Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Bridging the Gap on AI-Assisted Scientific Software Development Through Transparency and Traceability

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AI-assisted code can be governed within strict nuclear-quality standards today, without banning agents—if disclosure, traceability, and independent human review are encoded in the repository.

desk verdict A practical, honestly-reported governance framework for AI-assisted scientific software, demonstrated on two TMAP8 validation cases; the framework is sensible and the artifacts are open, but the NQA-1 compliance claim is self-assessed and transfer to production code is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.17675 v2 pith:ZWQ5F4RX submitted 2026-05-17 cs.SE cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Chaitanya Bhave , Pierre-Clément A. Simon , Casey Icenhour , Lin Yang , Cody J. Permann , Daniel Schwen , Christopher S. Ritter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords AI-assistedsoftwaredevelopmentqualityassuranceNQA-1traceabilityverificationandvalidationagenticAIopen-sourcescientificgovernanceframework
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's central claim is that responsible governance of AI-assisted scientific software development is achievable today within existing NQA-1 quality-assurance standards, rather than after new rules arrive. It proposes a framework in which AI involvement is disclosed in commit metadata, review requirements scale with the degree of AI involvement, automated quality gates catch silent errors, and the human directing the work remains the accountable author. The framework is demonstrated on two verification-and-validation cases in an open-source fusion tritium-transport code: one implementing a published model, one building a hypothesis-driven model where no published model exists. Both cases reproduced experimental data after human review and calibration. The intended significance is that safety-relevant scientific software need not choose between AI productivity and traceability, and that V&V cases are the right low-risk place to establish governance that can later extend to broader development.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the repository-level governance specification (AGENTS.md) plus the V&V case itself. V&V cases have known analytical or experimental reference solutions, so correctness is objectively measurable and errors are detectable by construction; this property is what makes them a controlled proving ground. The AGENTS.md file encodes task scoping, testing expectations, documentation, provenance logging, and commit requirements; pre-commit hooks enforce the non-negotiable parts outside the agent's attention window; and issue-linked commits plus machine-readable session logs make the development process reconstructable. Together these convert governance from developer discreti

What would settle it

A direct test: take a non-V&V contribution to a production code—say a new physics module or refactored solver—run it through the same AGENTS.md workflow, and have independent reviewers flag every error the agent introduced. If silent, plausible-but-wrong code gets through the human-review stage at a rate comparable to or higher than human-authored code, the central claim that V&V governance transfers to broader scientific software development collapses. A cheaper indicator: count how many of the two documented agents' errors were caught by automated gates versus human review; the paper itself

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that the relevant question is not whether to permit AI-assisted development but how to govern it, and that governed use is possible now. It specifies a concrete governance mechanism—a repository-level AGENTS.md specification that encodes disclosure, provenance, review, and testing requirements; commit-level metadata and machine-readable session logs that make development history reconstructable; pre-commit hooks that enforce non-negotiable provenance; and a rule that no agentic system can substitute for an independent human reviewer. Demonstrated through two validation cases in the tritium-transport code TMAP8, the framework is claimed to show that agent-assisted workflows

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that what works for V&V cases—small, well-posed tasks with objectively checkable answers—can later extend to general scientific software development, where correctness must be judged through the lens of end use and no reference solution exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, NQA-1-governed projects can adopt agentic AI development today without new standards; the framework maps directly onto existing sub-clauses.
  • AI involvement becomes auditable at the commit level, so reviewers and downstream users can see exactly how much of a change was machine-generated.
  • Independent human review remains mandatory and cannot be delegated to an adversarial review agent; AI-assisted checks only improve artifacts before human review.
  • Traceable provenance of AI-generated code also addresses model collapse: curated datasets can filter synthetic contributions that would otherwise degrade future model training.
  • The framework is designed to be iterative: AGENTS.md is treated as a living file, updated as new failure modes are identified.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the same governance pattern could generalize to other SQA-governed open-source scientific projects, since it relies on standard version-control and review infrastructure rather than code-specific features—but the generalization is untested beyond V&V cases.
  • My inference: the productivity comparison (about 6 hours versus 4–5 days) suggests a large acceleration for well-defined implementation tasks, but the paper notes it is not a controlled benchmark; I expect the real bottleneck to shift to human review capacity as generation volume grows.
  • My inference: a testable extension would be applying the framework to a production-code contribution without a reference solution and measuring whether hallucinated errors are caught at rates comparable to the V&V cases; that would directly test the transferability assumption.
  • My inference: because the two demos used different agent tools, the framework's success is not tied to one vendor's model; that strengthens the claim that governance, not model choice, is the deciding factor, but it also leaves open how sensitive outcomes are to model version.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a governance framework for AI-assisted code development in NQA-1-governed scientific software, implemented as AGENTS.md plus commit-level AI disclosure, issue-linked commits, session logs, pre-commit hooks, and mandatory independent human review. The framework is demonstrated on two new TMAP8 validation cases: a tritium TDS model of neutron-irradiated Li2TiO3 based on a published model, and a deuterium desorption model for oxide-coated tungsten with no published model. The authors report productivity gains, specific hallucinations (omitted defect-annihilation term; fabricated digitized data), and lessons about context limits, provenance, authorship, and model-collapse risk. They conclude that responsible governance is achievable today within existing NQA-1 standards.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful, concrete template for governing agentic AI contributions in high-assurance scientific software. Strengths include real, merged pull requests with open artifacts; machine-readable session logs committed in version control; honest reporting of failure modes; a serious attempt to map practices to NQA-1 clauses; and a practical mechanism (AGENTS.md + pre-commit hooks) that is lightweight and repository-level. The two case studies are real and bounded, and the paper's self-criticism is unusually candid. The main limitation is evidentiary: both demonstrations involve well-posed V&V tasks with objective correctness criteria, and the paper's broader claim that the governance pattern extends to general scientific software is asserted rather than established. The NQA-1 mapping in Table 1 is also self-assessed rather than independently audited.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5 and Section 1] The central claim that governance practices proven on V&V cases 'can later extend to broader scientific software development' is asserted without evidence. The paper itself notes that NQA-1 correctness is judged through the lens of the end use, not against an oracle. The two demonstrations succeed because V&V cases have known solutions and pass/fail tolerances; production code does not. The automated quality gates are explicitly designed for V&V contexts. Please either provide a concrete transfer argument or a pilot on a non-V&V contribution, or narrow the claimed scope to V&V case development.
  2. [Supplementary Table 3, Fig. 7, Section 3.1] The claimed agreement 'reproduces the experimentally measured normalized tritium release rate' (RMSPE 9.2%) is the result of Bayesian optimization of eight parameters against the same Sample E curve used for evaluation. This is a fit, not a prediction, and therefore does not constitute evidence that the AI-assisted workflow correctly translated the physical model. The paper should present the pre-optimization comparison with reference parameters (RMSPE 23.1%) as the primary evidence of correct implementation and treat the optimized agreement as calibration, not validation.
  3. [Table 4, Validation Case 2] D0,O, ED,O, Kr,D2O, and Er,D2O are calibrated against the same digitized Kremer curves used for the comparison in Fig. 2. The paper acknowledges this 'ad hoc calibration' and says the results are qualitatively different from measurements. This is honest, but it means the second case demonstrates that an agent can help construct a phenomenologically fitted model, not that the resulting model is a validated predictive tool. The conclusion should be adjusted accordingly.
  4. [Table 1] The NQA-1 compliance argument is based on the authors' own mapping of governance practices to NQA-1 sub-clauses and PLN-4005 sections, with no independent compliance audit or evidence that an NQA-1 auditor would accept AGENTS.md, session logs, or pre-commit hooks as satisfying these requirements. Since 'operates within NQA-1 requirements' is a central claim, this mapping needs to be supported by a more formal traceability analysis or external review.
  5. [Section 2 and Table 1] The framework states that review requirements 'should scale with the degree of AI involvement,' but the governance practices described and mapped in Table 1 treat review uniformly: independent human review is always required, and the same pre-commit checks apply to all contributions. If scaling is intended, the paper should specify the criteria (e.g., fraction of AI-generated code, risk level, complexity) and how they alter review depth or documentation requirements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data availability] Duplicate word: 'the validation cases cases described above' should be 'the validation cases described above.'
  2. [Section 2 heading] 'T able 1' has an extra space in the table caption; should read 'Table 1.'
  3. [Section 4.1] 'writing documentation' appears twice in the same sentence ('formatting input files, generating plots, writing documentation, producing test scaffolding, and writing documentation in MooseDocs format'). Please consolidate.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Validation Case 2] The text refers to 'the validation case presented in Section 5' when the first validation case is described in Section 3.1. Please correct the cross-reference.
  5. [Throughout] 'AGENTS.mdspecification' is missing a space between '.md' and 'specification' in several places; should be 'AGENTS.md specification.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The governance framework itself is not circular, but both validation-case demonstrations present calibrated fits as confirmatory comparisons, making the numerical evidence partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material, Validation case 1, 'Results after optimization', Table 3 and Fig. 7; also Section 3.1 and Fig. 1]
    "A Bayesian optimization approach [54] was applied to optimize eight key parameters ... to better match the experimental TDS curve for Sample E. ... Figure 7 compares TMAP8 with the optimized parameters and the experimental data. The optimized parameters significantly reduce the RMSPE compared to the reference parameters, demonstrating improved agreement with the experimental TDS spectrum."

    The eight parameters (D0, Ed, alpha_t0, epsilon_t, alpha_r0, epsilon_r, k_dp-da,0, E_dp-da) are optimized against the same Sample E experimental TDS curve that is then used as the reference for the comparison. The reported RMSPE reduction from 23.1% to 9.2% is therefore a measure of calibration error on the training target, not an independent predictive validation. Presenting this as evidence that the agent-assisted workflow 'correctly translate[s] established physical models into executable code' is a fit, not a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material, Validation case 2, Table 4 and 'Discussion and future work'; also Section 3.2 and Fig. 2]
    "D0,O ... Calibrated from Ref. [56]; ED,O ... Calibrated from Ref. [56]; Kr,D2O ... Calibrated; Er,D2O ... Calibrated. ... The current study implemented the model and performed an ad hoc calibration of the model parameters based on the potential driving mechanisms ... the simulation results are quantitatively different from the experimental measurements."

    In validation case 2, the oxygen diffusivity and the D2/D2O surface-release parameters are calibrated against the same Kremer et al. digitized desorption curves that Fig. 2 uses as the experimental comparison. The agreement shown in Fig. 2 is therefore a calibrated-model evaluation, not an independent prediction. The paper itself acknowledges this by describing the parameters as 'calibrated effective kinetics for matching the observed TDS trends rather than as a mechanistic description.' This does not invalidate the governance framework, but it means the demonstration does not provide independent numerical confirmation.

full rationale

The central governance framework—AGENTS.md, commit-level AI disclosure, independent human review, pre-commit provenance hooks, and NQA-1 mapping—is a process proposal and is not definitionally circular; it does not reduce to a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain. However, the paper's two validation-case demonstrations are presented as evidence that the governance framework 'works,' and in both cases the key numerical agreement is obtained by calibrating model parameters to the very experimental data against which the comparison is then shown. In case 1, eight parameters are Bayesian-optimized against Sample E and the improved RMSPE is displayed as success. In case 2, multiple parameters are explicitly labeled 'Calibrated' and the model is then compared with the same digitized Kremer curves used for calibration. The paper is honest about the calibration, but the figures and concluding language ('model predictions compared against experimental measurements') nevertheless present fitted agreement as if it were predictive validation. Because these fitted demonstrations are load-bearing evidence for the claim that the framework enables correct AI-assisted V&V development, the numerical support is partially circular. The framework's process-level claims remain independent of these fits, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework itself does not require fitted physics parameters; the fitted parameters belong to the two demonstration validation cases and are listed because the paper presents their post-calibration agreement as evidence. The axioms are the unverified premises on which the governance claim rests: NQA-1 interpretation, transferability from V&V to production code, data digitization accuracy, human-review capacity, a behavioral claim about prohibition, and an analogy to model collapse.

free parameters (14)
  • D0 (diffusivity pre-exponential) = 4.50e-6 m^2/s
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • Ed (diffusion activation energy) = 1.01 eV
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • alpha_t0 (trapping prefactor) = 2.21e7 s^-1
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • epsilon_t (trapping energy) = 0.82 eV
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • alpha_r0 (detrapping prefactor) = 2.14e5 s^-1
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • epsilon_r (detrapping energy) = 1.08 eV
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • k_dp-da,0 (annihilation prefactor) = 8.26e1 s^-1
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • E_dp-da (annihilation energy) = 1.27 eV
    Bayesian-optimized against Sample E TDS data in validation case 1 (Table 3).
  • D_O,0 (oxygen diffusivity prefactor) = 2.0e-17 m^2/s
    Calibrated against Kremer et al. release data in validation case 2 (Table 4), labeled 'Calibrated from Ref. [56]'.
  • E_D,O (oxygen diffusion activation energy) = 0.45 eV
    Calibrated against Kremer et al. release data in validation case 2 (Table 4).
  • K_r,D2O (D2O surface-release prefactor) = 3.8e1 m^4/(at·s)
    Calibrated against the same Kremer et al. curves used for comparison (Table 4).
  • E_r,D2O (D2O surface-release activation energy) = 2.10 eV
    Calibrated against the same Kremer et al. curves used for comparison (Table 4).
  • Initial oxygen concentration C_O,0 = 4.94e28 at/m^3
    Derived from reported oxide inventory (100e19 O/m^2 in 13.5 nm) then reduced by an additional factor of 1.5 in calibration (Supplementary, Table 4).
  • Uniform trap-density scale factor s_T = 6.644848
    Adapted from val-2f to match the prescribed preload inventory (Table 4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The cited ASME NQA-1-2017 sub-clauses and PLN-4005 sections in Table 1 are correctly interpreted, and satisfying them is sufficient for compliance.
    The paper's central compatibility claim rests on this mapping; no independent audit or standards-body interpretation is provided.
  • domain assumption Governance practices shown to work on bounded V&V cases transfer to general production code.
    Sections 1 and 4.5 assert V&V cases are a proving ground 'that can later extend to broader scientific software development' without evidence of transfer.
  • domain assumption The experimental data digitized from Refs. [45] and [46] accurately represent the original measurements.
    Agent initially hallucinated part of the Kremer digitization; final hand digitization is assumed accurate (Sec 4.2, Supplementary).
  • domain assumption Human reviewers can detect subtle AI errors reliably enough to preserve correctness at scale.
    Sec 4.2 reports the key errors were caught only by adversarial human review, but also that agent output volume outpaces review capacity.
  • domain assumption Restricting AI use would drive it underground rather than reduce it.
    Sec 1 asserts prohibition is 'counterproductive' and would produce ungoverned use; this is an empirical behavioral claim with no data.
  • domain assumption Model-collapse dynamics for generative text apply to code generation and are mitigated by labeling AI contributions.
    Sec 4.5 extends Ref. [52]'s model-collapse result to code corpora; the mechanism is plausible but not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the Gap on AI-Assisted Scientific Software Development Through Transparency and Traceability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWQ5F4RX

@misc{pith2026260517675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the Gap on AI-Assisted Scientific Software Development Through Transparency and Traceability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWQ5F4RX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.17675}
}
read the original abstract

The widespread adoption of AI-assisted development in scientific software is not a future concern -- it is a present reality. Researchers are already using large language models to write code, generate test cases, and draft documentation, yet this practice remains largely unacknowledged and unguided in formal workflows and published work. This ad hoc, ungoverned use of AI represents a systemic risk to scientific software quality, particularly in safety-relevant modeling and simulation tools subject to strict Software Quality Assurance (SQA), or even Nuclear Quality Assurance Level 1 (NQA-1) standards, for which traceability, independent verification, and documented procedures are paramount. The question facing the scientific software community is, therefore, not whether to permit AI-assisted development, but how to govern it responsibly. This paper proposes guidance for AI-assisted code development in the context of strict software quality assurance. Using TMAP8 -- an open-source tritium migration code for fusion energy -- as a demonstration platform, we propose a structured framework for AI-assisted verification and validation (V&V) case development. V&V case development represents the ideal proving ground for establishing that governance: because validation cases have known solutions, correctness is objectively measurable, errors are identifiable by design, and the artifacts are fully auditable. The proposed guidance, developed based on practical experience described herein, operates within NQA-1 requirements, preserves human accountability, and establishes the disclosure and review standards that responsible AI-assisted scientific software development demands.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI (2025)

    Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K.I., Karkee, M.: Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI (2025). https://arxiv.org/ abs/2505.19443

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18341

    Robbes, R., Matricon, T., Degueule, T., Hora, A., Zacchiroli, S.: Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18341

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584 (2024)

    Masterman, T., Besen, S., Sawtell, M., Chao, A.: The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    https://anthropic.com/research/ measuring-agent-autonomy 19

    McCain, M., Millar, T., Huang, S., Eaton, J., Handa, K., Stern, M., Tamkin, A., Kearney, M., Durmus, E., Shen, J., Hong, J., Calvert, B., Chan, J.S., Mosconi, F., Saunders, D., Neylon, T., Nicholas, G., Pollack, S., Clark, J., Ganguli, D.: Measuring AI Agent Autonomy in Practice. https://anthropic.com/research/ measuring-agent-autonomy 19

  5. [5]

    Nature Machine Intelligence8(2), 136–137 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42256-026-01178-z

    Ciriello, R.: On the troubling rise of generative ai suspicion in academic publish- ing. Nature Machine Intelligence8(2), 136–137 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42256-026-01178-z

    2026

  6. [6]

    Kousha, K.: How is chatgpt acknowledged in academic publications? Scientomet- rics129(12), 7959–7969 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05193-y

    doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05193-y 2024

  7. [7]

    npj Artificial Intelligence 1(1), 14 (2025)

    Zhang, Y., Khan, S.A., Mahmud, A., Yang, H., Lavin, A., Levin, M., Frey, J., Dun- nmon, J., Evans, J., Bundy, A.,et al.: Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery. npj Artificial Intelligence 1(1), 14 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166 (2024)

    Wang, W., Gu, L., Zhang, L., Luo, Y., Dai, Y., Shen, C., Xie, L., Lin, B., He, X., Ye, J.: Scipip: An llm-based scientific paper idea proposer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Xie, Q., Weng, Y., Zhu, M., Shen, F., Huang, S., Lin, Z., Zhou, J., Mao, Z., Yang, Z., Yang, L., et al.: How far are ai scientists from changing the world? arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23276 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066 (2025)

    Yamada, Y., Lange, R.T., Lu, C., Hu, S., Lu, C., Foerster, J., Clune, J., Ha, D.: The ai scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26603 (2025)

    Weng, Y., Zhu, M., Xie, Q., Sun, Q., Lin, Z., Liu, S., Zhang, Y.: Deepscien- tist: Advancing frontier-pushing scientific findings progressively. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26603 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08127 (2026)

    Lyu, Y., Zhang, X., Yi, X., Zhao, Y., Guo, S., Hu, W., Piotrowski, J., Kaliski, J., Urbani, J., Meng, Z., et al.: Evoscientist: Towards multi-agent evolving ai scientists for end-to-end scientific discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08127 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    https://gptzero.me/news/neurips/

    Shmatko, N.: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers (2026). https://gptzero.me/news/neurips/

    2025

  6. [14]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20799

    Lee, Y., Song, J.Y., Kim, D., Kim, J., Kim, M., Nam, J.: Hallucination by Code Generation LLMs: Taxonomy, Benchmarks, Mitigation, and Challenges (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20799

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20550

    Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Chen, J., Zheng, Z.: LLM Hallucinations in Practical Code Generation: Phenomena, Mechanism, and Mitigation (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20550

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexity (2025)

    Cotroneo, D., Improta, C., Liguori, P.: Human-Written vs. AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexity (2025). https: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.21634 20

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Automated Software Engineering33(2), 70 (2026)

    Huang, T., Ren, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Y., Zheng, Z.: Hallucination detec- tion in llm code generation: A sampling-based consensus verification approach. Automated Software Engineering33(2), 70 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Nature Communications 16(1) (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-63913-1

    Tang, X., Jin, Q., Zhu, K., Yuan, T., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Qu, M., Zhao, Y., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., Cohan, A., Greenbaum, D., Lu, Z., Gerstein, M.: Risks of ai scientists: prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy. Nature Communications 16(1) (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-...

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13767

    Roychoudhury, A., Pasareanu, C., Pradel, M., Ray, B.: Agentic AI Software Engineers: Programming with Trust (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13767

    2025

  12. [20]

    Standard ASME NQA-1-2017, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY (Jan- uary 2017)

    American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Quality assurance require- ments for nuclear facility applications. Standard ASME NQA-1-2017, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY (Jan- uary 2017). https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/ quality-a...

    2017

  13. [21]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Oberkampf, W.L., Roy, C.J.: Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7916712

    IEEE Standard for System, Software, and Hardware Verification and Validation. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7916712 . IEEE. Revision of IEEE Std 1012-2012

    2017

  15. [23]

    arXiv (2025)

    Jakeman, J.D., Barba, L.A., Martins, J.R.R.A., O’Leary-Roseberry, T.: Ver- ification and Validation for Trustworthy Scientific Machine Learning. arXiv (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.15496 . https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.15496

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fusion Engineering and Design 214, 114874 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2025.114874

    Simon, P.-C.A., Icenhour, C.T., Singh, G., Lindsay, A.D., Bhave, C.V., Yang, L., Riet, A.A., Che, Y., Humrickhouse, P., Shimada, M., Calderoni, P.: MOOSE- based tritium migration analysis program, version 8 (TMAP8) for advanced open- source tritium transport and fuel cycle mod...

    2025

  17. [25]

    SoftwareX31, 102264 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2025.102264

    Harbour, L., Giudicelli, G., Lindsay, A.D., German, P., Hansel, J., Icenhour, C., Li, M., Miller, J.M., Stogner, R.H., Behne, P., Yankura, D., Prince, Z.M., DeChant, C., Schwen, D., Spencer, B.W., Tano, M., Choi, N., Wang, Y., Nezdyur, M., Miao, Y., Hu, T., Kumar, S., Matthews...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007) 21

    Freidberg, J.P.: Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007) 21

    2007

  19. [27]

    Nature Physics12, 398–410 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3745

    Ongena, J., Koch, R., Wolf, R., Zohm, H.: Magnetic-confinement fusion. Nature Physics12, 398–410 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3745

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology105(4), 541–549 (2000) https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.105.043

    Lucas, L.L., Unterweger, M.P.: Comprehensive review and critical evaluation of the half-life of tritium. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology105(4), 541–549 (2000) https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.105.043

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    Fusion Engineering and Design136, 1140–1148 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.04.090

    Pearson, R.J., Antoniazzi, A.B., Nuttall, W.J.: Tritium supply and use: a key issue for the development of nuclear fusion energy. Fusion Engineering and Design136, 1140–1148 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.04.090 . Special Issue: Proceedings of the 13th Interna...

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2021). https: //doi.org/10.17226/25991

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Nuclear Fusion61(1), 013001 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abbf35

    Abdou, M., Riva, M., Ying, A., Day, C., Loarte, A., Baylor, L., Humrick- house, P., Fuerst, T.F., Cho, S.-K.: Physics and technology considerations for the deuterium–tritium fuel cycle and conditions for tritium fuel self sufficiency. Nuclear Fusion61(1), 013001 (2021) https:/...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Nuclear Fusion58(2), 026010 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/aa9d25

    Kovari, M., Coleman, M., Cristescu, I., Smith, R.: Tritium resources available for fusion reactors. Nuclear Fusion58(2), 026010 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/aa9d25

    2018

  25. [33]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials300(2–3), 91–117 (2002) https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(01)00732-2

    Causey, R.A.: Hydrogen isotope retention and recycling in fusion reactor plasma- facing components. Journal of Nuclear Materials300(2–3), 91–117 (2002) https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(01)00732-2

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    In: Konings, R.J.M., Stoller, R.E

    Shimada, M.: 6.08 - tritium transport in fusion reactor materials. In: Konings, R.J.M., Stoller, R.E. (eds.) Comprehensive Nuclear Mate- rials (Second Edition), Second edition edn., pp. 251–273. Elsevier, Oxford (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11754-0 . http...

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Technical report, U.S

    Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee: Transformative enabling capabili- ties for efficient advance toward fusion energy. Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (February 2018). https://science.osti.gov/-/media/fes/...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Technical report, U.S

    Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee: Powering the future: Fusion & plas- mas. Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (December 2020). https://science.osti.gov/-/media/fes/ fesac/pdf/2020/202012/FESAC Report 2020 P...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Department of Energy, Office of Science: Fusion energy sciences: 22 A ten-year perspective (2015–2025)

    U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science: Fusion energy sciences: 22 A ten-year perspective (2015–2025). Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy (2015). https://science.osti.gov/-/media/fes/pdf/2015/FES A Ten-Year Perspective 2015-2025.pdf

    2015

  30. [38]

    Department of Energy, Office of Science: Fusion energy sciences: Sci- ence and technology roadmap

    U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science: Fusion energy sciences: Sci- ence and technology roadmap. Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (October 2025). Released October 16, 2025. https://www.energy.gov/sites/defa...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Nuclear Fusion

    Simon, P.-C.A., Icenhour, C.T., Singh, G., Lindsay, A.D., Bhave, C.V., Yang, L., Riet, A.A., Che, Y., Humrickhouse, P., Shimada, M., Calderoni, P.: Advanced tritium transport modeling and verification, validation, and benchmarking from component level to fuel cycle scale using...

    2026

  32. [40]

    Fusion Engineering and Design218, 115128 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2025.115128

    Franklin, T., Icenhour, C., Simon, P.-C.A., Humrickhouse, P., Kong, F., Carasik, L.B.: New developments and verification of fusion blanket simulation capabilities in the MOOSE framework. Fusion Engineering and Design218, 115128 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2025.115128

    2025

  33. [41]

    Fusion Engineering and Design203, 114438 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes

    Shimada, M., Simon, P.-C.A., Icenhour, C.T., Singh, G.: Toward a high-fidelity tritium transport modeling for retention and permeation experiments. Fusion Engineering and Design203, 114438 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes. 2024.114438

    2024

  34. [42]

    International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 210, 153551 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.153551

    Yang, L., Simon, P.-C.A., Tang, W., Li, M., Zhao, Z., Ding, D., Fuerst, T.: Elu- cidating hydrogen isotope transport mechanisms in proton-conducting ceramics with trapping effects using TMAP8. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 210, 153551 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2026

  35. [43]

    md: Are repository-level context files helpful for coding agents? arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11988 (2026)

    Gloaguen, T., M¨ undler, N., M¨ uller, M., Raychev, V., Vechev, M.: Evaluating agents. md: Are repository-level context files helpful for coding agents? arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11988 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Technical Report PLN-4005, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (March 2025)

    Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC: Software Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP) for MOOSE and MOOSE-Based Applications. Technical Report PLN-4005, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (March 2025). Available to authorized users via the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials 458, 22–28 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.11.047

    Kobayashi, M., Oya, Y., Munakata, K., Okuno, K.: Developing a tritium release model for Li2TiO3 with irradiation-induced defects. Journal of Nuclear Materials 458, 22–28 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.11.047

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    Nuclear Materials and Energy30, 101137 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2022

    Kremer, K., Brucker, M., Jacob, W., Schwarz-Selinger, T.: Influence of thin sur- face oxide films on hydrogen isotope release from ion-irradiated tungsten. Nuclear Materials and Energy30, 101137 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2022. 23 101137

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    GitHub pull request #397,idaholab/TMAP8

    Bhave, C.: Add HIT format pre-commit check and agentic workflow docs. GitHub pull request #397,idaholab/TMAP8. Merged 2026-03-20 by P.-C. Simon (simopier). Accessed: 2026-05-08 (2026). https://github.com/idaholab/TMAP8/ pull/397

    2026

  40. [48]

    GitHub pull request #402,idaholab/TMAP8

    Yang, L.: Add validation case val-2j: Tritium TDS from Li 2TiO3 solid breeder. GitHub pull request #402,idaholab/TMAP8. Merged 2026-04-14 by P.-C. Simon (simopier); closes issue #400. Accessed: 2026-05-08 (2026). https://github.com/ idaholab/TMAP8/pull/402

    2026

  41. [49]

    GitHub pull request #409,idaholab/TMAP8

    Simon, P.-C.: Add val-2k: deuterium desorption from self-irradiated tungsten with thin film oxide. GitHub pull request #409,idaholab/TMAP8. Merged 2026-05- 07; closes issue #399. Accessed: 2026-05-08 (2026). https://github.com/idaholab/ TMAP8/pull/409

    2026

  42. [50]

    TBD (2026

    Kadz, L., Yang, L., Dhulipala, S.L.N., Shimada, M., Simon, P.-C.A.: Investigating the critical role of surface effects on deuterium transport in self-damaged tungsten using TMAP8. TBD (2026. In preparation)

    2026

  43. [51]

    GitHub issue #408,idaholab/TMAP8

    Idaho National Laboratory: Improve AGENTS.md and agent workflow. GitHub issue #408,idaholab/TMAP8. Accessed: 2026-05-08 (2025). https://github.com/ idaholab/TMAP8/issues/408

    2026

  44. [52]

    Nature631(8022), 755–759 (2024)

    Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., Gal, Y.: Ai models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature631(8022), 755–759 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Nature632(8026), 715–716 (2024)

    Gibney, E.: Has your paper been used to train an ai model? almost certainly. Nature632(8026), 715–716 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Journal of Computational Science94, 102776 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Dhulipala, S.L.N., German, P., Che, Y., Prince, Z.M., Xie, X., Simon, P.-C.A., Labour´ e, V.M., Yan, H.: MOOSE ProbML: Parallelized probabilistic machine learning and uncertainty quantification for computational energy applications. Journal of Computational Science94, 102776 (...

    2026

  47. [55]

    Nuclear Fusion64(8), 086026 (2024)

    Dark, J., Delaporte-Mathurin, R., Schwarz-Selinger, T., Hodille, E.A., Mougenot, J., Charles, Y., Grisolia, C.: Modelling neutron damage effects on tritium transport in tungsten. Nuclear Fusion64(8), 086026 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials393(3), 508–512 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.07.012

    Jiang, D.-e., Carter, E.A.: First-principles investigation on dissolution and diffu- sion of oxygen in tungsten. Journal of Nuclear Materials393(3), 508–512 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.07.012

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    Nuclear Materials and Energy27, 100991 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2021.100991

    Kremer, K., Schwarz-Selinger, T., Jacob, W.: Influence of thin tungsten oxide 24 films on hydrogen isotope uptake and retention in tungsten – evidence for per- meation barrier effect. Nuclear Materials and Energy27, 100991 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2021.100991

    2021

  50. [58]

    IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 1–7 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2022.3183525

    Simon, P.-C.A., Humrickhouse, P.W., Lindsay, A.D.: Tritium Transport Modeling at the Pore Scale in Ceramic Breeder Materials Using TMAP8. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 1–7 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2022.3183525

    2022

  51. [59]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials610, 155795 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2025

    Dhulipala, S.L.N., Simon, P.-C.A., Demkowicz, P.A., Hirschhorn, J.A., Novas- cone, S.R.: Unpacking model inadequacy: The quantification of silver release from TRISO fuel by considering empirical and mechanistic approaches. Journal of Nuclear Materials610, 155795 (2025) https:/...

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Slaughter, A.E., Prince, Z.M., German, P., Halvic, I., Jiang, W., Spencer, B.W., Dhulipala, S.L., Gaston, D.R.: Moose stochastic tools: A module for performing parallel, memory-efficient in situ stochastic simulations. SoftwareX22, 101345 (2023) 25 Supplementary material Valid...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.