EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 11 (2025) EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol., 11 (2025) 61 References
Issue
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 11, 2025
Special Issue on ‘Overview of recent advances in HPC simulation methods for nuclear applications’, edited by Andrea Zoia, Elie Saikali, Cheikh Diop and Cyrille de Saint Jean
Article Number 61
Number of page(s) 24
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2025055
Published online 01 October 2025
  1. A. Weiser, E. Zarantonello, A note on piecewise linear and multilinear table interpolation in many dimensions, Math. Comput. 50, 189 (1988) [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Sánchez-Cervera et al., Optimization of multidimensional cross-section tables for few-group core calculations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 69, 226 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  3. V. Zimin, A. Semenov, Building neutron cross-section dependencies for few-group reactor calculations using stepwise regression, Ann. Nucl. Energy 32, 119 (2005) [Google Scholar]
  4. P. Bokov, Automated few-group cross-section parameterization based on quasi-regression, Ann. Nucl. Energy (2009) [Google Scholar]
  5. D. Botes, P. Bokov, Polynomial interpolation of few-group neutron cross sections on sparse grids, Ann. Nucl. Energy 64, 156 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  6. E.A. Szames, Amélioration du modèle reconstruction des sections efficaces dans un code de calcul de neutronique à l’échelle cœur, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay 2020 [Google Scholar]
  7. J.P. Berrut, L.N. Trefethen, Barycentric lagrange interpolation, SIAM Rev. 46, 501 (2004) [Google Scholar]
  8. K. Tan et al., The assembly homogeneous fewgroup constants generation method for PWR based on machine learning, Ann. Nucl. Energy 165, 108772 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  9. V.L. Nicolas Martin Zachary Prince, M. Tano-Retamales, Deep learning for multigroup cross-section representation in two-step core calculations, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 197, 1406 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  10. Y.M. Chan, J. Dufek, A deep-learning representation of multi-group cross sections in lattice calculations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 195, 110123 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  11. S. Dzianisau, D. Lee, Application of artificial neural network for assembly homogenized equivalence parameter generation, Prog. Nucl. Energy 173, 105285 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  12. D. Tomatis, A multivariate representation of compressed pin-by-pin cross sections, EPJ Nucl. Sci. Technol. 7, 8 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Yamamoto, T. Endo, A. Yamamoto, Compression of cross-section data size for highresolution core analysis using dimensionality reduction technique, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 195, 33 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  14. B. Whewell, R.G. McClarren, Data reduction in deterministic neutron transport calculations using machine learning, Ann. Nucl. Energy 176, 109276 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  15. G. Hua, Y. Li, S. Wang, PWR pinhomogenized cross-sections analysis using big-data technology, Prog. Nucl. Energy 121, 103228 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  16. D. Tomatis, A. Dall’Osso, Compression of 3D pin-by-pin burnup data, Ann. Nucl. Energy 136, 107058 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  17. C.E. Rasmussen, C.K.I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2006), p. 248 [Google Scholar]
  18. M.A. Alvarez, L. Rosasco, N.D. Lawrence, Kernels for vector-valued functions: A review, Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 4, 195 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  19. E.V. Bonilla, K. Chai, C. Williams, Multitask Gaussian process prediction, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by J. Platt et al. (Curran Associates, Inc., 2007), Vol. 20 [Google Scholar]
  20. M. van der Wilk et al., A framework for interdomain and multioutput Gaussian processes (2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.01115 [Google Scholar]
  21. O. Truffinet et al., Exact and general decoupled solutions of the LMC Multitask Gaussian Process model (2024). http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12032 [Google Scholar]
  22. T.W. Evans, P.B. Nair, Exploiting structure for fast kernel learning, in Proceedings of the 2018 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) (2018), pp. 414–422 [Google Scholar]
  23. S. Van Vaerenbergh et al., Fixed-budget kernel recursive least-squares, in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (2010), pp. 1882–1885 [Google Scholar]
  24. O. Truffinet, Machine learning methods for cross-section reconstruction in full-core deterministic neutronics codes, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay, 2024 [Google Scholar]
  25. B. Rakitsch et al., It is all in the noise: Efficient multi-task Gaussian process inference with structured residuals, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by C. Burges et al. (Curran Associates, Inc., 2013), Vol. 26 [Google Scholar]
  26. J. Hensman, A. Matthews, Z. Ghahramani, Scalable variational Gaussian process classification, in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, edited by G. Lebanon, S.V.N. Vishwanathan (PMLR, San Diego, California, USA, 2015), Vol. 38, pp. 351–360. [Google Scholar]
  27. H. Liu et al., Learning multitask Gaussian process over heterogeneous input domains, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 53, 6232 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  28. M. Jankowiak, G. Pleiss, J. Gardner, Parametric Gaussian process regressors, in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2020), pp. 4702–4712 [Google Scholar]
  29. W. Bruinsma et al., Scalable exact inference in multi-output Gaussian processes, in ICML’20: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by H. Daume, A. Singh (2020) [Google Scholar]
  30. M. Gu, W. Shen, Generalized probabilistic principal component analysis of correlated data, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 428 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  31. G. Wahba, Spline models for observational data (1990). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970128 [Google Scholar]
  32. O. Truffinet et al., An EIM-based compressionextrapolation tool for efficient treatment of homogenized cross-section data, Ann. Nucl. Energy 185, 109705 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  33. N. Dige, U. Diwekar, Efficient sampling algorithm for large-scale optimization under uncertainty problems, Comput. Chem. Eng. 115, 431 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  34. Y. Li et al., PWR few-group constants parameterization analysis, Prog. Nucl. Energy 88, 104 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  35. H. Wendland, Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and compactly supported radial functions of minimal degree, Adv. Comput. Math. 4, 389 (1995) [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  36. A. Godfrey, Vera Core Physics – Benchmark Progression – Problem Specifications, Tech. Rep., Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2014) [Google Scholar]
  37. P. Mosca et al., APOLLO3®: Overview of the new code capabilities for reactor physics analysis, in M&C 2023 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  38. E. Szames et al., Few-group cross sections modeling by artificial neural networks, EPJ Web Conf. 247, 06029 (2021) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  39. D.P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 [Google Scholar]
  40. A. Paszke et al., PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019), Vol. 32 [Google Scholar]
  41. J.R. Gardner et al., GPyTorch: Blackbox matrix-matrix Gaussian process inference with GPU acceleration, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2018) [Google Scholar]
  42. N. Martin, M. Riedmann, J. Bigot, Latest developments in the ARTEMIS TM core simulator for BWR steady-state and transient methodologies, in MC2017 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  43. M.E. Tipping, Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 1, 211 (2001) [Google Scholar]
  44. J.P. Boyd, The uselessness of the Fast Gauss Transform for summing Gaussian radial basis function series, J. Comput. Phys. 229, 1311 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  45. K. Cutajar et al., Preconditioning kernel matrices, in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by M.F. Balcan, K.Q. Weinberger (PMLR, New York, New York, USA, 2016), Vol. 48, pp. 2529–2538 [Google Scholar]
  46. P. Monasse, Extraction of the level lines of a bilinear image, Image Process. Line 9, 205 (2019) [Google Scholar]
  47. P. Saves et al., A mixed-categorical correlation kernel for Gaussian process, Neurocomputing 550, 126472 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  48. J. Gawlikowski et al., A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks, Artif. Intell. Rev. 56, 1513 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  49. H. Liu, Y.-S. Ong, J. Cai, A survey of adaptive sampling for global metamodeling in support of simulation-based complex engineering design, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 57, 393 (2018) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.