Improvement of Nuclide Detection through Graph Spectroscopic Analysis Framework and its Application to Nuclear Facility Upset Detection

Alex Hagen; Christian Svinth; Pedro Rodr\'iguez Fern\'andez

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Improvement of Nuclide Detection through Graph Spectroscopic Analysis Framework and its Application to Nuclear Facility Upset Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using each gamma ray's arrival time as well as its energy, an attention-based classifier cuts the cesium minimum detectable activity by about half in a simulated nuclear-facility monitoring setup.

desk verdict A plausible and novel transformer-on-list-mode idea, but the central 2x MDA claim is not yet supported as written: no held-out evaluation is stated, the baseline comparison is asymmetric, and the MI proof has a reversed inequality. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16522 v1 pith:EMXUTKM7 submitted 2025-06-19 physics.ins-det cs.LGphysics.data-an

Pedro Rodríguez Fernández , Christian Svinth , Alex Hagen This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-detcs.LGphysics.data-an

keywords gammaspectroscopyminimumdetectableactivityattentionmechanismlist-modedatagraph-basedcesiumdetectionnuclearfacilitymonitoringclassifierbasedcountingexperiment

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

The paper tries to establish that a radionuclide's detectable signature can be extended beyond pulse height to include the arrival time of every detected quantum, and that doing so lowers the activity needed for reliable detection. The authors build this around a graph view of list-mode data, in which each pulse is a node carrying metadata and unknown physical relations are edges, and they use an attention-based neural classifier to score each event as signal or background. In a simulated cesium-release monitoring task against a potassium, uranium, and thorium soil background, the context-aware model reaches about 75 percent balanced accuracy versus about 58 percent for the direct-summation peak-counting baseline, and at low signal-to-background ratios the minimum detectable activity is about a factor of two lower. A sympathetic reading is that single-detector gamma spectroscopy can gain a real factor of two in detection limit without longer counting times or larger detectors, provided the temporal mixture of signal and background varies.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the detection graph $G=(V,E)$: vertices are individual pulses with metadata $(t_n, d_n, h_n,\dots)$, and edges are the unknown physical relations between pulses. Because the true edge set is impossible to observe outside simulation, the working machinery is an attention-based classifier with Relative Global Attention: for each event in a window of 1000 events it computes a context-weighted score that depends on all other events, with relative position information that can in principle encode predictable time lags. The paper's Classifier Based Counting Experiment (CBCE) framework then maps the classifier's true-positive and false-positive rates into the minimum detectable activity and quantification uncertainty, so any gain in conditional accuracy is a directly interpretable gain in detection limit.

What would settle it

Recompute Figure 7 with an explicit held-out set of simulated detection sequences; if the factor-of-two minimum detectable activity advantage disappears or drops to the energy-only level on held-out events, the central claim is unsupported, and if it persists, the claim is corroborated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that using event time as an additional feature, together with energy, improves nuclide detection because the mutual information between observable features and the true origin of each event cannot decrease when a feature is added. The authors prove that inequality in an appendix, and then show numerically that improved mutual information does not always reduce the detection limit; the improvement requires the relative probability of signal versus background to vary in time. In their simulated well-detector geometry, an attention-based classifier trained on sequences of 1000 detection events with energy and time features detects cesium against a soil background with about 75 percent balanced accuracy, versus about 58 percent for the direct-summation baseline, and at low signal-to-background ratios the minimum detectable activity is about a factor of two lower. The attention-weight and score visualizations indicate the network is not linking parent-daughter decays; instead it uses close-in-time events to estimate the prevailing background rate and shifts its threshold, upweighting Compton-edge events when that helps the figure of merit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the reported accuracies and minimum detectable activities are computed on simulated events the classifier never saw during training, yet no train/test split is described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At low signal-to-background ratios, the list-mode attention model's minimum detectable activity is about half that of the direct-summation baseline in the simulated well-detector geometry.
The energy-only reference model is worse than the full model at low signal-to-background ratios but improves at very high ratios, so the time feature, not just the neural classifier, is what buys the low-background gain.
The improvement is conditional on temporal variation in the relative probability of signal and background; isotopes or geometries with constant relative rates would not be expected to benefit from arrival-time information.
The method is claimed to generalize beyond cesium and beyond arrival time: other per-event metadata such as pulse quality, detector location, or multi-detector energy-time coincidences can be inserted into the same graph formulation.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the attention analysis suggests the practical benefit may come less from learning physical decay chains and more from a learned, context-dependent decision threshold; if so, a simpler rate-aware feature such as local count rate in an energy window could capture a large share of the 2x gain.
Inference: because the evaluation uses simulation with known ground truth, the framework's real-world value depends on whether a model trained on simulated list-mode data transfers to detector noise, electronics dead time, and environmental backgrounds that differ from the training distribution.
Inference: a natural extension is to apply the same framework to radioxenon monitoring, where beta-gamma coincidences within microseconds create a strong, known time structure; the paper mentions this direction, and the predicted gain would be larger than for cesium if the temporal joint probabilities vary on those scales.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is using a sequence transformer with relative attention on list-mode gamma data, scoring each detection as signal or background using both energy and time. That application is not in the cited literature, and the simulation is built on a validated KUT background model, which is more than most ML-for-spectroscopy papers do. The authors also look at their attention weights and see that the model is learning a rate-adaptive threshold rather than true coincidence edges—that is honest and interesting, even though it undercuts their graph framing.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The most serious is evaluation: Section 4.1.2 says they trained for 25,000 iterations, and Section 5 reports balanced accuracy and MDA, but no train/test split is stated anywhere. If those numbers come from the training set, the reported 2x improvement is an in-sample artifact. The comparison is also asymmetric: the ContextModel's threshold is chosen per SBR to minimize MDA, while the direct-summation baseline uses a fixed 4-sigma window. Some of the gap is likely threshold tuning, not temporal information. The Appendix A proof has a reversed Jensen inequality: for convex f, f(E) >= E[f] is backwards. The conclusion—adding a feature cannot reduce mutual information—is true and follows from the data processing inequality, but the proof as written does not establish it. Minor: the "graph" formalism is mostly decorative; edges E are never constructed, and the model is a sequence model, not a graph network.

These are fixable rather than fatal. The idea has enough novelty and potential practical value (factor-of-two MDA reduction would matter for nuclear monitoring) that a serious referee could help the authors turn it into a solid paper. What it needs is a clean held-out evaluation with error bars, a fair thresholding protocol, and either a corrected theory section or a transparent statement that the data processing inequality is the real argument. No code or data is provided, which makes the empirical claims harder to trust.

For a journal, I would send this to peer review if the editors are willing to ask for major revision. The reader's reject is a little harsh—the flaws are clear but not evidence of a bad idea. I would not cite it until the evaluation is fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a graph-based spectroscopic analysis framework in which detection events are nodes and inferred relations are edges, and uses a transformer with relative global attention to classify energy-time list-mode events as signal or background. The authors simulate potassium, uranium, and thorium background and cesium release in a Geant4 well-detector geometry, train a neural network, and compare its minimum detectable activity (MDA) against a direct summation peak-counting baseline. They report approximately a factor-of-two improvement in MDA at low signal-to-background ratios and provide two appendices intended to show that adding time information cannot decrease mutual information and that temporal joint probabilities must vary for improvement.

Significance. If the reported factor-of-two MDA reduction at low SBR holds under held-out evaluation with a fair operating-point comparison, the work would be practically relevant for nuclear facility upset monitoring and would be a valuable demonstration of using temporal information beyond conventional coincidence spectroscopy. The paper also proposes a clean unifying graph formalism and a plausible attention-based architecture, and the attention visualization in Fig. 8 is a useful diagnostic. However, the empirical claim is not currently established because the evaluation protocol is incomplete and the comparison is asymmetric, and the theoretical appendix contains a reversed Jensen inequality. The underlying idea is promising, but the manuscript as written does not support the abstract's central claim.

major comments (3)

[§4.1.2, §5] The manuscript never states that the classifier and decision threshold are evaluated on detection events not used in training. Section 4.1.2 describes only the training procedure (25,000 iterations, weighted cross-entropy, Adam), and Section 5 reports balanced accuracy and MDA values (Fig. 7) with no train/test split, no number of independent simulation trials, and no error bars. Since the central claim is the factor-of-two MDA improvement, the paper must specify the evaluation protocol: how many events were simulated, how they were partitioned, whether thresholds were tuned on a validation set, and how variability across simulation runs was quantified.
[§5, Fig. 7] The comparison is asymmetric in the choice of operating point. The ContextModel threshold is selected per SBR to minimize MDA for the assumed background rate ('SBR also effects the threshold'), while the direct summation baseline uses a fixed 4-sigma window and a fixed continuum-average rule. A method allowed to choose its threshold in hindsight will generally show better MDA than a method with a fixed rule, independent of whether temporal information contributes. To support the 2x claim, the baseline should be given an equivalent optimization (for example, choosing the window or threshold that minimizes MDA under the same assumed background rate) or the ContextModel should be evaluated at a fixed, pre-specified threshold.
[Appendix A, Eq. (24)] The Jensen inequality is applied in the wrong direction. For a convex function f, one has f(E[a], E[b]) ≤ E[f(a,b)], not ≥ as stated in Eq. (24). Consequently, the assertion that the integrand of Eq. (27) is bounded above by the integrand of Eq. (28), and the resulting conclusion that I(E;Y) ≤ I([E,t];Y), do not follow from the argument given. The monotonicity of mutual information under adding features is true and can be obtained directly from the data processing inequality, so the appendix should be corrected or replaced.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 4] The caption uses 'X events' and 'Y events' as placeholders; please replace them with the actual numbers used in the simulation.
[Fig. 9] The caption refers to a '667 keV peak for Cs', while the text and Fig. 6 use 661.94 keV; please correct the inconsistency.
[Appendix A, final paragraph] The closing sentence states that the integral in Eq. (27) is bounded above by the integral in Eq. (27); this should refer to Eq. (28).
[§4.1.2] Please state the total dataset size, the number of training and evaluation events, any regularization or early stopping, and whether a validation set was used for threshold selection.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the ContextModel's threshold is tuned to minimize the reported MDA, and no held-out split is stated, so part of the claimed 2x gain reflects fitting rather than prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.2 (threshold selection) and Section 5 / Fig. 7 (reported MDA claim)]
"For classifying events, we select the optimal threshold for distinguishing signal vs. background for classifying by choosing the threshold which minimizes the MDA for the assumed background rate in the given context. ... A signal to background ratio (SBR) must be assumed to calculate a minimum detectable activity (MDA) and that SBR also effects the threshold used to convert ContextModel’s continuous output into a label of ”signal“ or ”background“."

The claimed 2x improvement is a comparison of MDA values (Fig. 7). For the ContextModel, the decision threshold is explicitly chosen as the minimizer of the very MDA being reported, while the direct-summation baseline uses a fixed 4-sigma continuum-excess rule without an equivalent optimization. Thus the ContextModel's reported MDA is the value of a fit—the threshold is optimized on the simulated data to minimize this specific figure of merit—rather than an independent prediction of a fixed detector algorithm. Part of the gain is therefore a consequence of this asymmetric tuning.

full rationale

The core derivation is otherwise self-contained: the Geant4/radioactive-decay simulation, the Transformer/attention classifier, and the direct-summation baseline are all described inside the paper, and the reported improvement depends on the simulated spectra and classifier scores rather than on an imported uniqueness theorem. The theoretical justification in Appendix A is an internal proof, and its Jensen-inequality direction issue is a correctness flaw, not a circularity. The citation to the authors' own CBCE framework [4] provides the MDA definitions and is not by itself load-bearing because those formulas are used as agreed figures of merit rather than as evidence for the 2x gain. The one substantive circularity is the threshold selection: the ContextModel's operating point is chosen to minimize the same MDA that is then reported as the method's detection limit, while the baseline threshold is fixed, so part of the claimed improvement is a fitted quantity rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The absence of any stated train/test split compounds this by leaving open that the accuracy and MDA figures are in-sample values. This warrants a moderate score, but not a charge that the entire derivation reduces to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends primarily on the simulation realism, on an undisclosed train/test split, and on the threshold optimization; the graph formalism is not used operationally.

free parameters (3)

Decision threshold for classifier = varies with SBR, chosen to minimize MDA
The threshold converts the continuous classifier score into signal/background labels and is optimized against the reported figure of merit for each assumed background rate (Section 4.1.2).
Sequence length Ns = 1000
Chosen as a trade-off between context and O(Ns^2) attention cost (Section 4.1, footnote 4).
Frequency range for spatio-temporal encoding = 1e-12 to 1e12
Hand-chosen range of frequencies for the sin/cos encoding (Section 4.1.1).

assumptions (5)

standard math Jensen's inequality (as applied in Appendix A)
The proof of non-decreasing MI relies on convexity of f(a,b,c) and Jensen's inequality, but Eq. (24) applies it in the reverse direction. This is a standard result being invoked, but incorrectly.
standard math Data processing inequality
Used in Section 3.1 to bound prediction-label MI by feature-label MI; this is a correct standard result.
domain assumption The simulated KUT background uniformly distributed in the top 25 cm of soil represents a realistic monitoring scenario
Section 4 states this is a variance reduction choice and that exact realism is not the focus. If the timing structure of background differs in reality, the method's advantage may change.
domain assumption 134Cs/137Cs activity ratio of approximately 1.0 (from Fukushima) is representative for reactor upset releases
Section 4 says this ratio reflects the specifics of the Fukushima upset rather than a broad class; results are specific to this mix.
ad hoc to paper The trained classifier's performance on the reported test figures is evaluated on data independent of training
No train/test split is described, so this assumption is implicitly required for the reported accuracies and MDA to be valid.

invented entities (1)

Graph edges E between detection events
purpose: Theoretical framing claiming that inferring relations between detections improves detection; presented as the first novel contribution
The implemented classifier is a sequence Transformer that never explicitly constructs edges E; the graph is a conceptual representation rather than an operational component of the method.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improvement of Nuclide Detection through Graph Spectroscopic Analysis Framework and its Application to Nuclear Facility Upset Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMXUTKM7

@misc{pith2026250616522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improvement of Nuclide Detection through Graph Spectroscopic Analysis Framework and its Application to Nuclear Facility Upset Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMXUTKM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16522}
}

abstract

We present a method to improve the detection limit for radionuclides using spectroscopic radiation detectors and the arrival time of each detected radiation quantum. We enable this method using a neural network with an attention mechanism. We illustrate the method on the detection of Cesium release from a nuclear facility during an upset, and our method shows $2\times$ improvement over the traditional spectroscopic method. We hypothesize that our method achieves this performance increase by modulating its detection probability by the overall rate of probable detections, specifically by adapting detection thresholds based on temporal event distributions and local spectral features, and show evidence to this effect. We believe this method is applicable broadly and may be more successful for radionuclides with more complicated decay chains than Cesium; we also note that our method can generalize beyond the addition of arrival time and could integrate other data about each detection event, such as pulse quality, location in detector, or even combining the energy and time from detections in different detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16522 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Three dimensional rendering of simulation geome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Spectra of detection events in an HPGe detector from KUT background using our simulation methodology modified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Timing characteristics of simulation of signal (Cs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Spectra of detection events in an HPGe detector from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustration of the baseline method on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Performance of different classifier based counting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Average attention value for pairs of events versus the difference in energy and logarithm of the absolute value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Signal and Background spectra colored by the sig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

G. F. Knoll, Radiation detection and measurement. URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6642801

work page arXiv
[2]

M. L. Curtis, Determination of parts-per-million quan- tities of plutonium-236 in plutonium-238 by. alpha. pulse height analysis, Analytical Chemistry 40 (8) (1968) 1352–1354

work page 1968
[3]

M. M. R. M. O. F. P. S. N. R. Steve Fetter, Valery A. Frolov, R. Z. Sagdeev, Detecting nuclear warheads, Science & Global Security 1 (3-4) (1990) 225–253. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08929889008426333, doi:10.1080/08929889008426333. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/08929889008426333

work page doi:10.1080/08929889008426333 1990
[4]

Hagen, K

A. Hagen, K. Jarman, J. Ward, G. Eiden, C. Bari- naga, E. Mace, C. Aalseth, A. Carado, Reduction of detection limit and quantification uncertainty due to interferent by neural classification with abstention, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment (2022) 167174doi:10....

work page arXiv 2022
[5]

E. K. Mace, J. D. Ward, C. Aalseth, Use of neu- ral networks to analyze pulse shape data in low- 13 (a) Signal to Background ratio of 1 2 . (b) Signal to Background ratio of 1. (c) Signal to Background ratio of 2. Figure 9: Signal and Background spectra colored by the sig- nal or background score predicted for each detection event for varying SBRs. The mo...

work page 2018
[6]

B. D. Pierson, L. R. Greenwood, M. Flaska, S. A. Pozzi, Fission product yields from 232th, 238u, and 235u using 14 mev neutrons, Nuclear Data Sheets 139 (2017) 171–

work page 2017
[7]

B. D. Pierson, B. C. Archambault, L. R. Green- wood, M. M. Haney, M. G. Cantaloub, A. R. Ha- gen, S. M. Herman, N. E. Uhnak, J. M. Bowen, J. H. Estrada, Alpha/beta-gated gamma–gamma spec- troscopy of mixed fission products for trace analysis, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 331 (2022) 5453–5467. doi:10.1007/s10967-022-08606-5

doi:10.1007/s10967-022-08606-5 2022
[8]

M. Auer, A. Axelsson, X. Blanchard, T. Bowyer, G. Brachet, I. Bulowski, Y. Dubasov, K. Elmgren, J. Fontaine, W. Harms, J. Hayes, T. Heimbigner, J. McIntyre, M. Panisko, Y. Popov, A. Ringbom, H. Sartorius, S. Schmid, J. Schulze, C. Schlosser, T. Taffary, W. Weiss, B. Wernsperger, Intercompar- ison experiments of systems for the measurement of xenon radionu...

work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.01.011 2004

Show all 33 references

[9]

M. W. Cooper, A. J. Carman, J. C. Hayes, T. R. He- imbigner, C. W. Hubbard, K. E. Litke, J. I. McIntyre, S. J. Morris, M. D. Ripplinger, R. Suarez, Improvedβ-γ coincidence detector for radioxenon detection, Proceed- ings of the 27th seismic research review: ground-based nuclea...

2005
[10]

Cagniant, G

A. Cagniant, G. Le Petit, P. Gross, G. Douysset, H. Richard-Bressand, J.-P. Fontaine, Improvements of low-level radioxenon detection sensitivity by a state- of-the art coincidence setup, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 87 (2014) 48–52, proceedings of the 19th In- ternational Co...

2014 doi
[11]

Akser, Detections of nuclear explosions by triple co- incidence (2021)

M. Akser, Detections of nuclear explosions by triple co- incidence (2021)

2021
[12]

Alonso-Monsalve, D

S. Alonso-Monsalve, D. Douqa, C. Jesús-Valls, T. Lux, S. Pina-Otey, F. Sánchez, D. Sgalaberna, L. H. White- head, Graph neural network for 3d classification of am- biguities and optical crosstalk in scintillator-based neu- trino detectors, Physical Review D 103 (2021) 032005. ...

2021 doi
[13]

Farrell, P

S. Farrell, P. Calafiura, M. Mudigonda, Prabhat, D. Anderson, J.-R. Vlimant, S. Zheng, J. Bendavid, M. Spiropulu, G. Cerati, L. Gray, J. Kowalkowski, P. Spentzouris, A. Tsaris, Novel deep learning methods for track reconstruction (2018). arXiv:1810.06111

2018 arXiv
[14]

Huth, Track reconstruction for future high-energy- physics experiments with classical and machine- learning methods, Ph.D

B. Huth, Track reconstruction for future high-energy- physics experiments with classical and machine- learning methods, Ph.D. thesis (2024)

2024
[15]

Verma, S

Y. Verma, S. Jena, Particle track reconstruc- tion using geometric deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08515 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[16]

Vaswani, N

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, 14 Attention is all you need, Vol. 2017-Decem, Neural information processing systems foundation, 2017, pp. 5999–6009. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762v5

2017 arXiv
[17]

P. Shaw, J. Uszkoreit, A. Vaswani, Self-attention with relative position representations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02155 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[18]

Hagen, B

A. Hagen, B. Loer, J. Orrell, R. Saldanha, De- cision trees for optimizing the minimum detectable concentration of radioxenon detectors, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 229-230 (2021) 106542. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2021.106542

2021
[19]

U. S. E. P. Agency, U. S. D. of Defense, U. S. D. of Energy, U. S. D. of Homeland Security, U. S. N. R. Commission, U. S. Food, D. Administration, U. S. G. Survey, N. I. of Standard, Technology, Multi-agency radiological laboratory analytical protocols manual (7 2004). URL htt...

2004
[20]

Meyen, Relation between classification accuracy and mutual information in equally weighted classification tasks (12 2016)

S. Meyen, Relation between classification accuracy and mutual information in equally weighted classification tasks (12 2016)

2016
[21]

N. J. Beaudry, R. Renner, An intuitive proof of the data processing inequality (7 2011). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0740

2011 arXiv
[22]

M. E. Keillor, L. W. Campbell, C. C. Cowles, M. P. Dion, J. H. Ely, C. R. Neumann, Streamlined monte carlo simulation of environmental gamma-ray back- grounds for radiation detector sensitivity comparisons, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 318 (2018) 485–490. d...

2018 doi
[23]

Thakur, S

P. Thakur, S. Ballard, R. Nelson, An overview of fukushima radionuclides mea- sured in the northern hemisphere (8 2013). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.105

2013 doi
[24]

Pöschl, What are radionuclides?, in: Radionuclide Concentrations in Food and the Environment, CRC Press, 2006, p

M. Pöschl, What are radionuclides?, in: Radionuclide Concentrations in Food and the Environment, CRC Press, 2006, p. 9

2006
[25]

Malins, T

A. Malins, T. Lemoine, radioactivedecay: A python package for radioactive decay calculations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09761 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[26]

U. S. D. of Energy, Hanford site background: Part 2, soil background for radionuclides (9 1996)

1996
[27]

Agostinelli, J

S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, L. Broglia, A. Brunengo, H. Burkhardt, S. Chauvie, J. Chuma, R. Chytracek, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, P. Degtyarenko, A. Del...

2003
[28]

K.S.Heier, J.J.W.Rogers, Radiometricdetermination of thorium, uranium and potassium in basalts and in two magmatic differentiation series (1963)

1963
[29]

Abusini, K

M. Abusini, K. Al-Ayasreh, J. Al-jundi, Determi- nation of uranium, thorium and potassium activity concentrations in soil cores in araba valley, jordan, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 128 (2008) 213–216. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncm327

2008 doi
[30]

H. D. Choi, J. Kim, Basic characterization of ura- nium by high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, Nu- clear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 929–936. doi:10.1016/j.net.2018.04.008

2018 doi
[31]

Schoetzig, H

U. Schoetzig, H. Schrader, Half-life measurements and photon emission probabilities of frequently applied ra- dioisotopes (ptb-ra–16/5(5.enl.ed)) (5 1998)

1998
[32]

D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014). A. Proof: Additional input feature cannot decrease the mutual information The mutual information between featuresX and labels Y is, in the continuous case I (X;Y ) = ∫ Y ∫ X...

2014 arXiv
[189]

doi:10.1016/j.nds.2017.01.004

2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G. F. Knoll, Radiation detection and measurement. URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6642801

work page arXiv

[2] [2]

M. L. Curtis, Determination of parts-per-million quan- tities of plutonium-236 in plutonium-238 by. alpha. pulse height analysis, Analytical Chemistry 40 (8) (1968) 1352–1354

work page 1968

[3] [3]

M. M. R. M. O. F. P. S. N. R. Steve Fetter, Valery A. Frolov, R. Z. Sagdeev, Detecting nuclear warheads, Science & Global Security 1 (3-4) (1990) 225–253. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08929889008426333, doi:10.1080/08929889008426333. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/08929889008426333

work page doi:10.1080/08929889008426333 1990

[4] [4]

Hagen, K

A. Hagen, K. Jarman, J. Ward, G. Eiden, C. Bari- naga, E. Mace, C. Aalseth, A. Carado, Reduction of detection limit and quantification uncertainty due to interferent by neural classification with abstention, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment (2022) 167174doi:10....

work page arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

E. K. Mace, J. D. Ward, C. Aalseth, Use of neu- ral networks to analyze pulse shape data in low- 13 (a) Signal to Background ratio of 1 2 . (b) Signal to Background ratio of 1. (c) Signal to Background ratio of 2. Figure 9: Signal and Background spectra colored by the sig- nal or background score predicted for each detection event for varying SBRs. The mo...

work page 2018

[6] [6]

B. D. Pierson, L. R. Greenwood, M. Flaska, S. A. Pozzi, Fission product yields from 232th, 238u, and 235u using 14 mev neutrons, Nuclear Data Sheets 139 (2017) 171–

work page 2017

[7] [7]

B. D. Pierson, B. C. Archambault, L. R. Green- wood, M. M. Haney, M. G. Cantaloub, A. R. Ha- gen, S. M. Herman, N. E. Uhnak, J. M. Bowen, J. H. Estrada, Alpha/beta-gated gamma–gamma spec- troscopy of mixed fission products for trace analysis, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 331 (2022) 5453–5467. doi:10.1007/s10967-022-08606-5

doi:10.1007/s10967-022-08606-5 2022

[8] [8]

M. Auer, A. Axelsson, X. Blanchard, T. Bowyer, G. Brachet, I. Bulowski, Y. Dubasov, K. Elmgren, J. Fontaine, W. Harms, J. Hayes, T. Heimbigner, J. McIntyre, M. Panisko, Y. Popov, A. Ringbom, H. Sartorius, S. Schmid, J. Schulze, C. Schlosser, T. Taffary, W. Weiss, B. Wernsperger, Intercompar- ison experiments of systems for the measurement of xenon radionu...

work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.01.011 2004