Using Comparison Evidence

This page is a compact guide for technical discussion of NeoMC results.

State The Calculation

Always name:

• source particle, energy/time distribution and normalization;
• geometry and material state;
• data library, version and processing assumptions;
• enabled processes and explicit approximations;
• observable definition, bins and units;
• source histories and statistical uncertainty.

State The Reference

Classify it as one of:

Reference	What agreement can establish
same-observable experiment	bounded physical capability when the full model and uncertainty support it
evaluated table	data import, interpolation or microscopic response
trusted processor	nuclear-data processing semantics
another transport code	implementation diagnosis under matched inputs
analytic result	a limiting case or invariant

Do not label all five as validation.

Present Results

For scalar observables, report calculated value, Monte Carlo standard error, reference value, reference uncertainty and residual. For spectra, retain all bins and predeclared coarse summaries; one integrated ratio can hide a shape error.

Keep uncertainty sources separate:

• Monte Carlo sampling uncertainty;
• experimental uncertainty;
• deterministic processing difference;
• model-to-experiment residual.

Current Discussion Examples

• The Cu K-shell result is a strong example of a microscopic response with incident-energy uncertainty included.
• The TIARA result shows why a high-energy closed band and a lower-energy unresolved model discrepancy can coexist.
• The O-16 result shows reaction competition where a channel with zero neutron yield still affects the analog photon collision rate.
• The light-water result shows a compound observable assembled from bound and free constituents with covariance retained inside each history.

Exact values and source reports are listed in Current evidence status.