n. Han, Y.-x. Wang, P.-q. Zhang, Y. He, X.-j. Bao, Z.-y. Deng, and Z.-e. Yao, Effect of octupole deformation of fragments on mass- asymmetric yields of fission of actinide nuclei, Phys. Rev. C108, 024608 (2023)

    2023

  33. [43]

    Tonchev, J

    A. Tonchev, J. Silano, A. Ramirez, R. Malone, M. Stoyer, M. Gooden, T. Bredeweg, D. Vieira, J. Wilhelmy, S. Finch, C. Howell, and W. Tornow, Energy dependence of chain fission product yields from neutron-induced fis- sion of 235U, 238U, and 239Pu, Nucl. Data Sheets202, 12 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.