4.1 Article

Bayesian inference of inaccuracies in radiation transport physics from inertial confinement fusion experiments

期刊

HIGH ENERGY DENSITY PHYSICS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 457-461

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.hedp.2013.04.012

关键词

Inertial confinement fusion; Radiation hydrodynamic simulation; Bayesian inference; Plasma opacity; Uncertainty quantification; National Ignition Facility radiation transport

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  2. [LLNL-JRNL-617033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

First principles microphysics models are essential to the design and analysis of high energy density physics experiments. Using experimental data to investigate the underlying physics is also essential, particularly when simulations and experiments are not consistent with each other. This is a difficult task, due to the large number of physical models that play a role, and due to the complex and noisy nature of the experiments. This results in a large number of parameters that make any inference a daunting task; it is also very important to consistently treat both experimental and prior understanding of the problem. In this paper we present a Bayesian method that includes both these effects, and allows the inference of a set of modifiers that have been constructed to give information about microphysics models from experimental data. We pay particular attention to radiation transport models. The inference takes into account a large set of experimental parameters and an estimate of the prior knowledge through a modified chi(2) function, which is minimised using an efficient genetic algorithm. Both factors play an essential role in our analysis. We find that although there is evidence of inaccuracies in off-line calculations of X-ray drive intensity and Ge L shell absorption, modifications to radiation transport are unable to reconcile differences between 1D HYDRA simulations and the experiment. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据