Authors & Affiliations
Russian Federation State Scientific Centre — A.I. Leipunsky Institute of Physics and Power Engineering, Obninsk, Russia
The onset of true PPP is considered, i.e., the effect that is not caused by misinterpretation of incompletely documented experimental data. PPP is shown to be accompanied by an unexpectedly low uncertainty associated with the least-squares method (LSM) estimate. This phenomenon is denoted the Small Uncertainty Paradox (SUP). Two measurements are used to demonstrate that the occurrence of PPP and SUP is conditioned by the presence of large values of the experimental systematic errors and by the significance deviation of their shape from the shape of the assumed regression (model) function. An investigation is made of the dependence of PPP and SUP on the value of the covariance for the experimental errors. SUP can occur in nuclear data evaluation without the manifestation of PPP. Covariance (correlation) limitation is proposed as a radical way of preventing these paradoxes. An estimate of the systematic error is considered as a possible benefit if these paradoxes are true. The work is based on classical LSM; the Bayesian approach is not used.
Small Uncertainty Paradox, least square method, the paradox of small errors, regression function, the value of covariance
Article Text (in Russian, PDF)
1. SMITH D.L., Probability, Statistics, and Data Uncertainties in Nuclear Science and Technology, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, IL, USA (1991).
2. HANSON K.M., KAWANO T. and TALOU P., Probabilistic Interpretation of Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle and its Resolution, pp. 304-307 in Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, 26 September – 1 October 2004, Santa Fe, NM, USA, AIP Conf. Proceedings 769, HAIGHT R.C., CHADWICK M.B., KAWANO T. and TALOU P. (Eds), AIP, Melville, New York, 2005.
3. PEELLE R.W., Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle, memorandum dated 13 October 1987, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN, USA.
4. Cox, D. R. and D. Hinkley (1974). Theoretical Statistics. London. Chapman and Hall.
5. FROEHNER F.H., Evaluation of Data with Systematic Errors, Nucl .Sci. Eng. 145 (2003) 342-353.
6. GAI E.V., The Least Square Method Formulation with Account of Systematic Errors, pp. 359-361 in Summary Report of the Second Research Coordination Meeting on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections for Light Elements, INDC(NDS)-453, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
7. LARSON N.M., Some Thoughts on the Data Analysis Process, pp. 47-96 in Summary Report of the Second Research Coordination Meeting on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections for Light Elements, INDC(NDS)- 453, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
8. VINOGRADOV V.N., GAJ E.V., RABOTNOV N.S., Analiticheskaja approksimacija dannyh v jadernoj i nejtronnoj fizike, M., Jenergoatomizdat, 1987. [in Russian]
9. CHIBA S. and SMITH D.L., A Suggested Procedure for Resolving an Anomaly in Least-Squares Data Analysis Known as Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle and the General Implications for Nuclear Data Evaluation, ANL/NDM-121, Argonne National Laboratory, IL, USA (1991).
10. GAI E.V., On the Explanation of Peele's Pertinent Puzzle, pp. 511-513 in Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Gatlinburg, TN, USA, DICKENS, J.K. (Ed.), American Nuclear Society (1994).
11. BADIKOV S.A. and GAI E.V., Some Sources of the Underestimation of Evaluated Cross Section Uncertainties, pp. 117-129 in Summary Report of the First Research Coordination Meeting on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections for Light Elements, INDC(NDS)-438, IAEA, Vienna (2003).
12. BADIKOV S.A, GAJ E.V., Pogreshnosti sechenij jadernyh reakcij, Atomnaja Jenergija, (2005) 3.
13. GAI E.V. and BADIKOV S.A., Once Again on the Peelle’s Puzzle, pp. 139-142 in Summary Report of the Second Research Co-ordination Meeting on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections for Light Elements, INDC(NDS)- 453, IAEA, Vienna, (2004).
14. TAGESEN S., Aspects of Internal Consistency of Covariance Data, pp. 213-220 Proc. NEANSC Specialists’ Meeting on Evaluation and Processing of Covariance Data, 7-9 October 1992, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, OECD, Paris (1993).
15. OH S., Box-Cox Transformation for Resolving Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle in Curve Fitting, pp. 146-158 in Summary Report of the First Research Coordination Meeting on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections for Light Elements, INDC(NDS)-438, IAEA, Vienna (2003); also OH S. and SEO C., PHYSOR 2004 – The Physics of Fuel Cycles and Advanced Nuclear Systems, 25-29 April 2004, Chicago, IL, USA, 129.
16. KAWANO T., Logarithm Transformation to Minimize PPP, Chapter 6.7 of Summary Report of CRP on Improvement of the Standard Cross Sections (2006).
Problems of Atomic Science and Technology. Series: Nuclear Constants", issue 1-2, 2007