Deep Learning for Multigroup Cross-Section Representation in Two-Step Core Calculations

Abstract We investigate using deep learning, a type of machine-learning algorithm employing multiple layers of artificial neurons, for the mathematical representation of multigroup cross sections for use in the Griffin reactor multiphysics code for two-step deterministic neutronics calculations. A three-dimensional fuel element typical of a high-temperature gas reactor as well as a two-dimensional sodium-cooled fast reactor lattice are modeled using the Serpent Monte Carlo code, and multigroup macroscopic cross sections are generated for various state parameters to produce a training data set and a separate validation data set. A fully connected, feedforward neural network is trained using the open-source PyTorch machine-learning framework, and its accuracy is compared against the standard piecewise linear interpolation model. Additionally, we provide in this work a generic technique for propagating the cross-section model errors up to the keff using sensitivity coefficients with the first-order uncertainty propagation rule. Quantifying the eigenvalue error due to the cross-section regression errors is especially practical for appropriately selecting the mathematical representation of the cross sections. We demonstrate that the artificial neural network model produces lower errors and therefore enables better accuracy relative to the piecewise linear model when the cross sections exhibit nonlinear dependencies; especially when a coarse grid is employed, where the errors can be halved by the artificial neural network. However, for linearly dependent multigroup cross sections as found for the sodium-cooled fast reactor case, a simpler linear regression outperforms deeper networks.

[1]  Zachary M. Prince,et al.  Rattlesnake: A MOOSE-Based Multiphysics Multischeme Radiation Transport Application , 2021 .

[2]  Cihang Lu,et al.  A Preliminary Study on the Use of the Linear Regression Method for Multigroup Cross-Section Interpretation , 2020, Nuclear Science and Engineering.

[3]  Jun Sun,et al.  A new Cross-section calculation method in HTGR engineering simulator system based on Machine learning methods , 2020 .

[4]  J. Hou,et al.  Best-Estimate Plus Uncertainty Framework for Multiscale, Multiphysics Light Water Reactor Core Analysis , 2020 .

[5]  Natalia Gimelshein,et al.  PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library , 2019, NeurIPS.

[6]  Johannes L. Schönberger,et al.  SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python , 2019, Nature Methods.

[7]  Sören Kliem,et al.  Validation of the DYN3D-Serpent code system for SFR cores using selected BFS experiments. Part I: Serpent calculations , 2017 .

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[9]  Tuomas Viitanen,et al.  The Serpent Monte Carlo Code: Status, Development and Applications in 2013 , 2014, ICS 2014.

[10]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Practical Recommendations for Gradient-Based Training of Deep Architectures , 2012, Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade.

[11]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Algorithms for Hyper-Parameter Optimization , 2011, NIPS.

[12]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[13]  Simone Santandrea,et al.  APOLLO2 YEAR 2010 , 2010 .

[14]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks , 2010, AISTATS.

[15]  Pavel M. Bokov,et al.  Automated few-group cross-section parameterization based on quasi-regression , 2009 .

[16]  Omar Zerkak,et al.  Cross-section modelling effects on pressurised water reactor main steam line break analyses , 2009 .

[17]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks , 1991, Neural Networks.

[18]  Esteban Alejandro Szames Few group cross section modeling by machine learning for nuclear reactor. (Amélioration du modèle reconstruction des sections efficaces dans un code de calcul de neutronique à l'échelle cœur) , 2020 .

[19]  Alain Hébert,et al.  A Newton solution for the Superhomogenization method: The PJFNK-SPH , 2018 .

[20]  N. Martin,et al.  Latest Developments in the ARTEMISTM Core Simulator for BWR Steady-state and Transient Methodologies , 2017 .

[21]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , 1995 .

[22]  K. Smith,et al.  ASSEMBLY HOMOGENIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR ANALYSIS , 1986 .