pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.04350 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Generation of fission yield covariance matrices and its application in uncertainty analysis of decay heat

Wendi Chen , Tao Ye , Hairui Guo , Jiahao Chen , Bo Yang , Yangjun Ying
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords fission yieldscovariance matricesdecay heatuncertainty analysisgeneralized least squaresnuclear dataU-235
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fission yield covariance matrices from generalized least squares reduce decay heat uncertainties and highlight decay energy contributions.

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

The authors use a generalized least squares updating method to generate covariance matrices for fission yields, incorporating constraints from physical conservation laws and chain yield measurements drawn from three major nuclear data libraries. They then perform summation calculations for the decay heat following the fission of uranium-235 by thermal neutrons, propagating uncertainties from yields, decay energies, constants, and branching ratios using generalized perturbation theory. The results demonstrate that the original uncorrelated yield data lead to a roughly 4 percent uncertainty in decay heat at all cooling times, dominating after 100 seconds, while the new correlated matrices strongly reduce this uncertainty, making decay energy data the leading source instead. Relative uncertainties fall to about 10 percent or 5 percent at 0.1 seconds and 1 percent at 100,000 seconds, depending on the library.

Core claim

Applying the generalized least squares updating approach to fission yield data, constrained by conservation equations and chain yields, produces covariance matrices that, when used in decay heat summation calculations, strongly reduce the propagated uncertainty from fission yields compared to uncorrelated data, with decay energy data becoming the major contributor; the uncorrelated case gives a constant approximately 4 percent uncertainty that dominates beyond 100 seconds cooling time.

What carries the argument

The generalized least squares updating procedure that enforces basic physical conservation equations and chain yield data to derive complete covariance matrices for fission yields from evaluated nuclear data files.

If this is right

  • Decay heat uncertainty from yields drops below that from decay data across the cooling time range.
  • Relative uncertainties reach approximately 10 percent for ENDF/B-VIII.0 and JEFF-3.3 and 5 percent for JENDL-5 at 0.1 seconds cooling time.
  • Uncertainties decrease to about 1 percent at 10^5 seconds for all three libraries.
  • The correlations alter the contributions and sensitivity coefficients of important fission products to the total decay heat.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar covariance generation could be applied to fission yields for other isotopes to improve predictions in different reactor fuel cycles.
  • Direct experimental measurements of decay heat variability would provide a test for the accuracy of these generated covariances.
  • Further reduction in decay heat uncertainty would require improved precision in decay energy measurements for key fission products.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized least squares procedure constrained solely by conservation equations and chain yield data produces covariance matrices that accurately capture all relevant physical correlations in fission yield uncertainties.

What would settle it

Comparison of the calculated decay heat uncertainties against direct experimental measurements of decay heat for thermal fission of U-235 at multiple cooling times, checking whether the reduced uncertainty with covariances matches the observed spread better than the uncorrelated case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04350 by Bo Yang, Hairui Guo, Jiahao Chen, Tao Ye, Wendi Chen, Yangjun Ying.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the calculated ChFYs for thermal neutron￾induced fission of 235U, using the fission yield and decay data in ENDF/B-VIII.0. When Tcut = 0, all decay processes are eliminated in ChFY calculations and the result is equivalent to the mass distribution of independent fission yields. With the increasement of Tcut, the calculated YCh (A) departs from YI(A) gradually and it reaches convergence at Tcut=1 min.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (color online) Impact of GLS updating procedure on chain yield for 235U(nth, f) based on the data file from ENDF/B-VIII.0. Evaluation data are taken from England and Rider [33]. (a) Compar￾ison of original and updated chain yields as well as the evaluation values. (b) Ratio of calculated results to evaluation values (C/E). (c) Comparison of relative uncertainties. where N is the length of vector η. Strong … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (color online) Ratio of updated to original data for (a) IFYs YI(A, Z, M) and (b) their uncertainties for 235U(nth, f) based on the data file from ENDF/B-VIII.0. The values are denoted by circles, squares, rhombuses and triangles when the original IFYs (Yori) are larger than 10−3 , in the regions 10−6 -10−3 , 10−9 -10−6 and smaller than 10−9 respectively. See text for details. of agreement with chain yield… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents the correlation matrices for YI(A) and YI(Z) of updated IFYs based on the data file from ENDF/B￾VIII.0. The correlation matrix V¯ is connected with covari￾ance matrix V as V¯ ij = √ V ij V iiV jj . (10) It can be seen that there are mainly negative correlations be￾tween YI(A) with neighbouring mass numbers and the cor￾relation becomes insignificant with the increase of the differ￾ence in mass. Rel… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (color online) (a) Calculated light particle decay heat for 235U(nth, f) with Set-A and Set-B. Experimental data are taken from the CoNDERC database [38]. The solid and dashed lines rep￾resent the calculated results with Set-A and Set-B respectively. The calculated results based on ENDF/B-VIII.0, JENDL-5, JEFF-3.3 are denoted by black, red and blue lines respectively. (b) Ratio of calcu￾lated results to th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: and 9 show the relative uncertainties of light particle and electromagnetic decay heats for 235U(nth, f), including contributions of each kind of nuclear data. The uncorrelated yield data in Set-A provides a ∼ 4% uncertainty in all cases, dominating the total uncertainty at cooling times longer than 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.04 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 relative uncertainty Set… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (color online) Dominant contributors to light particle decay heat of 235U(nth, f) at cooling time 10 s. (a) Contributions of im￾portant fission products calculated with different sets of data. (b) Ra￾tio of contribution of important fission product to that obtained with ENDF/B-VIII.0 Set-A. Nuclide is denoted in the form Z-[element name]-A or Z-[element name]-A-M if it is in ground state or iso￾meric stat… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (color online) Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The uncertainties and covariance matrices of fission yield are important in the uncertainty analysis of decay heat. At present, there are no covariance matrixes of fission yield given in the evaluated nuclear data library, although they have provided the uncertainties with good estimates. In this work, the generalized least squares (GLS) updating approach was adopted to evaluate the fission yield covariances with the constraints from basic physical conservation equation and chain yield data, using the nuclear data files from ENDF/B-VIII.0, JENDL-5 and JEFF-3.3. Based on these original and updated data, summation calculation was performed for fission pulse decay heat of thermal neutron-induced fission of $^{235}$U. The uncertainties of decay heat were obtained through generalized perturbation theory, including the uncertainties propagated from fission yield, decay energy, decay constant and branching ratio. The original uncorrelated yield data contributes a $\sim 4 \%$ uncertainty at all times and dominates the decay heat uncertainty at cooling times longer than \SI{100}{s}. With the generated covariance matrixes, the uncertainty of calculated decay heat is strongly reduced and decay energy data makes a major contribution in general. The relative uncertainties at cooling time \SI{0.1}{\second} are $\sim$10$\%$ for ENDF/V-VIII.0 and JEFF-3.3 and $\sim$5$\%$ for JENDL-5 and those at cooling time 10$^{5}$ s are about 1$\%$ for three libraries. The influence of the GLS updating procedure on the contributions of important fission products to decay heat and their sensitive coefficients was also discussed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes the generation of fission yield covariance matrices for thermal neutron-induced fission of 235U using a generalized least squares (GLS) updating procedure applied to data from ENDF/B-VIII.0, JENDL-5, and JEFF-3.3. The GLS step incorporates constraints from basic physical conservation equations and chain yield values. These updated covariances (along with the original uncorrelated yields) are then used in summation calculations of fission pulse decay heat, with uncertainties propagated via generalized perturbation theory including contributions from fission yields, decay energies, decay constants, and branching ratios. The central results are that the original uncorrelated yields produce a roughly constant ~4% uncertainty that dominates decay heat uncertainty for cooling times >100 s, while the GLS-updated covariances strongly reduce the yield-driven uncertainty component, shifting dominance to decay energy data and yielding relative decay heat uncertainties of ~5-10% at 0.1 s and ~1% at 10^5 s.

Significance. If the generated covariances are physically complete, the work demonstrates a practical route to incorporating yield correlations into decay heat uncertainty quantification, which is relevant for nuclear safety analyses and spent-fuel heat-load assessments. The multi-library comparison and explicit separation of uncertainty sources provide a clear illustration of how proper covariance treatment can alter the dominant contributors. The approach is reproducible in principle since it relies on publicly available libraries and standard GLS updating.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (GLS updating procedure): The method enforces only conservation laws and chain-yield constraints; no additional physical correlations (e.g., from pairing, shell effects, or fission dynamics) are imposed. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported strong reduction in decay-heat uncertainty (from the original ~4% level) relies on the completeness of the resulting negative correlations; without external validation against model-generated or measured covariances, it is unclear whether the reduction reflects physics or the limited constraint set.
  2. [§4] §4 (decay heat uncertainty results): The dominance shift to decay energy and the numerical uncertainty values (e.g., ~5-10% at 0.1 s) are presented without sensitivity tests to the choice of GLS constraints or to the inclusion of additional correlation sources; this directly affects the robustness of the claim that yield covariances no longer dominate after 100 s.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and §1 would benefit from a brief statement of the specific fission products or mass chains that drive the largest sensitivity coefficients after GLS updating.
  2. [§2] Notation for the GLS-updated covariance matrix (e.g., how the posterior covariance is denoted relative to the prior) should be defined explicitly in the methods section to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised highlight important aspects of the GLS procedure and the robustness of the uncertainty results. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (GLS updating procedure): The method enforces only conservation laws and chain-yield constraints; no additional physical correlations (e.g., from pairing, shell effects, or fission dynamics) are imposed. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported strong reduction in decay-heat uncertainty (from the original ~4% level) relies on the completeness of the resulting negative correlations; without external validation against model-generated or measured covariances, it is unclear whether the reduction reflects physics or the limited constraint set.

    Authors: We agree that the GLS updating relies on the specified constraints and does not incorporate additional nuclear-structure correlations. The procedure is designed to generate covariances consistent with the independent-yield uncertainties and the conservation/chain-yield data already present in the evaluated libraries. The observed reduction in decay-heat uncertainty therefore reflects the effect of these minimal constraints rather than a claim of complete physical realism. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation, stating that the generated covariances represent those implied by the chosen constraints and that further correlations (e.g., from pairing or fission dynamics) could be introduced in future extensions. We will also note that the current results provide a baseline for the impact of yield correlations derived from basic physical laws. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (decay heat uncertainty results): The dominance shift to decay energy and the numerical uncertainty values (e.g., ~5-10% at 0.1 s) are presented without sensitivity tests to the choice of GLS constraints or to the inclusion of additional correlation sources; this directly affects the robustness of the claim that yield covariances no longer dominate after 100 s.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include explicit sensitivity tests on the GLS constraint set or on hypothetical additional correlations. To strengthen the robustness discussion, the revised version will incorporate a short sensitivity study: (i) repeating the GLS update with relaxed chain-yield tolerances and (ii) a qualitative assessment of how stronger negative correlations would further suppress the yield contribution. These additions will confirm that the shift in dominance to decay-energy uncertainties remains under moderate variations of the constraint strength, while clearly stating the assumptions involved. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; GLS covariance generation and GFT uncertainty propagation are independent of inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper applies the standard generalized least squares procedure to produce fission-yield covariance matrices from external evaluated libraries (ENDF/B-VIII.0, JENDL-5, JEFF-3.3) subject only to conservation laws and chain-yield constraints. Decay-heat uncertainties are then obtained by generalized perturbation theory summation calculations that propagate the resulting matrices together with independent decay-data uncertainties. Neither the covariance construction nor the reported uncertainty reduction is equivalent to the original uncorrelated yields or to any self-citation; the numerical outcome is a direct, falsifiable consequence of the external data and the chosen constraints. No load-bearing step reduces to a definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or an author-specific uniqueness theorem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard nuclear physics domain assumptions and statistical methods applied to pre-existing library data; no new free parameters, axioms beyond conservation laws, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Fission product yields must obey mass, charge, and other conservation laws.
    Invoked as hard constraints in the GLS updating procedure.
  • domain assumption Chain yield measurements provide reliable independent constraints on the fission yield distributions.
    Used to anchor the GLS fit alongside the library uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5611 in / 1420 out tokens · 35173 ms · 2026-05-10T20:15:58.782147+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, Q

    Z. Zhang, Q. Zou, N. Gui et al., Prediction and anal- ysis of decay heat transfer in the core of the peb- ble bed reactor, Prog. Nucl. Energy 173 (2024) 105253. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2024.105253

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2024.105253 2024

  2. [2]

    Chang, M

    Y . Chang, M. Wang, J. Zhang et al., Best estimate plus uncer- tainty analysis of the China advanced large-scale PWR during LBLOCA scenarios, Int. J. Adv. Nucl. Reactor Des. Technol. 2 (2020) 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jandt.2020.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jandt.2020.07.002 2020

  3. [3]

    J. Li, R. Li, D. She et al., V alidation of NUIT for De- cay Heat Predictions of PWR Spent Fuel Assemblies, V ol. V olume 2: Nuclear Fuel and Material, Reactor Physics and Transport Theory, and Fuel Cycle Technology of International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, 2022, p. V002T02A008. doi:10.1115/ICONE29-89241

    work page doi:10.1115/icone29-89241 2022

  4. [4]

    Katakura, Uncertainty Analyses of Decay Heat Sum- mation Calculations Using JENDL, JEFF, and ENDF Files, J

    J.-i. Katakura, Uncertainty Analyses of Decay Heat Sum- mation Calculations Using JENDL, JEFF, and ENDF Files, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 50 (8) (2013) 799–807. doi:10.1080/00223131.2013.808004

    work page doi:10.1080/00223131.2013.808004 2013

  5. [5]

    Chiba, Consistent Adjustment of Radioactive Decay and Fission Yields Data with Measurement Data of Decay Heat and β -Delayed Neutron Activities, Ann

    G. Chiba, Consistent Adjustment of Radioactive Decay and Fission Yields Data with Measurement Data of Decay Heat and β -Delayed Neutron Activities, Ann. Nucl. Energy 101 (2017) 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2016.09.054

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2016.09.054 2017

  6. [7]

    F. Wang, X. Huang, Study on Decay Heat Calculation Method for Fast Neutron Fission of 235U, Atomic En- ergy Science and Technology 55 (zengkan) (2021) 10-16 doi:10.7538/yzk.2020.youxian.0859

    work page doi:10.7538/yzk.2020.youxian.0859 2021

  7. [8]

    J. Ma, H. Guo, H. Huang, Decay Heat Uncertainty Quan- tificationBased on Stochastic Sampling Method, Atomic En- ergy Science and Technology 55 (6) (2024) 1280-1286 doi:10.7538/yzk.2023.youxian.0766

    work page doi:10.7538/yzk.2023.youxian.0766 2024

  8. [9]

    Brown, M

    D. Brown, M. Chadwick, R. Capote et al., ENDF/B-VIII.0: The 8 th Major Release of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library with CIELO-project Cross Sections, New Standards and Ther- mal Scattering Data, Nucl. Data Sheets 148 (2018) 1–142. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001 2018

  9. [10]

    Iwamoto, N

    O. Iwamoto, N. Iwamoto, S. Kunieda et al., Japanese evaluated 11 nuclear data library version 5: JENDL-5, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 60 (1) (2023) 1–60. doi:10.1080/00223131.2022.2141903

    work page doi:10.1080/00223131.2022.2141903 2023

  10. [11]

    A. J. M. Plompen, O. Cabellos, C. De Saint Jean et al., The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, JEFF- 3.3, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (2020) 181. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050- 020-00141-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050- 2020

  11. [12]

    Katakura, JENDL FP decay data file 2011 and fission yields data file 2011, Tech

    J.-i. Katakura, JENDL FP decay data file 2011 and fission yields data file 2011, Tech. Rep. JAEA-Data/Code 2011-025, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (2012)

    work page 2011

  12. [13]

    Fiorito, D

    L. Fiorito, D. Piedra, O. Cabellos et al., Inventory calculation and nuclear data uncertainty propagation on light water reactor fuel using ALEPH-2 and SCALE 6.2, Ann. Nucl. Energy 83 (2015) 137–146. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.03.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.03.046 2015

  13. [14]

    Y . Wang, M. Cui, J. Guo et al., Lognormal-based sam- pling for fission product yields uncertainty propagation in pebble-bed htgr, Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2020 (2020) 21. doi:10.1155/2020/8014521

    work page doi:10.1155/2020/8014521 2020

  14. [15]

    Z. Lu, T. Zu, L. Cao et al., Generation and anal- ysis of independent fission yield covariances based on GEF model code, EPJ Web Conf. 281 (2023) 00015. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202328100015

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202328100015 2023

  15. [16]

    Fiorito, A

    L. Fiorito, A. Stankovskiy, G. V an Den Eynde et al., Gener- ation of fission yield covariances to correct discrepancies in the nuclear data libraries, Ann. Nucl. Energy 88 (2016) 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.10.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.10.027 2016

  16. [17]

    Tsubakihara, S

    K. Tsubakihara, S. Okumura, C. Ishizuka et al., Evalu- ation of fission product yields and associated covariance matrices, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 58 (2) (2021) 151–165. doi:10.1080/00223131.2020.1813643

    work page doi:10.1080/00223131.2020.1813643 2021

  17. [18]

    E. F. Matthews, L. A. Bernstein, W. Y ounes, Stochastically estimated covariance matrices for independent and cumula- tive fission yields in the ENDF/B-VIII.0 and JEFF-3.3 eval- uations, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 140 (2021) 101441. doi:10.1016/j.adt.2021.101441

    work page doi:10.1016/j.adt.2021.101441 2021

  18. [19]

    A. E. Lovell, T. Kawano, P . Talou, Calculated covariance ma- trices for fission product yields using BeoH, EPJ Web Conf. 281 (2023) 00018. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202328100018

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202328100018 2023

  19. [20]

    N. Shu, S. Zhu, T. Zu et al., Fission Yield Evaluation Method Based upon Zp Model and Uncertainty Analysis in Burnup Calculation, Atomic Energy Science and Technology 56 (2022) 927–936. doi:10.7538/yzk.2022.youxian.0188

    work page doi:10.7538/yzk.2022.youxian.0188 2022

  20. [21]

    Z.-A. Wang, J. Pei, Y . Liu et al., Bayesian Evaluation of In- complete Fission Yields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 122501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.122501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.122501 2019

  21. [22]

    Z.-A. Wang, J. Pei, Optimizing multilayer Bayesian neural net- works for evaluation of fission yields, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 064608. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064608

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.064608 2021

  22. [23]

    C. Y . Qiao, J. C. Pei, Z. A. Wang, et al., Bayesian evaluation of charge yields of fission fragments of 239U, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 034621. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034621

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.034621 2021

  23. [24]

    Xiao, X.-J

    M.-X. Xiao, X.-J. Bao, Z. Wei et al., Bayesian evaluation of energy dependent neutron induced fission yields, Chin. Phys. C 47 (12) (2023) 124102. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acf7b5

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acf7b5 2023

  24. [25]

    Q.-F. Song, L. Zhu, H. Guo et al., V erification of neutron- induced fission product yields evaluated by a tensor decomp- sition model in transport-burnup simulations, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34 (2) (2023) 32. doi:10.1007/s41365-023-01176-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-023-01176-5 2023

  25. [26]

    D. Y . Huo, Z. Wei, K. Wu et al., Evaluation of pre-neutron- emission mass distributions in induced fission of typical ac- tinides based on Monte Carlo dropout neural network, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (11) (2023) 265. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023- 01189-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023- 2023

  26. [27]

    V ogt, A

    R. V ogt, A. Lovell, A. Tudora et al., Summary Report of the 2nd RCM of the CRP on Updating Fission Yield Data for Ap- plications, Tech. Rep. LLNL-TR-864491, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States) (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [28]

    D. L. Smith, Probability, Statistics, and Data Uncertainties in Nuclear Science and Technology, American Nuclear Society, 1991

    work page 1991

  28. [29]

    Lewins, The Time-Dependent Importance of Neutrons and Precursors, Nucl

    J. Lewins, The Time-Dependent Importance of Neutrons and Precursors, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 7 (3) (1960) 268–274. doi:10.13182/NSE60-A25713

    work page doi:10.13182/nse60-a25713 1960

  29. [30]

    Chiba, T

    G. Chiba, T. Narabayashi, Uncertainty quantification of total delayed neutron yields and time-dependent de- layed neutron emission rates in frame of summation calculations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 85 (2015) 846–855. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.001 2015

  30. [31]

    Schunck, D

    N. Schunck, D. Regnier, Theory of nuclear fis- sion, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125 (2022) 103963. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103963

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103963 2022

  31. [32]

    R. W. Mills, Fission product yield evaluation, Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham (1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [33]

    England, B

    T. England, B. Rider, Evaluation and compilation of fission product yields 1993, Tech. Rep. LA-UR-94-3106, Los Alamos National Lab. (1995)

    work page 1993

  33. [34]

    Nichols, D

    A. Nichols, D. Aldama, M. V erpelli, Handbook of Nuclear Data for Safeguards: Database Extensions, August 2008., Tech. Rep. INDC(NDS)-0534, International Atomic Energy Agency (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [35]

    R. W. Mills, A new UK fission yield evaluation UKFY3.7, EPJ Web of Conferences 146 (2017) 04008. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714604008

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714604008 2017

  35. [36]

    Bateman, Solution of a system of differential equations oc- curring in the theory of radioactive transformations, in: Proc

    H. Bateman, Solution of a system of differential equations oc- curring in the theory of radioactive transformations, in: Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., V ol. 15, 1910, pp. 423–427

    work page 1910

  36. [37]

    Ladshaw, A

    A. Ladshaw, A. I. Wiechert, Y .-h. Kim et al., Algorithms and algebraic solutions of decay chain differential equations for sta- ble and unstable nuclide fractionation, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 246 (2020) 106907. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.106907

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.106907 2020

  37. [38]

    iaea.org/conderc/ (2019)

    IAEA, CoNDERC: Compilation of Nuclear Data Experi- ments for Radiation Characterisation, https://www-nds. iaea.org/conderc/ (2019)

    work page 2019