A study of Type B uncertainties associated with the photoelectric effect in low-energy Monte Carlo simulations
Christian Valdes-Cortez, Iymad Mansour, Mark J. Rivard, Facundo, Ballester, Ernesto Mainegra-Hing, Rowan M. Thomson, Javier Vijande

TL;DR
This study quantifies Type B uncertainties in low-energy photon dose calculations due to different Monte Carlo code implementations, highlighting their significance below 200 keV and implications for dosimetry accuracy.
Contribution
It provides the first comprehensive estimation of Type B uncertainties from cross-section variations in low-energy Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetry.
Findings
Type B uncertainties for absorbed dose range from 0.3% to 1.7% depending on energy.
Photon-fluence spectrum uncertainties are negligible above 25 keV.
Uncertainties are significant below 30 keV, affecting dose accuracy.
Abstract
The goal of this manuscript is to estimate Type B uncertainties in absorbed-dose calculations arising from the different implementations in current state-of-the-art Monte Carlo codes of low-energy photon cross-sections (<200 keV). Monte Carlo simulations are carried out using three codes widely used in the low-energy domain: PENELOPE-2018, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Mass energy-absorption coefficients for water, air, graphite, and their respective ratios; absorbed dose; and photon-fluence spectra are considered. Benchmark simulations using similar cross-sections have been performed. The differences observed between these quantities when different cross-sections are considered are taken to be a good estimator for the corresponding Type B uncertainties. A conservative Type B uncertainty for the absorbed dose (k=2) of 1.2%-1.7% (<50 keV), 0.6%-1.2% (50-100 keV), and 0.3% (100-200 keV) is estimated.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
