arXiv:1612.01934v2 [] 14 Oct 2017

A stochastic process approach to multilayer
neutron detectors
Dragi Anevski1, Richard Hall-Wilton2, Kalliopi Kanaki2, and
Vladimir Pastukhov ∗ 1
1

Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Lund University, Lund
SE-221 00, Sweden
2
European Spallation Source ERIC, P.O Box 176, Lund
SE-221 00, Sweden

Abstract
The sparsity of the isotope Helium-3, ongoing since 2009, has initiated a new generation of neutron detectors. One particularly promising development line for detectors is the multilayer gaseous detector.
In this paper, a stochastic process approach is used to determine the
neutron’s energy from the additional data afforded by the multilayer
nature of these novel detectors.
The data from a multi-layer detector consists of counts of the number of absorbed neutrons along the sequence of the detector’s layers,
in which the neutron absorption probability is unknown. We study
the Maximum Likelihood estimator for the intensity and absorption
probability, show its consistency and asymptotic normality, as the experiment time (or the number of incoming neutrons) goes to infinity.
We combine these results with known results on the relation between
the absorption probability and the wavelength to derive an estimator
of the wavelength and to show consistency and asymptotic normality
for the estimator.
Key words: Maximum Likelihood, Multinomial Thinning of Point
Processes, Neutron Scattering, Poisson Process, Thinned Poisson Process.
∗

pastuhov@maths.lth.se

1

1

Introduction

Assume that a beam of neutrons arrives at the face of the detector. The detector consists of a sequence of 10-Boron-coated-layers, between which there
are gas-filled cavities. The principle of the detector can be described in a
simplified manner as follows: a neutron that goes through a 10-Boron layer
can sometimes interact with a 10-Boron atom in the layer, temporarily exciting the atom into an unstable state from which it will fall back to a stable
state and thereby emit an electrically charged particle, that will ionise the
gas. This electrical potential in the gas filled chamber is detected and the
instrument notes that a neutron has been absorbed, see Kanaki et al. (2013).
The outcome of this is that we have a count of +1 in the number of neutrons
that have passed and been detected. The probability with which a neutron
is absorbed and detected is a function of the energy content of the neutron,
i.e. a function of the neutron’s wavelength.
If we see the neutron beam as a set of particles that hit the face of the
detector, then each neutron will either be absorbed or not at the first layer.
If it is not absorbed at the first layer, it may possibly be absorbed at the
second layer, and so on. From the above-simplified description of the detector
it is clear that the data from a multi-layer detector will consist of counts of
a number of absorbed neutrons along the sequence of the detector’s layers.
By a beam we mean a stream of particles with a certain fixed wavelength
µ. Let the number of neutrons that arrive in the time interval [0, t] be
denoted by X0 (t). Then X0 (t) is a non-decreasing counting process, such
that X0 (0) = 0.
A sensible model for the process of incoming neutrons X0 (t) is that of
a Poisson process with intensity λ, cf. R. Hall-Wilton. This model is fair
enough because neutrons are neutral particles and there are no long-distance
interactions between particles in the beam, see Willis & Carlile (1999). The
parameter λ is unknown and will be estimated.
At a layer each neutron is absorbed with a certain probability p (the
absorption efficiency). The probability of absorption p is also an unknown
parameter, its dependence on the wavelength µ of the incident neutron is
however on a known functional form, see Kanaki et al. (2013). This property
will be used to make inference about the parameter µ. For a more thorough
introduction to the subject of neutrons interactions we refer to Willis &
Carlile (1999).
As it will be shown later, our data set is generated by the sequentially
thinned Poisson process, which is a case of a multinomial thinning. The inference of the thinned point processes was studied in detail in Karr (1985)
and Bensaïd (1997), where the authors, in particular, studied the problem of
2

estimation of the thinning parameter p from the observation of the thinned
processes. The thinning parameter p is defined as a function from the underlying compact metric space to [0, 1]. To estimate p the author in Karr (1985)
uses a nonparametric histogram estimator and in Bensaïd (1997) the author
studies a kernel estimator of p.
Though the approaches developed in Karr (1985) and Bensaïd (1997) are
quite general, they cannot be applied to the problem considered in this paper
because, first, in our case the absorption probability (thinning parameter) is
homogeneous (does not depend on the time of experiment) and, therefore,
we can use the parametric approach to estimate it and, second, our data
comes from the multinomial thinning of the original Poisson process, not a
binomial one as in Karr (1985) and Bensaïd (1997).
The problem of multinomial thinning of point processes was studied in
Long (1995), where the author, in particular, proves that a point process is
Poisson if and only if the multinomially thinned processes are independent
and that the thinned processes are Poisson. However, to our knowledge,
one has previously not studied the problem of inference for the sequentially
thinned Poisson process. Given the data we can use a likelihood approach
and study the Maximum Likelihood estimator (MLE) for the intensity and
the thinning parameter (absorption probability). In the sequel, we derive
conditions for the existence and prove consistency and asymptotic normality,
as the experiment time (or number of incoming neutrons) goes to infinity. We
combine these results with known results on the relation between the absorption probability and the wavelength, to derive an estimator of the wavelength
and to show consistency and asymptotic normality for the estimator. We illustrate the method on the simulated data.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the general scheme
of the neutron detector and the modeling of neutron interactions with the
detector layers. Section 3 is devoted to the inference of the parameters:
We derive the MLE for the intensity of an incident beam λ and absorption
efficiency p, in Lemma 2 and 3 we discuss the uniqueness of solutions to
the score equations, and in Theorem 1, which is one of the main result of
this paper, we derive the consistency and asymptotic normality of the MLE.
Studying the formulas for the asymptotic variance, we obtain as a corollary
in Lemma 4, that the variance of the MLE of the absorption probability is a
decreasing function of the number of layers in the neutron detector. Finally,
in Corollaries 1 and 2, we derive the consistency and asymptotic normality of
the MLE of the wavelength. Using these final results we are able to construct
confidence intervals for the wavelength. Section 4 gives a simulation study
to explore the estimator’s performance. Section 5 ends with the discussion
of the results presented in the paper and plans for future work. Proofs of all
3

results are given in the Appendix.

2

Scheme of a discrete spacing detector

Assume that an incident beam of neutrons hits the first layer of the detector,
cf. Fig.1. At the layer a neutron can possibly be absorbed and detected. If
a neutron is not absorbed it will go through the detector’s layer. We assume
that these are the only two possibilities for the neutron’s interaction with a
layer, i.e. it is assumed that an inelastic scattering of a neutron in the Boron
layers and the the material of the blades is negligibly small. Let p be the
probability of an absorption of a neutron, so that 1 − p is the probability
of its transmission. If a neutron is absorbed, it will then be detected. Let
X1 (t) be the number of neutrons that are absorbed at the first layer, so that
X1tr (t) = X0 (t) − X1 (t) is the number of transmitted neutrons.

X1tr (t)

X0 (t)

X1 (t)

X2 (t)

X2tr (t)

X3tr (t)

X3 (t)

tr
Xk−1
(t)

Xktr (t)

Xk (t)

Figure 1: The scheme of the detector.
Now assume that the transmitted beam of neutrons X1tr (t) hits the next
layer, at which again each neutron can either be absorbed (with the same
probability p as at the previous one) and then detected or transmitted again.
Let X2 (t) be the number of neutrons absorbed at the second layer and let
X2tr (t) = X1tr (t) − X1 (t) be the number of transmitted neutrons. We assume
that the registrations (absorptions) of different particles are independent and
the times of absorption and travelling from layer to layer are negligibly small.
This behaviour is repeated at each layer and gives the general scheme for the
neutron beam’s absorption and transmission in the detector.
Let Xi (t) be the number of neutrons absorbed at the layer i in the time
interval [0, t] and let Xitr (t) be the number of transmitted neutrons in the
same time interval through the layer i, for i = 1, . . . , k. Then Xi (t) and Xitr (t)
are counting processes and Xi (0) = 0 and Xitr (0) = 0, for i = 1, . . . , k. The
4

next lemma shows that {Xi (t)}i≥1 are jointly independent Poisson processes
with parameters λp(1 − p)i−1 , respectively.
Lemma 1 Assume that the detector consists of k < ∞ layers (Fig.1). Assume that X0 (t) is a Poisson process with intensity λ and the thinning parameter p (the probability of absorption) is the same for each layer. Let Xitr and
Xi , for i = 1, . . . , k, be the number of transmitted and detected neutrons, respectively, at the layer i and time t. Then {Xi (t)}i≥1 are jointly independent
Poisson processes with intensities p(1 − p)i−1 λ.

3

Inference for the parameters

Now suppose that we have run an experiment at the neutron detector, the
result of which is a sequence of counts of the numbers of detected neutrons
along the detector. Let us denote the data as a vector x = (x1 , . . . , xk )
of integers, with xi the number of observed neutrons at the layer i. From
Lemma 1 we know that these are the observations of independent Poisson
distributed random variables, with unknown expectations p(1 − p)i−1 λ, for
i = 1, . . . , k. Using these data we will estimate the unknown parameters p
and λ.

3.1

The MLE of the thinning parameter p and the intensity of an incident process λ

We are interested in deriving consistency and asymptotic normality of the
estimators. For this we need to explain what we mean by letting "the amount
of data" go to infinity. There are several ways to model this. We can either
let the experiment time t increase, or we can view the problem as a repeated
measurement problem and thus make several, n of them, independent measurements during a fixed time interval [0, t] and let n got to infinity. If the
model for the process is Poisson process then the two approaches will give
quantitatively the same limit results. We will use the second approach. Thus
we view the problem as a repeated sample problem.
The inference problem can be described as follows. We perform n experiments. For each experiment j = 1, . . . , n, we measure the number of
neutrons Xij detected at the layer i = 1 . . . , k during the time interval
[0, t]. Thus {Xij }ni,j=1 are the random variables and {xij }ni,j=1 are the values
which Xij take in the n experimental runs. Let (p, λ) denote the parameters,
that are assumed to lie in [0, 1] × [0, ∞). Let (p0 , λ0 ) denote true and unknown parameter values in the distribution of the data. Introduce the vectors
5

Xj = (X1j , . . . , Xkj )T and xj = (x1j , . . . , xkj )T , respectively. Note that the
vectors Xj are independent random vectors with jointly independent components Xij , by Lemma 1, from n independent experiment rounds. Finally
denote X = [X1 , . . . , Xn ] and x = [x1 , . . . , xn ], and note that these are k × n
matrices of discrete random variables and of integers values, respectively.
Thus we let Xij be the number of neutrons observed at the layer i at the
experiment round j with probability mass function
xij
−mi mi

f (xij |p, λ) = e

xij !

,

where mi = p(1 − p)i−1 λt. Then each vector Xj = (X1j , . . . , Xkj )T has the
joint distribution
f (xj |p, λ) =

k
Y
i=1

f (xij |p, λ) =

k
Y
i=1

xij
−mi mi

e

xij !

.

Assume that k > 1. The log-likelihood is given by
ln (p, λ|x) =

n
X

g{−

j=1

k
X

mi +

i=1

k
X
i=1

xij log mi −

k
X

log xij !g}.

i=1

The score functions after simplification are
(
k)
n
= s̄n −λt(1−(1−p)
,
Ψn,1(p, λ|x) = n1 ∂l
∂λ
λ
(1−p)(s̄n +z̄n )−z̄n −λt(k(1−p)k −k(1−p)k+1 )
1 ∂ln
Ψn,2(p, λ|x) = n ∂p =
,
p(1−p)
where
n

k

X
1X
sj , sj =
xij ,
s̄n =
n j=1
i=1

n

k

X
1X
z̄n =
zj , zj =
(i − 1)xij .
n j=1
i=1

The MLE (p̂n , λ̂n ) is the solution of the likelihood equations

Ψn,1(p, λ|x)|p=p̂n ,λ=λ̂n = 0,
Ψn,2(p, λ|x)|p=p̂n ,λ=λ̂n = 0.

(1)

(2)

If we assume that p̂n (1 − p̂n ) 6= 0, λ̂n 6= 0 we get the system of equations

s̄n − λ̂n t(1 − ŷnk ) = 0,
(3)
an ŷnk+1 − bn ŷnk + cn ŷn − dn = 0,
6

where
an
bn
cn
dn
ŷn

=
=
=
=
=

−s̄n − z̄n + ks̄n ,
−z̄n + ks̄n ,
z̄n + s̄n ,
z̄n ,
1 − p̂n .

(4)

Obviously this system (3) has exactly one solution (p̂n , λ̂n ) if and only if
its second equation has exactly one root. The next result gives a necessary
and sufficient condition for this, in terms of the coefficients of the second
equation.
Lemma 2 The function
f˜(y) = an y k+1 − bn y k + cn y − dn ,
with coefficients given in (4), has one zero in the open interval (0, 1) when
the inflection point yi.p. satisfies the inequality
yi.p. :=

bn (k − 1)
< 1,
an (k + 1)

and no zeros in (0, 1) when yi.p. ≥ 1.
is

From Lemma 2, the condition of existence and uniqueness of MLE (p̂n , λ̂n )
bn (k − 1)
< 1,
an (k + 1)

but there is no guarantee that it holds for a finite n. However, the following
result holds.
Lemma 3 Let An = {Equation (3) has a root in (0, 1)}. Then An happens
for all sufficiently large n almost surely.
3.1.1

Asymptotic properties of the MLE

Theorem 1 Let X be a k ×n matrix, where Xij are k ×n jointly independent
Poisson random variables with densities given by
xij
−mi mi

f (xij |θ) = e

xij !

,

i = 1, ..., k,
7

j = 1, ..., n,

xij ∈ Z+ ,

where mi = p(1−p)i−1 λt, θ = (p, λ), and the true parameters θ0 = (p0 , λ0 ) ∈
Ω = {θ : 0 < p < 1, 0 < λ < ∞}.
Then the MLE θ̂n = (p̂n , λ̂n ), given in (2), is consistent
p

θ̂n → θ0
and asymptotically normal
√

d

n(θ̂n − θ0 ) → N (0, [I(θ0 )]−1 ),

where I(θ) is the information matrix
k

1X
I(θ) =
I(i) (θ),
k i=1
where I(i) (θ) denotes the information matrix corresponding to f (xij |θ) with
fixed i and has elements


∂
∂
log f (Xij |θ) ·
log f (Xij |θ)
∂θα
∂θβ


∂2
= Eθ −
log f (Xij |θ) ,
∂θα ∂θβ



I(i) (θ) αβ = Eθ



for α, β = 1, 2.
d
Note: Xij = Xil for all i = 1, ..., k and j, l = 1, ..., n.
From (5) in the Theorem above, and using (5), we get after simplification
h(p)
,
(1 − p)p2
(1 − p)k−1 − (1 − p)k
= tk
,
p
1 − (1 − p)k
= t
,
λ

[I(θ)]pp = λt
[I(θ)]λp
[I(θ)]λλ
where

h(p) = 1 − k 2 (1 − p)k+1 + (2k 2 − 1)(1 − p)k − k 2 (1 − p)k−1 .

8

This implies that for the asymptotic variances we have the following asymptotic expressions
(1 − (1 − p0 )k )(1 − p0 )p20
(1 − p0 )p20
→
,
λ0 tq(p0 )
λ0 t
λh(p0 )
λ0
=
→ ,
tq(p0 )
t
kp0 ((1 − p0 )k − (1 − p0 )k−1)
=
→ 0,
tq(p0 )

=
σp̂2 (p0 , λ0 ) = [I(θ0 )]−1
pp
σλ̂2 (p0 , λ0 ) = [I(θ0 )]−1
λλ
2
σp̂,
(p , λ0 ) = [I(θ0 )]−1
λp
λ̂ 0

as k → ∞, where
q(p) = (1 − p)2k − k 2 (1 − p)k+1 + 2(k 2 − 1)(1 − p)k
−k 2 (1 − p)k−1 + 1.
We are mainly interested in the estimation of p, since there is a functional
relation between it and the wavelength µ of the incident neutrons, cf. (5)
and (6) below. Therefore we analyse the behaviour of σp̂2 (p, λ). It can be
shown that σp̂2 (p, λ) is a strictly decreasing function of k for every p ∈ (0, 1).
Lemma 4 σp̂ (p, λ) is strictly decreasing as a function of k, on k > 1, for all
p ∈ (0, 1).
Figure 2 is a plot of the standard deviation σp̂ (p, λ) for p̂ as a function
of the number of layers k and of the absorption probability p0 . In particular
we note that σp̂ strongly depends on the absorption efficiency p0 for a small
number of layers in the detector (k < 10).

3.2

Estimation of the wavelength µ0 of an incident beam.

From Theorem 1 the MLE p̂
√

d

n(p̂n − p0 ) → N (0, σp̂2 (p0 , λ0 )),

as n → ∞.
We are interested in estimating the wavelength of a monochromatic neutron beam. The probability of absorption p depends on the neutron’s wavelength µ as (cf. Willis & Carlile (1999))
p = 1 − e−Σ(µ)ρat dl ,
9

(5)

k
Figure 2: The dependence of the standard deviation σp̂ on the number of
layers in the detector; λ = 105 s−1 , t = 1 s.
where Σ(µ) is the cross-section of absorption in the matter. The values of
parameters in the detector are ρat = 1029 m−3 is the atomic density of 10 B
the B4 C coating, dl = 10−6 m is the thickness of the layer, see Kanaki et
al. (2013). The neutron’s cross-section Σ(µ) can be modelled as a linear
function
Σ(µ) = ςµ,
where the coefficient ς is different for different materials, see Willis & Carlile
(1999). This coefficient does not depend on the neutron’s wavelength and has
been measured experimentally, see Schmitt et al. (1959). From the results
in the paper by Schmitt we conclude that the estimator ςˆ of ς0 is unbiased
and asymptotically normal
√
d
n′ (ˆ
ςn′ − ς0 ) → N (0, σς2ˆ ), as n′ → ∞.
Here n′ is the number of experimental runs performed in the experiment such
as in Schmitt et al. (1959) to estimate ς, ς0 is the true value and σς2ˆ is its
asymptotic variance.
Let us rewrite (5) as
p = 1 − e−χµ ,
where
10

(6)

χ = ρat dl ς,
The plug-in estimator χ̂ = ρat dl ςˆ of χ is then obviously asymptotically normal
√

d

n′ (χ̂n′ − χ0 ) → N (0, σχ̂2 ),

(7)

where χ0 = ρat dl ς0 and σχ2 = ρ2at d2l σς2 .
Solving for µ in (6), we get
µ(p, χ) = −

log(1 − p)
.
χ

(8)

In the next result we combine the two limit distribution results, for p̂n and for
χ̂n to get a limit distribution result for the plug-in estimator for µ0 obtained
from (8). In order to formalize this in a proper way, we introduce a factor
γ, which is merely the (asymptotic) ratio between n′ and n. The result will
in practical finite-sample situation be used in exactly that way: by letting
γ = n′ /n and use the limit distribution to provide asymptotic confidence
intervals or tests.
Corollary 1 The plug-in estimator µ̂ = µ(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) of µ0 = µ(p0 , χ0 ) is
asymptotically normal
√

d

n(µ(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) − µ(p0 , χ0 )) → N (0, σµ̂2 ),

where
σµ̂2



∂µ
(p0 , χ0 )
=
∂p

2

σp̂2 (p0 , λ0 )


2
1 ∂µ
(p0 , χ0 ) σχ̂2
+
γ ∂χ

as n → ∞, where n is the number of measurements for p̂n and n′ = ⌈γn⌉,
γ > 0, is the number of measurement for χ̂n′ (⌈γn⌉ is smallest integer not
less than γn).
In order to construct the confidence interval for µ, we will use estimates
of p, λ and χ, and a pooled variance estimate for χ, to give a plug-in estimate
of σµ̂2 .
Introduce the notation

2
2

∂µ
1 ∂µ
2
2
(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) σp̂ (p̂n , λ̂n ) +
(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) σ̂χ̂2 ,
Sn =
(9)
∂p
γ ∂χ
11

where both the sample mean χ̂n′ and the sample variance σ̂χ̂2 are based on
n′ measurements, and (p̂n , λ̂n ) are the ml estimators of (p, λ) based on n
measurements.
The next result follows from Slutsky’s theorem and continuous mapping
theorem.
Corollary 2
√

n(µ(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) − µ(p0 , χ0 )) d
→ N (0, 1),
Sn

as n → ∞, where n′ = ⌈γn⌉, γ > 0 and Sn is given by (9).
Using the above limit distribution result for the ml estimator µ̂ of µ we can
construct approximate confidence interval for µ. The asymptotic 100(1 − α)
percent confidence interval on µ0 is
Sn
Sn
[µ(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) − Zα/2 √ , µ(p̂n , χ̂n′ ) + Zα/2 √ ],
n
n

(10)

where Zα/2 is the upper α/2 percentage point of the standard normal distribution.

4

Simulation experiment

In this section we perform simulation experiment to evaluate the estimator’s
performance. In particular we illustrate the dependence of individual terms
in the variance on the number of layers (Figure 3), the confidence interval
width’s dependence on the number of incoming neutrons (or equivalently the
time of experiment) (Figure 4), and the confidence interval width’s dependence on the number of layers (Figure 5).
We simulate a Poisson process X0 (t) a number of times n, for n = 10, 100,
for the parameters values p = 0.05, 0.07, 0.1, λ = 105 s−1 , which correspond
to the wavelengths µ = 2.4, 3.4 and 4.9 (Å). These are the typical neutron’s
wavelengths for the possible applications of the detector, see Kanaki et al.
(2013).
The MLE (p̂n , λ̂n ) is calculated on the simulated data. We recall the
relation between χ and ς in (7), and note that ρat and dl are known. The
estimator of ς is assumed to be asymptotically normal, with mean value the
sample mean and variance equal to a pooled variance estimate using three
series of 15 measurements, which gives in total n′ = 45 experimental data
point, see Schmitt et al. (1959).
12

First, we analyse the dependence of the confidence interval width on the
2
number of detectors layers. Let us rewrite the expression for Snn as
Sn2
(p)
(χ)
= (Sµ̂ )2 + (Sµ̂ )2 ,
n
where
(p)
(Sµ̂ )2


2
1 ∂µ
=
(p, χ) σp̂2 (p, λ)
n ∂p
σp̂2 (p, λ)
,
=
n(1 − p)2 χ2

(χ)
(Sµ̂ )2


2
γ ∂µ
(p, χ) σχ̂2
=
n ∂χ
σχ̂2 log2 (1 − p)
=
.
n′ χ4

(p)

The first term Sµ̂ constitutes the contribution to the total variance from the
(χ)

MLE (p̂n , λ̂n ) of (p, λ) whereas the second term Sµ̂ is the contribution from
the estimator χ̂n of χ. We can view the second term as a kind of systematic
error, outside of our control.
(p)
(χ)
Figure 3 shows the dependence of Sµ̂ and Sµ̂ on the number of the
layers in the detector for 10 and 100 runs of the experiment. We note, in
(p)
(χ)
particular, that Sµ̂ and Sµ̂ are of the same size at k ≈ 25 for n = 10
experimental runs and at k ≈ 15 for n = 100.

(p)

(χ)

Figure 3: The dependence of Sµ̂ and Sµ̂ on the number of layers k.
Next, we analyse the dependence of the confidence interval width, which
Sn
is equal to 2Zα/2 √
, on the total number of incoming neutrons nλt. In Figure
n
13

Figure 4: 99 % confidence interval width for (p = 0.07, k = 30): low statistics
102 < nλt < 104 (left), high statistics 105 < nλt < 107 (right).
4 we have plotted the 99 % confidence interval width, for p = 0.07 (≈ 3.4 (Å))
and k = 30 layers, as a function of the total number of incoming neutrons.
In Figure 5 we have plotted confidence interval bars as a function of the
number of layers, for p = 0.05, 0.07, 0.1 (which correspond to the wavelengths
µ = 2.4, 3.4 and 4.9 (Å)) and n = 10, 100.

5

Conclusions

The results here show that it is statistically possible to determine the neutron’s energy for a monochromatic beam, with a good precision from multilayer neutron detectors. With relatively few layers (≤ 10), already maximal
information can be extracted and many layers do not significantly improve
the precision of the results.
In the limit of high statistics (> 107 particles), a statistical precision
(width of 99 % confidence interval) of less than 0.1 (Å) on the determination
of the wavelength of the beam in the range 2.5-5 (Å) is possible (Fig.5).
Uncertainty in the neutron’s cross section of the Boron-10 isotope becomes
dominant in the regime of high statistics and more than 10-20 layers. This
means again that more than 10-20 layers are not needed (Fig.4).
An interesting further outcome of this is that it might be possible, in
high statistics experiments, with a precisely determined wavelength of a
monochromatic neutron beam, to improve the statistical measurement of
the Boron-10 cross section, by using an inverse of the method described in
this manuscript. The systematic effects of such a measurement might be
significant. In the limit of low statistics, a precision of 1(Å) in determining
the wavelength of the monochromatic neutron beam is still possible.
In a real detector there may be a degradation in the result achieved
14

Figure 5: 99% confidence interval for µ based on simulations for n = 10, 100
and p = 0.05, 0.07, 0.1, λ = 105 , t = 1s. The red line is the true value of µ.

15

coming from systematic effects resulting from defects in the detector.
We conclude by commenting that this manuscript concentrated on a
monochromatic neutron beam. In the future this will be generalised to discrete and continuous wavelength distributions of neutrons.

6

Acknowledgements

VP’s research is fully supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR). The
research of DA, RHW and KK is partially supported by the VR. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the VR’s support.
Author’s present address: Solvegatan 18, 223 62 Lund
E-mail: pastuhov@maths.lth.se

7

Appendix

Proof of Lemma 1 . Let the number of incident neutrons in the time interval
[0, t] be equal n, i.e. X0 (t) = n, then the conditional distribution of Xi (t) is
given by
(X1 (t), . . . , Xk (t), Xktr (t)|X0 = n) ∈ Mult(n, q1 , q2 , . . . , qk , qktr ).
where qi = p0 (1 − p0 )i−1 , qktr = (1 − p0 )k . The statement of Lemma now
follows from the property of a Multinomial Thinning of a Poisson process cf.
Theorem 5.17 in Kulkarni (2009) or Long (1995).
✷
Proof Lemma 2 . For simplicity we skip the lower subscript n but we assume
that a, b, c, d are as defined in (4).
We study the monotonicity and convexity/concavity of f˜ on [0, ∞) by
studying the signs of f˜′ and f˜′′ on [0, ∞). For k ≥ 2 we have
f˜′ = a(k + 1)y k − bky k−1 + c,

f˜′′ = y k−2k(a(k + 1)y − b(k − 1)).
(i) : The second derivative.
Clearly f˜′′ (0) = 0. Factoring out ky k−2 ≥ 0, we see that to study positive
zeros and signs of f˜′′ is equivalent to studying the zeros and signs of
g(y) = a(k + 1)y − b(k − 1),
16

Clearly g(0) = −b(k − 1) < 0, g(∞) > 0 and g(y) has a unique root
yi.p. =

b(k − 1)
.
a(k + 1)

From the expressions in (4) we can see that both a and b are positive and
b > a, which means that yi.p. ∈ (0, ∞).
Thus the function f˜′′ is negative to the left of yi.p. and positive to the
right of yi.p. which implies
a) f˜ is concave on (0, yi.p.), convex on (yi.p., ∞), and thus yi.p. is an inflection point for f˜.
(ii) : The first derivative. We see that f˜′ (0) = c > 0. Furthermore using
the expressions for a, b, c we see that f˜′ (1) = a(k + 1) − kb + c = 0. From
the sign change of f˜′′ at yi.p. we have that f˜′ is decreasing on (0, yi.p.) and
increasing on (yi.p. , ∞). Now there are two possible cases:
Case A : yi.p. < 1. In this case, the sign change of f˜′′ together with
f˜′ (0) = c > 0, f˜′(1) = 0 and the continuity of f˜, implies that for some
y1 < yi.p.,
b’) f˜′ is positive on (0, y1 ), negative on (y1 , 1), positive on (1, ∞),
which of course implies
c’) f˜ is increasing on (0, y1), decreasing on (y1 , 1), increasing on (1, ∞).
Case B : yi.p. ≥ 1. In this case we know that f˜′ is decreasing and positive
on (0, 1), decreasing and negative on (1, yi.p.) and increasing on (yi.p. , ∞).
This implies that there is an y2 such that f˜′ is negative on (yi.p. , y2) and
positive on (y2 , ∞). Thus the full statement becomes
b”) f˜′ is decreasing and positive on (0, 1), decreasing and negative on
(1, yi.p.), increasing and negative on (yi.p., y2 ), increasing and positive
on (y2 , ∞).
which implies that
c”) f˜ is concave and increasing on (0, 1), concave and decreasing on (1, yi.p.),
convex and decreasing on (yi.p., y2 ), convex and increasing on (y2 , ∞).
(iii) : The function. We first note that
expression for the coefficients a, b, c, d imply
we treat the two cases separately:
17

f˜(0) = −d < 0, and that the
f˜(1) = a − b + c − d = 0. Now

Case A: From the sign changes of f˜′′ and f˜′ , it follows that f˜ is concave
and increasing on (0, y1 ), concave and decreasing on (y1 , yi.p.), convex and
decreasing on (yi.p. , 1). This together with f˜(0) = −d < 0, f˜(1) = 0 implies
(and in fact only the information that f˜ is first increasing, then decreasing
is enough) that there is a zero ỹ ∈ (0, 1) for f˜.
Case B: In this case we have that f˜ is increasing and concave on (0, 1),
which together with f˜(0) = −d < 0, f˜(1) = 0 implies that there is no zero
for f˜ in the open (0, 1).
Finally noting that a zero ỹ of f˜ in (0, ∞), corresponds, via ỹ = 1 − p̃, to
a zero p̃ of f in (−∞, 1), the Lemma follows.
✷
Proof of Lemma 3 . From Lemma 2, we see that


bn (k − 1)
An =
<1 .
an (k + 1)
We will prove that
bn (k − 1) a.s.
→ c,
an (k + 1)

(11)

as n → ∞, for some constant c < 1. This immediately proves the condition
of the lemma, since if c < 1


bn (k − 1)
→ c ⊆ ∪ ∩ Am .
n≥1 m≥n
an (k + 1)
Now to prove (11), note that {sj }nj=1 and {zj }nj=1 in (4) are two sequences
of i.i.d. random variables. Thus from the strong law of large numbers
bn (k − 1) a.s k − 1 k − (k + 1)(1 − p) + (1 − p)k−1
→
=: c,
an (k + 1)
k + 1 (k − 1) − k(1 − p) + (1 − p)k
as n → ∞. One can easily prove that c < 1 by considering the polynomial
(k − 1)(1 − p)k+1 − (k + 1)(1 − p)k + (k + 1)(1 − p) − (k − 1),
which is negative for all k > 1 and 0 < p < 1. This proves the Lemma.

✷

Proof of Theorem 1 . The proof is based on Theorem 5.1 in Lehmann &
Casella (1998), and its extension Theorem 7.1, which are originally from
Ralph (1962).
18

We have n series of k measurements x of k × n independent Poisson
distributed random variables Xij . Most of the statements of Theorem 5.1
in Lehmann & Casella (1998), such as the statements (i)-(iv) and (vi), are
general regularity conditions on the likelihood functions. We state and proof
the statement (vi):
The elements of information matrix [I(θ)]αβ are finite, and the information matrix is positive definite for all θ ∈ ω.


I(i) (θ)



αβ

= Eθ



∂2
−
log f (Xij |θ)
∂θα ∂θβ





so that, for the elements of I(i) (θ) we have:


I(i) (θ) pp = λty i−4 (1 − y)2 (−y 4 + 2y 3 + (i2 − 1)y 2 + 2(i − i2 ))y)


I(i) (θ) λp

+λty i−4 (1 − y)2 (1 − i)2 ,
= t(y i−1 + (i − 1)y i−1 − (i − 1)y i−2),

(12)



y i−1 − y i
,
I(i) (θ) λλ = t
λ

with y = 1 − p.
Further, using Sylvester’s criterion, we can show that: (a) [I(θ)]λλ > 0
and (b) [I(θ)]pp [I(θ)]λλ − [I(θ)]2λp > 0 for all θ in Ω.
(a) is obvious, since y = 1 − p ∈ (0, 1).
For (b), after simplification the inequality [I(θ)]pp [I(θ)]λλ − [I(θ)]2λp > 0
can be written as
t2 y i−4(1 − y)2(−y 4 + 2y 3 + (i2 − 1)y 2 + 2(i − i2 )y + (1 − i)2 ) > 0,
and we get the following inequality to prove:
−y 4 + 2y 3 + (i2 − 1)y 2 + 2(i − i2 )y + (1 − i)2 > 0.
The proof is quite straigthforward and can be done by studying the monotonicity and convexity/concavity of the polynomial on (0, 1) by analysing the
signs of its first three derivatives on (0, 1).
Note that the asymptotic normality can be proved alternatively by considering our estimator as a Z-estimator, which is given by equation (3), and
using, for example Theorem 5.41 in van der Vaart (1998).
✷

Proof of Lemma 4
19

For σp̂2 (p, λ) we have
(1 − (1 − p)k )(1 − p)p2
λtq(p)
(1 − p)p2
= s(k, p)
,
λt

σp̂2 (p, λ) =

with s(k, p) =

(1−(1−p)k )
.
q(p)

(13)

Let us consider the function
s(x) =

(1 − y x )
,
q̃(y)

(14)

with support in (0, ∞), y = 1 − p a parameter in (0, 1), and q̃(y) = q(p),
from (5). The rest of the proof is analogous to the one in Lemma 2 and can
be done by analysing the behaviour of the first three derivatives of s(x).
Proof of Corollary 1.
Assume that there has been made n measurements for (p̂n , λ̂n ) and n′
measurements for χ̂n′ , and that (p̂n , λ̂n ) and χ̂n′ are independent. Let n′ =
⌈γn⌉, with γ a proportionality factor that we introduce for convenience.
From the asymptotic normality of the estimators p̂n and χ̂n′ for the first
two terms we have
√
d
n(p̂n − p0 ) → N (0, σp̂2),
(15)
as n → ∞ and
n√ ′
n(χ̂n′ − χ0 ) =
n (χ̂n′ − χ0 )
n′
r
σχ̂2
n √ ′
d
n (χ̂n′ − χ0 ) → N (0, ),
=
⌈γn⌉
γ
√

r

(16)

n
= γ1 . The result follows from delta method,
as n → ∞, since limn→∞ ⌈γn⌉
see, for example, van der Vaart (1998).
✷

References
[1] Bensaïd N. (1997) Nonparametric inference for thinned point process.
Statistics & probability letters 33, 253–258.
20

[2] Hall-Wilton R., Detector Group Leader, ESS, Sweden. Personal communication.
[3] Kanaki K. at al. (2013). Statistical energy determination in neutron detector systems for neutron scattering science. 2013 IEEE Nuclear Science
Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).
[4] Karr A. F. (1985). Inference for thinned Poisson process, with application
to Cox process. Journal of multivariate analysis 16, 368–392.
[5] Kulkarni V. G. (2009). Modeling and analysis of stochastic systems, CRC
Press.
[6] Lehmann E. & Casella G. (1998). Theory of point estimation, SpringerVerlag, New York.
[7] Long Y. H. (1995). Thinning and multinomial thinning of point processes.
Computers & Mathematics with Applications 30: 1–4.
[8] Schmitt H. W., Block R. C. & Bailey R, L. (1959). Total neutron cross
section of B10 in the thermal neutron energy range. Nuclear Physics 17,
109–115.
[9] Ralph A., Bradley A. & Cart J. J. (1962). The asymptotic properties
of ML estimators when sampling from associated populations. Biometrika
49, 205–214.
[10] van der Vaart A.W. (1998). Asymptotic statistics, Cambridge University
Press, New York.
[11] Willis B. T. M. and Carlile C. J. (1999). Experimental neutron scattering, Oxford University Press.

21

