Presentation on theme: "IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Coordinated Activities On Data Evaluation And Recommendation H.-K. Chung and B. J. Braams Atomic and Molecular."— Presentation transcript:
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Coordinated Activities On Data Evaluation And Recommendation H.-K. Chung and B. J. Braams Atomic and Molecular Data Unit, Nuclear Data Section Division of Physical and Chemical Sciences, IAEA, Vienna March 20th, rd Research Coordination Meeting of the CRP on Light Element Atom, Molecule and Radical Behaviour in the Divertor and Edge Plasma Regions
IAEA Network Collaboration for AM/PSI Data for Fusion Data Centre Network ADAS, Summers H. CRAAMD, Jun, Y. IAEA, Braams, B. J. JAEA, Nakano, T. KAERI, Rhee, Y. Kurchatov, Martynenko, Yu. NIFS, Murakami, I NIST, Wiese, W.L. NFRI, Yoon, J ORNL, Schultz, D. R. Fusion Laboratories ITER EFDA JET, UKAEA ASDEX-Upgrade, IPP TEXTOR, Jülich, FZJ KSTAR, NFRI NIFS, JAEA PPPL, ORNL Code Centre Network Curtin Univ. I. Bray Kitasato Univ. F. Koike Univ. Autonoma de Madrid I. Rabadan Univ. P&M. Curie, Paris, A. Dubois Univ. of Bari, M. Capitelli Kurchatov Institute, A. Kukushkin Lebedev Institute, L. Vainshtein FZJ, D. Reiter Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Univ, R. Schneider NIST, Y. Ralchenko PPPL, D. Stotler LANL, J. Abdallah Jr. IAEA, B. J. Braams HULLAC M. Klapisch CNEA, P.D. Fainstein Data Users Data Producers IAEA Coordination CRP Publications Knowledgebase Databases Meetings Data Centres & Evaluators Review progress and achievements of A+M/PSI data for Fusion programme Stimulate international cooperation in measurement, compilation and evaluation of A+M / PSI data for fusion
IAEA Code Centre Network Meeting (October 2010) CCN is organized to improve Online Code Capabilities to provide needed data for Data Users, particularly, Plasma Modellers Online Codes generate too many data sets without quality information Data Users need Complete sets and/or Recommended data (Data Users: D. Coster, D. Reiter, R. Schneider, D. Elder participated) IAEA Network finds the critical need of evaluated and recommended data
IAEA Typical edge transport code runtime (for same model, same equations, same grid size) 1 day 1-2 weeks 3 months TEXTOR (R=1.75 m) Jülich, GER JET (R=2.96 m), Oxford, UK ITER (R=6.2 m), Cadarache, FRA Because of more important plasma chemistry (increased non-linearity, non-locality, in sources).
IAEA Data Centre Network Meeting (September 2011) Data Evaluation Tasks are Difficult Lack-of man-power: Experts retiring or leaving the field Evaluation requires multiple sets : Too many or too few Very few benchmark experiments for collisional data Even fewer uncertainty estimates for theoretical data Recommendation Data should be first collected and available for evaluation Evaluation activities should be organized in the community Evaluation guidelines should be established in the community A list of recommended data sets should be available as a final product
IAEA Coordination Meetings for Evaluation Feb 12 CM on Procedures for Evaluation of AM/PMI Data for Fusion Current status & future coordination (Japan) 14 Participants from Korea, Japan and China Jun 12 CM on Data Evaluation & Establishment of a Standard Library of AM/PMI Data for Fusion (IAEA) 7 Participants of Journal Editors, Data Users, Producers, Evaluators Sep 12 TM on Data Evaluation for AM/PSI Processes in Fusion (Korea) 6 Topics 25 Participants from 10 Countries and IAEA May 13 TM on International Code Centre Network General Guidelines for Uncertainty Assessments of Theoretical Data
IAEA IAEA-NFRI TM on Data Evaluation: Presentation Sessions (Focused on Reaction Data) Current Evaluated Databases (Kramida, Landi, Mason) Evaluation Methods and Experiences (Itikawa, Kumar, Cho, Karwasz) Error Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis (O’Mullane, Ballance, Reiter, Krstic) Theoretical Data Evaluation (Aggarwal, Liang, Takagi, Song) Experimental Data Evaluation (Nakamura, Buckman, Shevelko, Imai) Data Centres Evaluation Activities (Yoon, Murakami, Mason, Chung) More than 20 Participants from Australia, China, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Poland, Russia, UK, USA and IAEA.
IAEA Summary of Discussions Community Consensus Involve the community in data evaluation Engage young generation for transfer of knowledge Define terminology and vocabulary used in evaluation Define common workflow guidelines Technical Issues Assessment for theoretical data A ssessment of experimental data Error propagation and Sensitivity Analysis
IAEA Community Role: Consensus Building Change of notions: Databases Data research Enlighten young generation (in early career) that data evaluation is a critical part of scientific work Disseminate materials to train students and researchers with the “Critical Analysis Skills” Disseminate the standard definitions of terminologies adopted by international organizations (IAEA, IUPAC, IUPAP, BIPM, ISO, WHO, FAO, etc) VIM (Vocabulaire International de métrologie, Bureau Int. des Poids et Measures) 2007 GUM (guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement) 2008 Agree on the procedure of evaluation towards a standard reference data
IAEA Uncertainty Approach Terminology in metrology VIM ( Vocabulaire International de Métrologie, Bureau Int. des Poids et Measures ) 2007 GUM ( guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurem ent) 2008 Measurement and uncertainty The objective of a measurement is to determine the value of the measurand. In general, a measurement has imperfections that give rise to an error in its result. Error 1 = Measurement result – True value (Error approach) True value : value consistent with the definition of a given particular quantity Error 2 = Measured value – Reference value (Uncertainty approach) Reference value (Assigned value): a true quantity value of the measurand, in which case measurement error is unknowable, or an appropriate, known quantity value such as a conventional quantity value or a specified target quantity value to be realized in a production process. ValueValue and uncertainty uncertainty
IAEA Standard Reference Data based on VIM & GUM : The true value lies within the uncertainty range
IAEA The procedure of evaluation towards a Standard Reference Data Evaluation (NFRI) Data Compilation 1 st evaluation (experts) Final evaluation (panel decision)
IAEA Evaluation by the Community The community consensus with an endorsement from the IAEA or other international authorities Group Evaluation: 4-5 panelists including young and senior people like the editorial board for a journal with the broad backgrounds ( experimentalists, theoreticians, producers and users) Self-Evaluation: Data producers with a deep knowledge in some cases. May work better for theoretical data sets. Establishment of the evaluation guidelines: will evolve with time and experience with broad collaborations from the community Merits of Group Evaluation: Facilitate the knowledge transfer to younger generation Review papers can be written for the evaluation work
IAEA Common Workflow Guidelines Advantages: Easier to expand the evaluators’ network including early career researchers. Introduces more rigorous procedures for evaluation and increases the dependability of the evaluation. Disadvantages: The quality of evaluation critically depends on the experiences of the evaluators. It is possible that different people may reach at different conclusions using the same guidelines and the results may not be reproducible. Solutions: Collaborations can help reducing the disadvantages. Evaluation activities with scientific advisors and the editorial panels will be a great mechanism to produce the evaluated data library. Workflow of critical evaluation of data on wavelengths and energy levels (NIST)
IAEA Experimental Data Evaluation Check Lists Uncertainty estimates or error assessment critical Self-consistencies checked. Experimental techniques evaluated. Reputation of the data producer considered Anomalies in some experimental processes (ro-vibrational / metastable states) Wish Lists Evaluation by a group of “established’ experts with broad expertise Engage the community of relative measurements for cross-section measurements Provide Recommended values where possible Include a comparison with theory and an assessment of overall status Evaluation will lead to the understanding of the gaps of the field Establish “benchmarks” where possible: Benchmarks will be accepted as heavier connotation than recommendation
IAEA Theoretical Data Evaluation No criteria of assessments for theoretical data Need guidelines for uncertainty estimates of theoretical data Should not try to give a straight recipe for assessing uncertainties, however, there are still several to start with. There are prescriptions such as energy grids for resonances and partial waves. One may take a model to see a convergence and estimate uncertainties based on assumptions within the model. Comparison with experiments: this can be dangerous. Different theories: if some theories are better than another, it may be given a benchmark status. For scattering data maybe we should aim for “ideas” or “suggestions” rather than “guidelines”. Theoreticians may have an idea of uncertainty estimates already Journal policies can change the culture: PRA policies (G. Drake)
IAEA Atomic structure collision codes fundamental data Processed data (rate coef.) CR transition matrix A = A_excit+ A_radiative+ A_ionis+ A_cx+ A_recomb+…. effective rates, population coefficients cooling rates, beam stopping rates,…. Error Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis: Uncertainties in “Data” & “Data Processing Toolbox” ? experimental data Velocity distribution: Boltzmann solver, Maxwellian Linear algebra, ODE solvers Sensitivity,error propagation to final model results: PDEq, IDEq,… leave to modelers, spectroscopists Monte Carlo
IAEA FUTURE ACTIVITIES Need the community feedback and support
IAEA Near-term Actions Developing an evaluators network – Key people identified Sketch out guidelines for uncertainty assessment of theoretical data Code Centre Network Meeting in May, 2013 IAEA-ICTP-ITAMP workshop in 2014 Organize a workshop Joint Meeting with eMOL group in May 2013 (Water evaluation) NFRI to organize a data evaluation group for demonstration The 1 st Group Evaluation Meeting in January 2013 The 2 nd Group Evaluation Meeting in June 2013 Inventorise datasets that are now used by fusion plasma modellers European Fusion Development Association (EFDA) - Integrated Transport Modelling Task Force (ITM-TF) Workshop. In March 2013 The ITER project should recognize the need of standard reference data (SRD) for A+M/PSI processes used in the design
IAEA Long-term goal…. Data Users Data Producers Data Evaluators Data Needs Experimental and Theoretical Data Production Data Compilation, Evaluation and Recommendation Global Network towards the Internationally Agreed Data Library for Fusion and other Plasma Applications
IAEA Summary The series of IAEA meetings including the Joint IAEA-NFRI TM on Data Evaluation were highly successful in drawing consensus from participants on the coordinated data evaluation activities by the community. Disseminate the concepts of VIM3 (International Vocabulary of Metrology), GUM (Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) and “Critical Assessment Skills” Engage younger generation in the process Collaborate with colleagues in the community Change the culture about data research with publications IAEA A+M Data Unit will actively participate in organizing and coordinating the community effort in the data evaluation activities, ultimately towards the standard data library for fusion applications. Assess the needs of user communities Collaborate with We urge you, the community to join us in the data evaluation activities that will benefit data users, producers and evaluators in the future.