Status of GForge and ADVANCE D. Brown National Nuclear Data Center Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status CSEWG has obvious need to GForge like functionality
• Hosted projects: • Features we use regularly • ENDF • Revision control • ENDF Formats manual • Bug trackers • SG-38 (GNDS) • Release management • Various evaluation projects • Workflow management (Fe, Cr, …) • Unlimited seats • ENDF checking codes • Features we’d like to have • Much more… • Review mechanism upon commit NNDC’s GForge system is long in the tooth
• GForge machine • 2011, nearly 8 years old • 800 Gb of data • GForge software • Annual license, $4.8k, unlimited number of seats paid for by USNDP (10-15% increase/yr.) • SSL Certificate, ~$450/year, paid for by USNDP • Maintenance done in-house by R. Arcilla • It is time to revisit this system Options • Continue GForge as is (but (even if it will be freely buying new server) distributed eventually) • Upgrade to GForgeNext • Closed GitHub/GitLab (must buy new server) • $7-$20/mo./seat • $10.5k/yr., 100 seats • GitHub/GitLab manages or • Ramon manages we manage • Has review mechanism • Has review mechanism • Open GitHub not viable — • Many other options, needs until data has gone through proper review proper DOE/BNL reviews, data • A BNL institutional cannot be freely distributed resource?
Ultimately this is NNDC/BNL decision, but we want your input Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status New ADVANCE server: advance2
• Dell PowerEdge R640 • 2 CPUs/24 Cores • 32Gb RAM x4 • 480 Gb SSD x2 • 900 Gb HD x6 (RAID)
Quite zippy New ADVANCE server: advance2
• Dell PowerEdge R640 • 2 CPUs/24 Cores • 32Gb RAM x4 • 480 Gb SSD x2 • 900 Gb HD x6 (RAID)
also rinky dink compared to NNSA lab computers Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status ENDF quality assurance
• Phase 0 testing (svn consideration ENDF hooks) line numbers) • yes ASCII, no • Phase I testing unicode, no • see next page Microsoft • Phase II testing • Unix linefeeds • Validation with • checks if evaluation integral tests, different from what coordinated by in repo (taking into CSEWG validation committee Code Test pre-VII Now File summary complete & correct � STAN, STANEF, CHECKR, fudge ENDF format compliance � � Mathematical correctness (e.g. probabilities valid, FIZCON, fudge covariances positive) � � FIZCON, PSYCHE, Physical correctness (e.g. Q, thresholds, energy fudge deposition/KERMA) � � INTER, Compute & check integral metrics (e.g. RI, thermal fudge (inter.py) cross sections, MACS) � � Completeness (all outgoing particles, including fudge gammas) � � Comparisons to microscopic experimental data ADVANCE (EXFOR) � � Assessment of application suitability (e.g. usable for fast reactors or spaceflight) � Reasonable (e.g. covariances, angular distributions) � Resonance quality (missing resonances? widths fudge (grokres.py) realistic?) � PREPRO, fudge, NJOY, SCALE Can process for user codes �
Is state of the art? Is best we can do? � Large fraction of Phase I testing automated with ADVANCE software
• ADVANCE Standalone • Includes NNDC codes, PREPRO • Needs Python2-3, make, fudge, x4i, NJOY • Full ADVANCE • Uses buildbot • Best with standalone build server • Needs access to subversion repository Changes to ADVANCE software coming this FY • Much of ADVANCE uses Python2, Python2 end-of-life is 1 Jan. 2020, so we are upgrading to Python3.7 • ADVANCE software itself is done (both stand alone & buildbot version) • fudge in progress • x4i is next • DOE-wide http -> https transition means changes to ADVANCE build report js & css usage • Addition of resonance report • NCSP funds most of development of ADVANCE, but USNDP purchases the server(s) Resonance Quality Assurance
Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-209313-2018-INRE
Ataleoftwotools:mcres.py, a stochastic resonance generator, and grokres.py,a resonance quality assurance tool
1, 2, 3 David Brown, ⇤ Declan Mulhall, † and Rishi Wadgoankar 1National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 2University of Scranton, Scranton, PA 3G.W. Hewlett High School (Dated: October 19, 2018) We detail two software tools, now integrated into the fudge code system. The first tool, mcres.py, can be used to generate stochastic ensembles of resonances which are both consistent with the expectations of the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble of Random Matrix Theory and with the level densities and widths encoded in ENDF formatted files. The second tool, grokres.py,canbeusedto assess global and local features of sequences of resonances found in ENDF files and make comparisons to known results from Random Matrix Theory. We apply these tools to 54Fe and other nuclei.
CONTENTS B. Using grokres.py 16 1. The command line interface 16 I. Introduction 1 2. Available Plots 17 a. Long range energy plots 17 II. Generating realizations of resonance sets 3 b. Medium range energy plots 17 A. Generating the resonance energies 3 c. Short range energy plots 17 B. Generating the resonance widths 5 d. Long range width plots 18 C. Testing the resonance generation 6 e. Short range width plots 18 D. ENDF formatting of the resonance f. Global resonance property plots 18 parameters 7 g. Hard sphere scattering plots 18
III. Testing resonance sets 7 C. Application of grokres.py to 54Fe 18 A. Channel diagnostics 8 B. Measures of resonance energies 8 1. Long range behavior 8 I. INTRODUCTION 2. Medium range behavior 9 3. Short range behavior 9 Neutron induced reactions for neutrons with energies C. Measures of widths 11 below roughly 1 MeV exhibit large fluctuations in the D. The fraction of missing or misidentified reaction cross sections and other observables. When re- resonances 11 solved, these fluctuations show clear resonance structure that has been successfully explained with R-matrix the- IV. Conclusion and outlook 13 ory. These resonances are interpreted as compound nu- clei, that is, unbound excited states of the nucleus formed Acknowledgements 13 from the merger of the target nucleus and the incident neutron. Given the technological impact of neutron reac- References 13 tions in the areas of energy, security, radiation shielding, etc., understanding these cross sections and associated A. Using mcres.py 15 observables is paramount. 1. The command line interface 15 The typical middle mass nucleus has hundreds if not 2. Configuration files 15 thousands of visible resonances in their reaction cross sec- tions. Although we can measure the width and location of a resonance, we cannot predict its properties from first principals except in a few cases for very light nuclei. At ⇤ [email protected] the lowest neutron energies, the cross sections are domi- † [email protected] nated by large s-wave resonances. An s-wave resonance Resonance metrics considered
Measures of energies Measures of widths • Long range behavior • Long range behavior • Average spacing vs. E • Average width vs. E • Cumulative level distribution • Width distribution • Short range behavior • Short range behavior • Nearest neighbor spacing • Are there short range distribution correlations in the widths? • Spacing-spacing
correlation, � • Dyson-Mehta �3 statistic • Other statistics
Rishi Wadgoankar Declan Mulhall (HSRP student) (Univ. Scranton) Can we use these to assess the fraction of missing resonances? Issues with ADVANCE
• Test coverage: • all sublibraries needs more plots vs. data • neutrons considerable number of tests • other sublibraries need substantially more testing than is done • Usability: does organization of reports meet our needs? • Turn around time: old machines mean turn-around time erratic (sometimes > 1 week for actinides); hopefully is resolved! • Phase II testing: can/should be automated too Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status For ENDF/B-VIII.1, want to bring back formal reviews want fast AND rigorous
� � � ⚔ � ⚔ �
Evaluation added to ENDF/A Evaluation added Phase II report at to ENDF/B Validation committee CSEWG svn hooks perform Phase I review by ADVANCE assembles performs Phase II basic Phase 0 review CSEWG members Phase I review pages review Plan is to tie subversion to review process
endf7
trunk branches tags
“ENDF/A”
alpha beta1 Reviewer moves evaluation to staging area after Phase I beta2
ENDF manager tags a release after Phase II Plan is to tie subversion to review process
endf7
trunk branches tags
“ENDF/A”
watch alpha beta1
watch beta2
Stripped down, just test results Includes library tarballs for Phase II Plan is to tie subversion to review process
endf7
Thistrunk is allbranches easy andtags I will get“ENDF/A” it set up rapidly once watch other issues dealtalpha with…beta1
watch beta2
Stripped down, just test results Includes library tarballs for Phase II Status of ENDF review system
• Nice idea, but needs more fleshing out • not really clear what needs to be checked! • not really clear who’s going to be doing the checking • Chadwick model: • the lead of previous evaluation becomes reviewer of future changes to that evaluation (provided the changes are coming from elsewhere) • ENDF Lib. Mgr. picks reviewer otherwise Things to discuss
• GForge: hardware & • ENDF review system software • ENDF evaluation • ADVANCE hardware quality standards • ADVANCE software
Changes Status Establishing ENDF Quality standards for entire library (not just neutrons)
• For neutrons, should of course check the ADVANCE build reports, but what else? • Other sublibraries need quality standards • example 1: Paris & Hale reviewing the LLNL CP evaluations now. What standards should they apply? Demanding R-matrix for everything impractical • example 2: SG-42 establishing standards for TSL, but not fleshed out beyond basic format checks and consistency between cross sections • example 3: Covariance committee developed standards for neutron library, but no other sublibraries Establishing ENDF Quality standards for entire library (not just neutrons)
• For neutrons, should of course check the ADVANCE build reports, but what else? • Other sublibraries need quality standards • example 1: Paris & Hale reviewing the LLNL CP evaluationsItem now. for What discussion: standards should they apply? Demandingdraft R-matrix an ENDF for everything QA impractical • example 2: SG-42 establishing standards for TSL, but not fleshedstandards out beyond basicdocument? format checks and consistency between cross sections • example 3: Covariance committee developed standards for neutron library, but no other sublibraries